Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; Copyright 1983 by the American Chemical Society
VOLIJME 1 6
NUMBER 1 2
DECEMBER, 1983
EDITOR J O S E P H F. B U N N E T T
ASSOCIATE EDITORS Joel E. Keizer J o h n E. McMurry EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Robert Abeles Richard Bernstein R. Stephen Berry Michel Boudart Maurice M. Bursey Edward A. Collins J o h n T. Gerig Jenny P. Glusker Kendall N. Houk J a y K. Kochi Maurice M. Kreevoy Theodore Kuwana Ronald N. McElhaney K u r t 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 a n d Sales Department: Claud K. Robinson, Head Production Department: Elmer M. Pusey, Jr., Head Research and Development D e p a r t m e n t Seldon W.
Terrant. Head The American Chemical Society and its editors assume no responsibility for t h e 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.
The Great Carbocation Problem In this issue we present a set of four papere that touch on what is known sometimes as 'the nonclassical ion" or 'the 2-norbornyl cation" problem. Briefly, the problem is - - - -;well, we hesitate to offer a concise statement of it, for the matter is so controversial that whatever we say is apt to be declared, by one side or the other, inadequate if not actually biased. Readers will find in the introductions of three articles-by Brown, by Olah, Prakash, and Saunders, and by Walling-statements of the problem and its historical development as visualized by these authors. A previous effort of ours to present papers concerning this problem yielded only one paper;' an Editor's Footnote to it explaining the circumstances has sometimes been cited. On subsequent occasions when it was suggested that Accounts might publish more on the topic, distinguished physical organic chemist advisers sometimes groaned and said: 'We've heard enough of that!" The four papers of the present set were obtained with relatively little effort on our part; two authors volunteered, and suggestions that we contact two others resulted in manuscripts with little delay. We present these papers despite the mentioned groans for several reasons. First, the factual evidence and the arguments may not be so familiar to some readers as they are to our esteemed colleagues who have independently studied the question in depth in their research and teaching. Second, the controversy is significant in regard to the philosophy and sociology of science, and these papers may give the careful reader insight into considerably more than the chemical problem. Finally, we perhaps pander to the tastes of some chemists who are attracted to this controversy somewhat as Roman citizens to a contest between gladiators. Philosophers of science point out that the participants in a controversy sometimes talk past each other. They may differ in their theoretical premises (as in the great combustion debate, in which Lavoisier and Priestley thought in terms of oxidation and phlogiston theories, respectively). Or they may define the problem differently, or consider different kinds of evidence to be relevant to it. Readers may wish to observe whether any such factors enter this carbwation controversy. An important question is: how should the allocation of scientific effort be controlled? Allied to it: when will this controversy cease? Should some czar or committee decide that enough work has been done on a topic and forbid that any more be done? Few of us would support such a system. Or should inveatigation be allowed to continue indefinitely to a point where no decisive new experimental results are forthcoming and discussion becomes repetitious if not circular, or devolves into concern with minutiae? We don't want that either. What does powerfully operate is an informal consensus among scientists. If work on a topic has got past the point of diminishing returns, in the general view, the participants and their work commence to be ignored; they are no longer sought as plenary lecturers, or to contribute articles to prestigious publications, and may suffer in other ways from unenthusiastic peer review. This control mechanism is slow to operate, but it is ultimately effective. In the realm of the sociology of science, how do the contestants and the onlookers behave? We regret to say that some participants in the present controversy have a t times become so annoyed at their opponent's intransigence, or unwillingness to deal with certain evidence or arguments, that they have lapsed into ad hominem criticism. We hope that not even traces of that may be found in the present papers. Readers may seek other features of sociological significance. Conceivably the present set of papers may be criticized as not truly balanced or wholly objective. Though we make no claim that it is composed perfectly, we do not worry about such criticism. Ultimately, the judgment of scientists on controversial questions is not determined by voting, or by the number of papers that support one view or another, but rather by the quality and force of the evidence and the arguments adduced. Joseph F. Bunnett (1) Brown, H. C. Acc. Chem. Res. 1973,6, 377.
