A NA LVTICA L CH EMISTR’Y.
EDITORIAL
May 1962, Vol. 34, No. 6 APPLIED JOURNALS, ACS Director of Publications, C. B. Larrabee Editoiial Director, Richard L. Kenyon Assistant to the Director of Publications, Joseph H. Kuney Assistant to the Editorial Directur, Rodney N . Hader Director of Editorial Research, Robert F. Gould
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY Editor, LAWREIZCE T.HALLEIT Managing Editor. ROBERTG. GIBBS
EDITORIAL HEADQUARTERS WASHINGTON 6. D. C 1155 Sixteenth S t . , N.W. P h o n e : REpublic 7-3337 Teletype WA 23 Associate Editors: 0.Gladys Gordon, Sue M. Solliday Editorial Assistants: Katherine H. Ginnane, Virginia E. Stewart. Patricia A. Cunniff Editorial Reference: Barbara A. Gallagher Production Staff-Washington: Joseph Jacobs ( A r t Director) John V. Sinnett ( A r t ) Production Staff-Easton, Pa.: 20th and Northampton Sts. Associate Editor: Charlotte C. Sayre Assistant Editor: Elizabeth R. Rufe
REGIONAL EDITORIAL BUREAUS East e r n Manager: William Q. Hull (New York) N E W YORK 17, N . Y. 733 Third Ave. PHILADELPHIA, Pa. 1725 Pennsylvania Blvd. Midcontinent a n d Western Manager: Arthur Poulos fChicago) CHICAGO 3 , Ill. 36 South Wabash Ave CLEVELAND 14. Ohio 1367 East Sixth St. SAN FRANCISCO 4, Calif. 57 Post St. LOS ANGELES 5 , Calif. 422 South Western Ave. HOUSTON 2. Tex. 1121 Walker St. Washington Southeastern WASHINGTON 6 D C 1155 Sixteenth Si , N W. European F R A N K F U R T MAIN, West Germany Siesmayerstrasse 5.8 LONDON, W 1 England 77 South Audley St.
Contributing Editor: R. H. Muller Advisory Board: 3. E . Barney 11, C. E. Bricker, D . D. DeFord, E. C. Dunlop, J. C. Giddings, R. F. Goddu, H. V. Malmstadt, W. B. Mason, F. W. Mitchell, Jr., M. L. Moss, J. D. N e w , L. B. Rogers, B. F. Scribner, Irving Shain, Sidney Siggia Advertising Management REINHOLD PUBLISHING CORP. (for Branch 0 5 c e a , see page 151 A)
Rescuing “Offbeat” Research Projects HE
FEDERAL GOVERSMEKT is spending millions in support of research
Tprograms which are carried on by private individuals and groups. Such programs are particularly desirable in the case of scientists in snialler institutions who might otherwise be unable to carry out proposed research because of equipment costs. I n a n effort t o evaluate the various proposed research projects, the supporting agencies seek the advice of individuals or groups who are recognized as experts in the fields under consideration. Financial support is given to those projects which meet the approval of the screening panel. Such a device is essential if proposals of doubtful value are to be eliminated. I n recommending or rejecting proposals, however, judgment of those doing the screening is conditioned by the prevailing fashion of scientific thought and any personal prejudices which the individual may have. The situation is not unlike t h a t facing reviewers of scientific papers. I n these cases, the editors sometimes note a blind spot in the reviewer‘s thinking, This defect must be considered by the editor in making a final appraisal of the manuscript. Unless carefully considered, research proposals most likely to be given a thumbs-down appraisal are off beat or unfashionable ones. Some of these. holyever, may point the way to new research areas of great importance. The problem of evaluating research proposals has existed for a long time in all areas of research. The experts who evaluate research proposals are generally ones viho have made important contributions to scientific thought. I n some cases, these experts have unknowingly become prejudiced. Their prejudices have often delayed scientific progress. Therefore, even though we must recognize the fallibility of human judgment, ive should take steps t o assure t h a t it will not hamper the development of new ideas. This is particularly germane in a time when scientific achievements have national security implications. I n the case of the Federal Government, which is spending tremendous sums for research support, one possible means by which these potentially valuable proposals could be assured careful evaluation would be to establish a special panel of experts to reappraise those rejected proposals which might warrant special review. Such a move might not rescue all potentially valuable proposals but it should tend to assure support of many good ideas which might otherwise be lost.
VOL. 34, NO. 6, MAY 1962
593
