New Text WALTER J. MURPHY, Editor
Political Considerations O O M E government agencies have such grave responsibilities w i t h respect to national security that tney should be kept out of the political arena. The wisdom of such a policy has been recognized and practiced with respect to agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As a result, the FBI, during the past 3 0 years, has won the respect and confidence of allbranches of the Government and the people. A much newer agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, likewise has tremendous responsibilities to the nation which transcend all political party activities. As long as atomic energy operated as a tight government monopoly, political aspects did not play an important role. Actions taken by Congress with respect to the program were based primarily on national security considerations. Now, however, with the exception of weapons development, atomic energy is beginning to emerge from the monopoly stage. Quite naturally in the future more and more influence will be placed on the peacetime uses of nuclear energy, particularly power for industrial purposes. There is a wide range of opinion as to the future of atomic energy. There are those who favor a continued government monopoly on the basis that the results of the expenditure of the billions of taxpayers' dollars spent should not b e f i v e n away to those relatively few large companies which ave the capital necessary to enter the program. The other extreme feels that there will be greater progress under private enterprise and that the Government will gain more in taxes and employment in the long run if private enterprise is encouraged to spend large sums in research and development· in the nuclear energy field. There are many other views between these two extremes. It would indeed be unfortunate if government actions with respect to the future of this program were to b e based largely on party politics. In the opinion of AEC's first chairman, David E. Lilienthal, a disturbing trend is taking place. In a recent letter to the Washington Post (Nov. 11, 1 9 5 4 ) , Lilienthal noted that for the first time the Atomic Energy Commission is being thought of "in terms of the political affiliation or obligations of its members." In such matters as the Oppenheimer case and the DixonYates power contract, the conflicting views of the commissioners are being reported as though AEC were a bipartisan body, Lilienthal says. H e notes that Congress established the AEC as a nonpartisan, nonpolitical body, not as a bipartisan or bipolitical group. This policy was adhered to, Lilienthal says, to the extent that President Truman, in accepting LilienthaTs suggestions for two commissioners, never inquired as to their political affiliations. Lilienthal feels that while this concept of considering the political affiliations of the commission does not appear to be deliberate, the results are still just as disturbing and injurious to the national interest. If AEC is to be administered on a political basis, as a part of the administration in power at the moment, this fact should be recognized and the law changed accordingly. If not, we can only hope that the people as a whole and Congress in particular, will keep in mind the nonpartisan, nonpolitical objectives set forth when AEC was established. T o do so, however, will be difficult if not impossible under conditions as they are developing. There are sharp differences of opinion regarding the degree of industrial
participation desirable in the over-all atomic energy program. Perhaps these differences are so fundamental that they must be resolved by the people speaking through their elected representatives. Whether we like it or not, there are political overtones which cannot be entirely eliminated in the discussions and debates that will take place before a final policy determination is made as to the future of atomic energy in this country.
International Chemistry in Distress X HE number of worthy activities which the chemical profession is called on to support is understandably large, principally because the areas in which chemists and chemical engineers are engaged are numerous and varied. Occasionally the editors receive information pointing out acute financial needs of some organization or activity which affect a major segment of our profession. In such cases w e try to bring the facts to the attention of our readers and hope that they will see fit to help alleviate the situation. Such a situation has arisen with respect to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. The financial crisis facing this group has been developing for some time (C&EN, Sept. 7, 1953, page 3620, and March 15, 1954, page 1060). It has reached the point where IUPAC must raise more money to continue its essential programs or cut back the programs to stay within its budget. IUPAC is a voluntary organization originated in 1918 to establish cooperation between chemical societies of a number of nations and coordinate their scientific and technical activities. The council, which is the governing body of the IUPAC, is composed of delegates appointed by national agencies. The U. S. agency is the National Research Council's division of chemistry and chemical technology. Some 30 nations are now represented. IUPACs interests, both academic and industrial, center about matters on which international agreement or uniform practice is desirable. These include nomenclature, atomic weights, symbols and terminology, constants, and the like. The union has five sections devoted to practices of fundamental chemistry and one to applied chemistry. There are 4 6 commissions and subcommissions to carry out the work of the sections. Reports on activities are discussed at biennial conferences, the 18th of which will be held at Zurich, July 20 to 28, 1955, during the XlVth International Congress of Pure and Applied Chemistry covering organic chemistry. IUPAC is supported by national contributions and grantsin-aid from UNESCO. With ever increasing requests for U N funds, I U P A C s share is limited. National contributions are being increased. Stepped-up demands on IUPAC make essential the employment ox a full-time paid secretariat which will cost $30,000 a year. The U. S. share of this amount is $5000. In a rapidly shrinking world in which chemistry plays a vital role, the objectives and activities of IUPAC are well worth supporting. In what better way can chemists and chemical engineers demonstrate how truly internationally minded they are in their thinking? NRC suggests the desirability of small contributions ($5.00 or more) from a large number of chemists and chemical engineers. Contributions may b e made to IUPAC Fund, U . S. National Committee of IUPAC, Division of Chemistry and Chemical Technology, National Research Council, Washington 25, D. C.
