INSTRUMENTATION BY RALPH H. M Ü L L E R I
"A GOOD TECHNIQUE SOMETIMES RENDERS MORE SERVICE TO SCIENCE THAN THE ELABORATION OF H I G H L Y T H E O R E T I C A L S P E C U L A T I O N " CLAUDE
Γ
ΓΗΕ
WESTHKIMER
REPORT,
(Frank
•*• H. Westheimer,Harvard,Chairman) is an impressive 222-page report en titled "Chemistry: Opportunities and Needs" published under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences-Na tional Research Council. This report will be read and discussed by research chemists for a long time to come. More than one hundred and forty re nowned chemists of impeccable back ground and distinction, including most of the American Nobel Laureates in chemistry, contributed their thoughts and experience to the preparation of this report. The report has made an excellent case for the importance of basic re search in chemistry, its widespread im pact on all other sciences, its vital con tributions to our vast chemical industry and its relative "cheapness" compared with such megabuck undertakings as high energy physics, radio astronomy, and oceanography. The exposition, in clear and simple terms, should enable our legislature to appraise future ex penditures and subsidies in a new light and to recognize that chemical research probably contributes more to our health, wealth, standard of living, and our national security than any other discipline, at least per dollars invested. That the Westheimer report shall succeed in its principal aims will be the earnest hope of every chemist and it bids fair to do so. SYNTHESIS-ANALYSIS
In the matter of details, some re markable oddities, asymmetries and - Circle No. 16 on Readers' Service Card
BERNARD
omissions are to be found in the final report as the wisdom of the experts percolated down toward publication. The very nature of the thirteen panels or committees seems odd and arbitrary. The classical term "synthesis" is re tained but there is none for analysis. What has resulted inclines one to be lieve that most of the combined wisdom of the experts was distilled through a column of too many theoretical plates. The many defects of the report re flect the spirit of the times. It becomes increasingly difficult to accomplish any thing of importance without a commit tee or, better, several interlocking com mittees. The President's State of the Union Message will be printed in full by a scant dozen newspapers but a thousand hack writers, commentators, and columnists will reduce the message to an overdigested residuum, overem phasizing emotional appeal, some inad vertent truculence or minor item cater ing to the part} - prejudices of their readers. When will wo become smart enough to listen to the voice of author ity, authority which is earned and de served, not usurped? We have made a rough calculation and decided that, if the 144 experts had each contributed a page and a half treatment of his specialty, its opportun ities and needs, the probable direction of future inquiries and briefly, its sig nificance to the whole of chemistry, the number of pages would have been about the same and the signal to noise ratio would be twelve. (Signal in creases in direct proportion to the num ber of observations and noise as the square root thereof.) Although this
would not meet the specific aims of the report, it would make for more interest ing, stimulating, and informative read ing. An astute publisher, if he could enlist this talent, could perform a genu ine service. The collection ought to be worth 15 or 20 dollars against the pre vailing 5 dollars for the survey. To get down to specific cases, it is quite likely that many of the experts are not too happy about the ultimate fate of their opinions. In the report, the resume of modern electrochemistry is boiled down from 11 pages in the original panel report to 274 words and the reader is led to believe that the subject deals primarily with electro plating and fuel cells. What happened to analytical chemis try is completely incomprehensible. Although we have positive opinions about its more or less deliberate omis sion, we leave this question to the su perior judgment of the Editor. USE RATE OF
INSTRUMENTS
Instrumentation is another matter. As might be expected, the Westheimer report places great emphasis on the "explosive impact of electronic instru mentation on basic chemical research" and throughout indicates and recom mends much greater implementation of instrumental facilities. What the re port has come up with as the most im portant instruments will baffle a lot of research chemists. An easy, comforta ble, and short cut statistical approach was used. The criterion was a "use rate" in which more than three thou sand publications were examined and VOL. 38, NO. 3, MARCH 1966
·
129 A
INSTRUMENTATION
NUCLEAR-CHICAGO RESEARCH QUALITY RADIOCHEMICALS
the number of instances of use cited, per 100 papers, was recorded. This looks fool-proof until one looks at the journals which were consulted. Of the nine American journals, ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY was not included.
