September, 1924
INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
973
NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE International Union Meetings Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: It has been my privilege to attend two of the five meetings of the International Cnion-the third, held a t Lyon in 1922, and the fifth, which has just closed a t Copenhagen. I have been impressed by several things which may be of interest to members of SOCIETY. the AMERICAN CHEMICAL These meetings are not intended for the presentation of papers by those in attendance, as is the case with the semiannual but only for the discussion, in small commeetings of our SOCIETY, mittees, of such topics as are of international interest to chemists. These questions embrace such matters as nomenclature, compiling and abstracting chemical literature, preparation and distribution of pure compounds for analysis and standardization tests, the purity of chemical reagents, food preservation, solid and liquid fuels, industrial hygiene, etc. At the Copenhagen meeting there were 93 delegates from 16 countries. Except for Denmark, whose delegation comprised 21 names, the number from the other countries varied from 1 each in the case of Japan and Argentina, t o 15 for France. There were 2 each from Spain, Norway, and Sweden; 3 each from Belgium and Switzerland; 4 each from Poland and Roumania; 5 each from Czechoslovakia, England, and the United States; 9 from Italy; and 11 from Holland. It is therefore a comparatively small gathering, but is composed of some of the most distinguished chemists of the several countries represented. At the opening meeting the general secretary, M. Gerard, of France, outlines the order of business and requests each delegation to assign its members to the committees on which they are best qualified to serve. At Copenhagen there were thirteen committces and each of the five American delegates served on two or more committees. The comniittees consist usually of about ten members, and the discussions are quite informal. The chairman presents the report for the current year and outlines the recommendations for which it is considered desirable to obtain general agreement. The results of the deliberations are embodied in new resolutions, which are usually adopted with unanimity by the committee and presented to the general meeting of the congress for final adoption. The point which strikes one most is that the delegates usually are prepared to present the authoritative views of their fellow countrymen whom they represent, owing, in many instances, to conferences a t home since the preceding meeting- This, however, sad to relate, is not the case with the American delegates, and those of us who are supposed to represent the United States are able to express only our personal views, which may not be in accord with those of our fellow chemists at home. Thus, as happened last year when the new decisions in regard to the nomenclature for biological chemistry were announced in the United States, a great deal of criticism was aroused and our country placed itself in the position of refusing to uphold the engagements of the men who were considered to represent us a t the meeting. This state of affairs should certainly be remedied, and we, as American chemists, should not allow the same criticisms to be applied t o our science as is justly applied to our international politics. Our National Research Council, or some other organization, should arrange for a proper discussion among our own men of the questions that are on the agenda for the international meetings, and the delegates representing the United States should be adequately instructed in advance as to the wishes of the majority of our chemists. In this connection, however, we should
remember that, even though we are a large and important center of chemical activity, we are only one member of a much larger group, and it should not be our aim to impose our wishes on the others, but to cooperate by making such concessions as will result in the greatest good to the largest number. This point is especially noticeable a t the international meetings. There appears to be a somewhat limited spirit of concession. Each of the larger countries represented considers that its usage is the best and should be followed by the others. This attitude results in misunderstandings and retards progress. I was particularly impressed by this in the discussions of the revised nomenclature for biological chemistry. It has been pointed out very clearly by M. Bertrand, however, that in selecting new names the requirements of a large number of languages must be satisfied if possible. New names must be such as may be written and pronounced in more or less the same manner in such different languages as those of Latin, English, Germanic, Slavonic, and possibly Asiatic origin. Hence the names which a particular country has used for many years and desires to preserve may be extremely difficult of adoption by another country, and certain concessions t o the general good may sometimes be required of all. I n regard to the language of intercourse a t the meetings, there is no doubt but that French can be used by a larger number of the delegates than can English. Aside from most of the Americans and a few of the English, all the delegates are able to understand and speak French. We must, therefore, recognize the necessity of making some effort to acquaint ourselves with the spoken French language, if we are to contribute our share towards the improvement of matters of international chemical interest. It is expected that the 1926 meeting of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry will be held in the United States. Here is an opportunity for us to perfect our cooperation in the work of this very important international organization organized for the advancement of chemistry.
ATHERTON SEOIDELL
PARIS,FRANCE Jnly 14, 1924
When Silence Is Golden 0
Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry:
I have read with interest the various communications of W, A. Noyes, who evidently has set himself to the task of reconciling the recent belligerents. While this is a commendable work, it seems to me t h a t the methods chosen are unlikely to be successful; they are. in fact, more likely to prolong the irritation. All the belligerents are still suffering, and anything that calls attention to the questions a t issue only irritates the boils and rouses the fighting spirit. It would be very easy for a northern man to arouse southern sectional feeling by a few poorly chosen sentences after all these years have passed since the Civil War. Silence is therefore the better choice. I think this applies equally to the present situation. If we do the possible things and pass over the impossible ones without notice, we shall be likely to have real peace the sooner. The desirability of peace is apparent to every thinker, the unthinking will not be convinced by any amount of discussion. EDWARD HART EASTON, P A .
July 8, 1924
