1000
T H E J O U R N A L OF I N D U S T R I A L A N D ENGINEERING C H E M I S T R Y
trol. 7 ,
NO.
11
NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE NOTE ON “CHEMISTS’ PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION” Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: The recent,proposal [THISJOURNAL, 7 ( I ~ I S ) ,7981 t o form a “Chemists’ Protective Association” seems to call for discussion. I n the first place, as a loyal and interested member of the American Chemical Society, the present writer feels t h a t this Society is intensely practical in t h a t membership in it tends t o increase the efficiency of its members as chemists. Any organization which has this effect is bound t o react favorably upon those responsive t o such influences, and this reaction will ultimately find expression in a fatter pay envelope, if we wish t o look at t h a t aspect of increased efficiency, apart from all other considerations. In the second place, any attempt t o define a “chemist” as a person having “spent four or more years a t an accredited technical school or University in the didactic and laboratory study of all the regular branches of chemistry, and who has received formal statements represented by a degree or degrees t h a t the prescribed courses of study have been satisfactorily completed,” will justly be doomed t o sure and certain failure. There are many men who have had all the advantages of technical training but who are lacking in the essentials of interest, clear-headedness and broad-mindedness. Such men, it is needless t o say, will never be successful chemists. On the other hand, many so-called “quasi chemists” and “laboratory boys, ” in the proper surroundings, may develop into very competent and efficient workers. Men of this type, with a little encouragement, succeed in spite of a lack of technical training. In the third place, the proposed salary scale based on a classification of chemists as “Assistant Chemists” and “Chief Chemists” is artificial, academic, and impractical. Most chemical work in a technical laboratory naturally falls into one of the following classes: ( a ) analytical and control; ( b ) factory development; (c) fundamental research. A given piece of work may overlap the boundaries of two or even all three of the above divisions. It also happens t h a t the aptitude of different men for different classes of work is different so t h a t some men make good research men, but would be dismal failures in developing processes on a commercial scale, or in analytical work. The training a man has had, of course, plays a large part in making him fit or unfit t o do a given class of work, but the native ability of the man himself, his enthusiasm, his “chemical instinct” and “optimistic activity,” or lack of these qualities, must surely be considered in placing men in laboratories and in their subsequent advancement. Looking a t this same subject from another point of view, it so happens that, in different laboratories, the relative importance of the above classes of chemical work may differ. Thus, one company may require but little research work and a great deal of analytical and control work; or a great deal of factory development work may be necessary t o put into practical operation the results of some fundamental research. Now, this question of the class of work required in any one instance, the native ability of a man and his attitude toward his work are all inseparably connected with his advancement. Of these, his ability t o take on added responsibility; to grow and become more efficient; the proper receptive attitude which enables him t o apperceive new ideas and meet new conditions, are of the greatest importance, in determining his salary. If he is capable of doing low-grade routine work, and nothing else, it is but right that he should receive a low salary; for, the lower the grade of work required, the easier i t is t o train a n ordinary boy t o do the work. I n all laboratories that the writer knows
of, there is considerable routine work which is easily mastered by any boy of average intelligence and no trained man should be foolish enough to waste his time doing such work; if such a chemist should be found he could rest assured t h a t the business man would pay him no more than he would pay the laboratory boy, because he would be worth no more. On the other hand, some of the so-called “laboratory boys” or “quasi chemists” happen t o be above the ordinary in intelligence and men of this sort will rise and justly so. It seems to the present writer t h a t these questions of the definition of “chemist , I ’ the classification of chemists, and the salaries they are to receive, should be, and are generally in actual experience, answered on the basis of the efficiency of the individual worker: $IZOO.OO per year is too much t o pay to a n inefficient chemist who lacks interest and enthusiasm in his work and whose growth is a t a standstill; $jooo.oo per year is too low a limit to place for a n active, energetic and growing head of a laboratory. I n fact, why place any limits in either direction? I n conclusion, the writer feels that any proposal to form a “Chemists’ Protective Association” should be most emphatically opposed by all chemical workers and chemically trained men who have the real interests of the chemical profession a t heart. CLEVELAND, OHIO WILLIAMC. MOORE
ON GERMICIDAL EFFICIENCY OF DENTAL CEMENTS
Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: A letter written by W. 1‘-B. Ames, representing the W. V-B. Ames Company, referring t o my paper on “The Germicidal Efficiency of Dental Cements” (THISJOURXAL, 7,195), appeared JOURNAL, 7, 723. in THIS I n the first paragraph Ames misquotes from my article as shown by comparing the following excerpts: F r o m “ T h e Germicidal Efficiency of Dental Cements‘’ b y P a u l Poetschke, THIS JOURNAL,M a r c h , 1915.
F r o m Ames’ 1 e t t e e T m s
JOUR-
NAL,a u g u s t , 1915: I n THIS JOURNAL,March, 1915, appeared
an
article
by
Paul
Poetschke, entitled “ T h e Germicidal Efficiency
of
Dental
Cements.”
T h e concluding paragraph promised reports on the comparative strength and
other
properties.
These
re-
ports would be, a s Mr. Poetschke states, “of more immediate interest t o t h e dental profession,”
and i t
will be b y clinical experience in t h e hands of the dentist t h a t t h e subject will receive its final analysis and probably he reported mainly in t h e dental literature.
FROM IKTRODUCTION: “It is possible t o measure the
germicidal efficiency of material of this character in precisely t h e same way a s i t is possible t o measure the germicidal efficiency of disinfectants. It is therefore obvious, especially in view of t h e varied composition of these cements, t h a t a thorough investigation of this subiect is of immedyate interest t o t h e dental profession, a s well a s t o chemists a n d bacteriologists who m a y he called upon t o report on t h e ermicidal power of dental cements. he object of this paper is t o show the comparative germicidal power of these cements, a n d also some of t h e compounds used in their production.”
5
FROM CONCLUSIONS: “ T h e germicidal efficiency of a dental cement is merely one of t h e properties which are of importance. M a n y other physical properties such as resistance t o saliva, hardness crushing strength, constancy of ;olurne, etc., are also of importance. T h e relation of t h e germicidal efficiency t o these other properties is being investigated in this laboratory, a n d t h e results will be published in future papers.”
The exact quotations from Ames’ letter and my article are given because of the evident intention of Ames to minimize the importance of this investigation to the dental profession. As far as the clinical significance of these bacteriological tests is concerned, one can hardly fail to appreciate that a copper
