ACCOUNTS OF CHEXICAL RESEARCH” Registered in US.Patent and Trademark Office; Copyright 1986 by the American Chemical Society
VOLUME 19
NUMBER 8
AUGUST, 1986
EDITOR FRED W. McLAFFERTY
ASSOCIATE EDITORS Barbara A. Baird John E. McMurry
The Pimentel Report and Chemists’ Opinions EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Robert Abeles Richard Bernstein R. Stephen Berry Michel Boudart Maurice M. Bursey Charles R. Cantor Ernest R. Davidson Marshall Fixman Jenny P. Glusker Keith U. Ingold Maurice M. Kreevoy Theodore Kuwana Stephen J. Lippard James M. McBride Josef Michl Kenneth N. Raymond Jacob F. Schaefer Richard C. Schoonmaker
BOOKS AND JOURNALS DIVISION D. H. Michael Bowen, Director Journals Department: Charles R. Bertsch, Head; Marianne C. Brogan, Associate Head; Franco A. Menezes and Mary E. Scanlan, Assistant Managers Research and Development Department: Lorrin R. Garson, 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. Registered names and trademarks, etc., used in this publication, even without specific indication thereof, are not to be considered unprotected by law.
Differences of opinion among chemists are healthy if openly aired. In our May issue Fredric Menger disagrees with conclusions of “Opportunities in Chemistry”,the recent report of a special committee of the National Research Council chaired by George Pimentel. Menger vigorously disputes the report’s statement that chemistry “cannot fulfill its promise at the present levels of financial support”, suggesting instead economizing on research funds by reducing research group sizes, summer salaries, secretarial services, and travel. Pimentel replies in the correspondence section of this issue; I, a member of his committee, support his statements fully. The Pimentel report does represent a broad concensus across chemistry, a nearly unanimous opinion that increased research investment for this central science will provide new knowledge with a high pay-off in societal benefits. The most common opinion I have heard is “the Report reflects why I am proud to be a chemist”. As Norman Ramsey, Professor of Physics at Harvard and Chairman of the Chemistry Ad Hoc Review Panel of the Energy Research and Advisory Board, wrote,l “...there are important opportunities in chemistry research ...such research will make great contributions to the future welfare of the country, especially to problems concerned with energy...we are convinced that the Department of Energy should substantially increase its support of energy related research...”. Menger also criticizes the peer review system; of course it is not perfect, and constructive suggestions for improvement would be most welcome. However, there is substantial evidence that this basically democratic system is a fundamental reason for the present preeminence of US.science. Menger’s criticism of research group size can be contrasted to the late Phil Handler’s statement: “In science, the best is vastly more important than the next best”. Publishing the best chemical science is also of primary importance to Accounts, and we solicit your suggestions and criticisms. It is also our hope that Accounts can thus aid in identifying the most important new research, making peer review more effective. Fred W. McLafferty (1)“Review of the NRC Report Opportunities in Chemsitry”, U S . Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC report DOE/S-0050, May 1986.
