ACCOUdVTS OF CHE%ICAL RESEARCH" Registered in US.Patent and Trademark Office;Copyright 1983 by the American Chemical Society
VOLUME 16 EDITOR JOSEPH F. BUNNETT
ASSOCIATE EDITORS Joel E. Keizer John E. McMurry
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Robert Abeles Richard Bernstein R. Stephen Berry Michel Boudart Maurice M. Bursey Edward A. Collins John T. Gerig Jenny P. Glusker Kendall N. Houk Jay K. Kochi Maurice M. Kreevoy Theodore Kuwana Ronald N. McElhaney Kurt Mislow George W. Parshall Kenneth N. Raymond Anthony M. Trozzolo Gene G. Wubbels
Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 1155 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 BOOKS AND JOURNALS DIVISION D. H. Michael Bowen. Director Journals Department: Charles R. Bertsch, Head; Marianne C. Brogan, Associate Head; Mary E. Scanlan, Assistant Manager Marketing and Sales Department: Claud K. Robinson, Head Production Department: Elmer M. Pusey, Jr., Head Research and Development Department: Seldon W. Terrant, Head The American Chemical Society and its editors assume no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by contributors. Views expressed in the editorials are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent the official position of the American Chemical Society.
NUMBER 2
FEBRUARY, 1983
Scientific-Meeting Explosion We are struggling through the population explosion, we are surviving the publication explosion, a n d we are entering a scientific-meeting explosion. No one will deny that scientific meetings, both national and international, are an absolute must for research scientists. New scientific observations are formally presented at these meetings, b u t even more important are the informal exchange of ideas and the spontaneous concerted attack on problems of mutual interest. Often the more productive exchanges a t meetings take place in the corridors outside the meeting room or in a bar over a beer. Since scientific meetings are necessary, does it follow t h a t more meetings would be of even greater help to the scientific community? The answer, in my opinion, is a guarded no. If meetings are held too frequently, the general quality of t h e papers presented will suffer because important new scientific observations are not made rapidly enough to sustain frequent outstanding scientific meetings. An example of what may happen if too many meetings are held is provided by my experience last summer, when I attended a fine conference in a particular area of chemical research. T h e following week, a t another meeting, I listened to two speakers from the previous conference give talks at a symposium on the same subject. Not only were their talks the same, with the same slides, but also their ad-libbed jokes were identical with the ones they used the previous week. The third week these speakers attended a n international conference in Europe, where I assume they gave the same talks. This type of repetition happens all too often, and given the large number of meetings it is difficult to control. Other than the rate of flow of new science, what other reasons are there for limiting meetings? One reason is the cost-the cost in actual dollars and, even more important, the cost in human resources. All of us are aware of the ever increasing registration fees needed to pay for meeting rooms in hotels and convention centers. Add to this the cost of travel and living expenses, and one finds t h a t about a $1000 is needed for a national meeting and roughly twice t h a t amount for a meeting abroad. More difficult to quantify are the costs of the time and effort spent by the individuals a t the meetings. These individuals must be able to justify for themselves, for their employers, and for their granting agencies that the time spent a t the meeting was really worthwhile in furthering their research. T h e American Chemical Society is well-known for its outstanding publications, but these same high standards are not maintained for the scientific presentations at its national meetings. There are many reasons for this, but one often mentioned is that many of the papers are presented not so much for their scientific content but as a means for the authors to attend the meeting. Some of us feel that one ACS national meeting a year would suffice for the oral dissemination of new scientific knowledge of chemistry. We further think t h a t scientific programs for only one meeting would be planned with greater care, and the overall quality of t h e meeting would improve. Although scientific meetings in chemistry are an absolute must, let me caution against too many meetings, with concomitant decrease in their effectiveness. Some constraints will have to be exercised so that the present rate of increase of scientific meetings is stemmed. It is my desire that the American Chemical Society will lead the way with one national meeting a year. Fred Basolo, President American Chemical Society
