ACCOLLVTS OF C " E X I ( , A L RESEARCH" Registered in
US.Patent
VOLUME 16 EDITOR JOSEPH F. BUNNETT ASSOCIATE EDITORS Joel E. Keizer John E. McMurry EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Robert Abeles Richard Bernstein R. Stephen Berry Michel Boudart Maurice M. Bursey Edward A. Collins John T. Gerig Jenny P. Glusker Kendall N. Houk Jay K. Kochi Maurice M. Kreevoy Theodore Kuwana Ronald N. McElhaney Kurt Mislow George W. Parshall Kenneth N. Raymond Anthony M. Trozzolo Gene G. Wubbels Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 1155 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
BOOKS AND JOURNALS
DIVISION D. H. Michael Bowen, Director Journals Department: Charles R. Bertsch, Head; Marianne C. Brogan, Associate Head; Mary E. Scanlan, Assistant Manager Marketing and Sales Department: Claud K. Robinson, Head Production Department: Elmer M. Pusey, Jr., Head Research and Development Department: Seldon W. Terrant, 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.
and Trademark Office; Copyright 1983 by the American Chemical Society
NUMBER 10
OCTOBER, 1983
On Obsolescent Excellence In the early sixties, it became evident that many engineers in midcareer were becoming obsolete. They were men who had been trained a t good engineering schools before solid-state electronics and other advances of the 1950's were known. Even though they had maintained their proficiency as developed during student days, they had not mastered the new developments and had become ineffective for work at the frontiers of engineering. As yet no such phenomenon has emerged as a major problem in chemistry. Surely some chemists have become out of date, but such cases have been more individual problems for them and their employers rather than a problem of the profession. No doubt a few kinds of expertise have become obsolete, but in most cases the individuals affected have been able to adapt. There may however be severe problems in the future, owing mainly to computerization of information processing. Specializations that have been highly regarded are in danger of becoming archaic. Thus, chemists valued for their ingenuity in devising syntheses of quite complex organic structures are being supplanted in part by computer systems that outline feasible synthetic routes, comprehensively, within minutes. The syntheses outlined comprise standard conversions that were built into the system by the programmer. In principle they may be surpassed by better syntheses which utilize a unique reaction or a novel idea based on theoretical concepts. Nevertheless the computer-devised schemes suffice for hundreds of straightforward syntheses of target molecules. X-ray crystallography has been a highly valued subdiscipline within chemistry. In earlier days much expertise was required, first, to obtain diffraction photographs satisfactory for mathematical treatment and, second, to analyze the data to deduce molecular structures. Today, automated diffractometers have assumed much of the former task and sophisticated computer programs much of the latter. Enthusiasts now suggest that soon an organic chemist who isolates a new compound will get an X-ray structure determination (requiring half a day) as the first step in characterization of it, even before taking IR and NMR spectra. We are entering an era when mere proficiency in X-ray crystallography will not be highly valued, although there will continue to be challenging research in this field a t the frontier. The deduction of organic structures from complex NMR and MS data is undergoing similar development. More and more of the work of interpretation is being taken over by computer programs. As these programs are integrated with each other, interpretation will become almost fully automated. Furthermore, other programs may guide the chemist in deciding what sorts of MS or NMR techniques to employ in a particular problem. Developments such as these pose real problems to the student of chemistry. How can he or she avoid becoming obsolete a t midcareer? The message that emerges from the cases mentioned is that there is danger in becoming too deeply committed to a technique, either in its observational or interpretive aspects. What does have lasting value is, first, command of fundamental principles and, second, a broad understanding of chemical science. Fundamental principles never become obsolete. However, the person with a superb command of principles may nevertheless be impeded in dealing with a real problem if he or she has only limited familiarity with chemical phenomena. In short, the chemist educated in depth (principles) and in breadth (phenomena) will have a secure future, provided that formal education is reenforced by self-education with the same emphases as years go by. Joseph F. Bunnett
