ACCOUNTS OF CHEXICAL RESEARCH" Registered i n U S . Patent a n d Trademark Office. Cop3right 1982 b) t h e American Chemical Society
VOLUME 15
NUMBER 3
MARCH, 1982
EDITOR
JOSEPH F. BUNNETT ASSOCIATE EDITORS
Joel E. Keizer John E. McMurry EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Fred Basolo 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 Eva L. Menger Kurt Mislow John C. Polanyi Alexander Rich Anthony M. Trozzolo Gene G. Wubbels Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 1155 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
BOOKS A N D 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.
O n the Cultivation of Chemical Terminology In the groves of chemical terminology, many of the major plantings, long since grown to giant trees, were made by heroic figures such as Lavoisier, Berzelius, Ingold, and Prelog. The continuing management of these groves, the thinning of snags and deformed trees, the planting of young ones in bare spots, and the maintenance of trails, is mainly the responsibility of IUPAC commissions. Of the 34 IUPAC commissions, the titles and membership of which are listed biennially in Chemistry International, about two-thirds are concerned with nomenclature and terminology. Each deals with a stated area; for example, there are Commissions on Physicochemical Symbols, Terminology and Units, on Molecular Structure and Spectroscopy, on Nomenclature of Organic Chemistry, on Physical Organic Chemistry, on Macromolecular Nomenclature, and on Analytical Nomenclature. These commissions have codified much of the nomenclature initiated by the heroic figures. They endorse certain proposed extensions or additions, devise new terms to fill gaps or to serve new areas of science, and occasionally initiate deep-seated revision of current practice. Their proposed rules are widely circulated, criticism is sought, and in due time the revised rules are, after review a t several levels within IUPAC, published in Pure and Applied Chemistry as official IUPAC recommendations. This is an effective and interesting system. The system works because of dedicated service by members of commissions; they invest substantial amounts of time in devising new ways to handle nomenclature problems, in communicating their ideas to colleagues (mainly by correspondence), in criticizing ideas offered by other commission members, and in the writing of formal documents for publication. Their work profits from the collaboration of members of working parties or subcommittees associated with many commissions. The ideal member of a commission is a leading researcher interested in problems of language and willing to work on the improvement of it. Most members of commissions fit those specifications, but it must be acknowledged that some prominent researchers aren't interested in problems of terminology, while some who are interested are not prominent researchers. Also, there is a tendency, more or less successfully resisted, for the largely self-perpetuating commissions to become congenial clubs the membership of which changes little as years go by. Those engaged in the cultivation of terminology must deal with tensions inherent in the activity. An ideal name or term is fully systematic but also short and easily spoken. The two objectives are sometimes inconsistent. A fully systematic term may be so intricate that few scientists will use it. A short and euphonius type of term may work fine in simple examples but utterly fail to handle more complex cases. One solution is a dual system: fully systematic but perhaps cumbersome names for indexing, and shorter ones for use in speech and written discourse. Another tension is that endorsement of existing usage may perpetuate terminology that has serious shortcomings, but a new system of names may be resisted by chemists who adhere strongly to traditional usage. The IUPAC nomenclature commissions have in general dealt successfully with these tensions. They deserve a salute, and their continuing work will profit from the attention and the constructive criticism of all chemists as well as the volunteered participation of some as yet not involved in IUPAC work. Joseph F. Bunnett