LIQUID SCINTILLATION STANDARDS
Four sets, two individual scintillation standards, and two standardized solu tions for internal calibrating are available. S C I N T I L L A T I O N S T A N D A R D S SETS C o n s i s t o f c a l i b r a t e d s a m p l e s c o n t a i n i n g PPO a n d POPOP in t o l u e n e . V o l u m e o f e a c h s t a n d a r d is 15 m l , s e a l e d in a 2 0 m l lowa c t i v i t y g l a s s v i a l . P a c k a g e d in f o a m e d - p l a s t i c holders which double as storage racks. Stated a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n ± 3 % of t r u e v a l u e s . C e r t i f i c a t i o n of e a c h s t a n d a r d s u p p l i e d w i t h e a c h s e t . U n q u e n c h e d C' 4 a n d H 3 S e t . C o n s i s t s o f u n q u e n c h e d s a m p l e s of c a r b o n - 1 4 a n d t r i t i u m labelled toluene plus a toluene blank. M o d e l 1 8 0 0 4 0 Set, c o m p l e t e $65.00 Q u e n c h e d h P a n d C 14 Sets. A c c u r a t e l y a s s a y e d s t a n d a r d s . Each h a s d i f f e r e n t c o u n t i n g r a t e due to quenching. Model 1 8 0 0 5 0 Tritium Set (5 standards, 1 χ 10* d p m nominal each) $65.00 Model 1 8 0 0 6 0 Carbon-14 Set (6 standards, 2 χ 105 d p m nominal each) $ 75.00 Model 1 8 0 0 7 0 (both sets) $125.00 Q u e n c h e d S 3 5 Set. Six a c c u r a t e l y a s s a y e d quenched standards. Model 1 8 0 0 8 0 Sulfur-35 Set ( 6 standards, 4 χ 105 d p m nominal each) $80.00 I N D I V I D U A L STANDARDS P 32 and S 3S Scintillation S t a n d a r d s . F u r n i s h e d i n f l a m e - s e a l e d , 2 0 m l l o w - a c t i v i t y glass v i a l s . S t a t e d a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n ± 4 % of t r u e v a l u e s . Individual certification s u p p l i e d with each standard. Model 188350 Phosphorus-32 (15 m l , 2 χ 104 d p m nominal) $40.00 Model 188240 Sulfur-35 5 (15 m l , 4 χ 10 d p m nominal) $30.00 S t a n d a r d i z e d Solutions of T o l u e n e - C 1 4 a n d T o l u e n e - Η 3 . For i n t e r n a l c a l i b r a t i o n in l i q u i d s c i n t i l l a t i o n c o u n t i n g . S u p p l i e d in f l a m e - s e a l e d glass a m p o u l e s . Stated activities are within ± 2 % of t r u e v a l u e s . I n d i v i d u a l c e r t i f i c a t i o n supplied with each s t a n d a r d . Model 1 8 8 2 7 0 Toluene-C14 (5 m l , 3 χ 104 d p m nominal) $20.00 Model 188280 Toluene-H3 6 (5 m l , 5 χ 1 0 d p m n o m i n a l ) $20.00
Detailed specifications are available on request, as are current schedules c o n t a i n i n g complete radiochemical listings and information. Please write, or call 312 827-4456 collect. NUC:G-4-271
NUCLEAR-CHICAGO A DIVISION OF NUCLEAR - CHICAGO
CORPORATION
351 Howard Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 Circle No. 192 on Readers' Service Card
130 A
·
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Fur
thermore, at least one third of these journals deal with articles which are largely theoretical and it can be ex pected that the authors have little knowledge and even less interest in in struments other than high speed elec tronic computers. No instrument manufacturer would fall into this trap. Time and again, when a manufacturer has looked into the potential market for new and highly diversified instruments, he has done well to consult the modern analyst. The analyst uses a more diversified list of instruments, from the cheapest to the most expensive, than any other type of chemist. Also, his criterion of accuracy, precision, and reliability is usually more critical. Seven major instruments were chosen in this report and they are said to ac count for nearly 80% of the total cita tions. They are infrared, ultraviolet and mass spectrometers, nuclear mag netic resonance and electron spin reso nance spectrometers, gas chromatographs, and high speed electronic com puters. All these instruments are dis tinctly in the expensive equipment cat egory and if it is to be inferred that 80% of all important chemical research requires these devices, chemistry is most certainly not a "cheap" science. What is significant, but not mentioned, is the fact that three of these are an cient devices. Mass spectrometry is about 70 years old (J. J. Thompson), the mass spectrometer about 50 (Aston), and the infrared and ultravio let spectrometers are almost 100 years old. The vast improvements in these instruments over the years, the im proved sensitivity, resolution, speed, convenience, and almost complete auto mation have been the result of physics and elegant optical, mechanical, and electronic engineering. The research chemist has contributed practically nothing to these improvements. There is an inverse relationship also. Most of these instruments can accumu late an enormous amount of data in a short time. Does this not account in large measure for the observed "use rate" and may it not explain why so many papers are dull, boring, and re petitive in nature? The report cannot be criticized for making no plea for research in instru mentation because no one else is doing so either. If instrumentation is so de monstrably essential to basic research in chemistry, why do we not support, en courage and subsidize more inquiry into
original approaches? Aside from occa sional inspirations of gifted theoreti cians, it has always been the case that progress in science has been limited by the instruments, apparatus, and tech niques available for the problem. It is axiomatic in basic research that practi cality and immediate application is never considered. With very few ex ceptions, what passes for instrumental research consists in improving the hard ware. From all the signs, we believe the instrument manufacturers will have to assume the burden. How they will be able to afford an uncommitted and broadminded research staff and the lux ury of doing interesting and unprofita ble research is anybody's guess. That they might receive support and subsidy for such research is doubtful because there is always the danger that in the distant future they might earn an hon est dollar or two. If nothing of any im portance is done in this direction, there is always the comforting assurance that something really exciting will pop up accidentally every ten or fifteen years.
EDUCATION I N CHEMISTRY
The Westheimer report makes sev eral useful suggestions for improving and implementing education and train ing in basic chemical research at all de gree levels. It also points out that the many mission-oriented agencies give relatively little support to basic re search in chemistry when actually, their specific missions might be greatly enhanced and improved by doing so. Does this forecast a new slogan? "Let's have more explorers and fewer mission aries." When sound and unusual accomplish ment is combined with vision and bold ness, we make progress. We do well to heed the few who have all these attri butes, although it must be admitted that things are a little more peaceful when we go along with the median de cisions. All of which reminds us of the occa sion on which we served on a Ph.D. oral examination committee for a psy chology candidate. In proper deference to our knowledge of psychology, our questions were slated for the very end of the examination. The candidate had used a thermometer in his research and we asked him how such a device might be calibrated, having in mind such things as the ice point and the corrected value for the boiling point of water. The candidate said: "I would ask six unbiased persons to examine the ther mometer and take the average opin ion." We promptly terminated our in quisition and voted in favor of his can didacy—as a psychologist. Circle No. 177 on Readers' Service Card
