good nor bad, but an amoral tool, and that it is only man's use of technology that has moral connotations. Dr. David took sharp exception to this view. As a result of technology, Dr. David told the group, contemporary society is quite different from that of centuries ago. For the same reason, the society of the future will be quite different from ours, whether we direct man's course or not. "So the notion that technology is neutral and that man makes of it what he will seems at best shortsighted." Control. In the context of questions about the public's influence on technology, he says, "We must ask, 'Is man in a position to decide what he himself should be in the years to come?' I believe that he is, but that he can exert only a partial control because of the nature of science and the nature of the physical world." Dialogues between scientists and the public are extremely important, Dr. David adds, because "the public's ex^ pectation of science is quite unrealistic. The public's expectations are far greater than we can produce" because the expectations are based on fundamental misconceptions about the nature of science and technology. Too often, Dr. David says, we hear such questions as: "If we can land on the moon, why can't we clean up the environment?" Such questions "are, of course, non sequiturs," he notes, but they have a certain amount of appeal for the public mind, which has been nurtured on the remarkable accomplishments of science. "In general, the public feels that scientists and engineers can accomplish anything if they'll put their minds to it. The feeling is abroad that they are just too obtuse to do so." But solutions to environmental problems, Dr. David says, are limited by two major factors—the laws of nature and the state of the art. The second law of thermodynamics, for example, says that there must be some form of thermal pollution from coalburning or nuclear fission power plants. Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, could provide power without thermal pollution, he concludes, but is well beyond the state of the art. In many ways, says Dr. Robert Collin, associate professor of radiation biology at the University of Rochester, the public is far more responsible for the state of the world than is science —in the sense that such technological abuses as pollution result primarily from conspicuous consumption. People will buy whatever they want, he concludes, but all too often they will pay for it in an entirely different coin than they had intended.
Loch Ness monster pursued with scents To catch catfish, one might use a worm as bait; to catch trout, a fly. But what would one use to catch the Loch Ness monster? Initiative, scientific investigation, and pheromones, says Henry G. Walter, Jr., chairman of the board of International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., New York City. Problems involving smell or taste bring many people to IFF, Mr. Walter says. In 1970, such problems brought the watchers of Loch Ness, who wanted sensory lures to aid their cameras and sonar. "What was most interesting to us," Mr. Walter says, "was the study in methodology and the chance to apply well-known technology in the field with the pheromone principle." (Pheromones are secreted substances that stimulate physiological or behavioral responses in other individuals.) Intrigued, Mr. Walter presented the problem to Dr. Stanley K. Freeman, director of IFF's research on the physiological aspects of odor and taste. "I went into this with tongue in cheek," Dr. Freeman tells C&EN, "as I was quite surprised that the problem came our way. But on second thought, it really was not very unusual compared to some of the work that is handed to us. We just took this as another job, and did what we could with the tools we had." Mud. What Dr. Freeman and his associates did first was obtain samples of water and mud from the bottom of Scotland's Loch Ness. These were examined closely for evidence of vegetation or animal life. "We've got a whole battery of sophisticated instruments at our research center for the examination of very small quantities of materials," he says. The investigation revealed nothing
Dr. Stanley K. Freeman
I at concentrations detectable by the instruments—about 1(H0M—"but that doesn't necessarily mean nothing is there," Dr. Freeman says. Pheromones are known to exist in water or air at much lower concentrations, he points out, possibly as low as 10"20M. Next, Dr. Freeman consulted with experts at the New York Museum of Natural History to determine what type of mammal or reptile might exist in a landlocked lake. He also obtained information on the probable status of the senses of smell and taste of prehistoric animals. "From there," he says, "knowing what types of attractants were available to us, IFF's perfumists, flavorists, and I pooled our thoughts and selected a few (proprietary materials) which might show some attractant properties for an aquatic mammal, let's say. One was actually an extract from an animal. One was a natural flavor material that we thought might work on fish. And the other was a synthetic material that had flavor and odor characteristics similar to this fish-type attractant." Plastic. The lures were then incorporated in a proprietary plastic—that would allow them to be leached out slowly—and shipped to Scotland, where they were suspended from a boat and trolled in the loch. The monster watchers tell IFF that they obtained sonar soundings of some rather large objects and underwater swirlings while the lures were in use. The IFF group is currently incorporating the attractants in a medium that will allow them to disperse much faster—in a few hours rather than a period of days. Then, it's back to Scotland for another try. Dr. Freeman feels that the research was profitable—even though IFF is donating the lures to the searchers. "We learned a good deal about the sensory systems of fish and aquatic mammals, and we are interested in anything connected with pheromones." The work could also prove profitable financially—the people who make Cutty Sark scotch whisky are offering a $2.4 million reward for proof of the monster's existence. "I suspect," Dr. Freeman notes, "that if anything should come up, we'll be over there for our share of it." Meanwhile, work is progressing on the new medium for the lures, and the search goes on. Talking with Dr. Freeman, one strongly suspects that a recent IFF ad describing the lure may well be right: "If this doesn't work, they'll have to drain the lake." MAY 31, 1971 C&EN 25
