California Association of Chemistry Teachers
George B. Kauffman
California State College at Fresno California
I
I
Reflections on Chemistry and its Teaching O n the occasion of the Alfred Werner Centennial
A s the Alfred Werner centennial year draws to a close this month, it also reaches its culmination, for the founder of coordination chemistry was born in the small Alsatian town of Mulhouse on December 12, 1866. During the past year, almost every conceivable aspect of his life and work has been explored, both in the national and international celebrations held in his honor and in a number of books and articles (2-3). Yet there are aspects of Werner's career which serve as talie-off points for some reflections whose implications go so far beyond the particulars of the field in which he worked that still another article seems appropriate. Ostwald's Classification of Scientific Genius
I n previous studies (4,I applied to Werner Wilhelm Ostxald's well-known classification of scientific geniuses into two types-the classic and the romantic (5, 6). I characterized Werner as the prototype of the romantic genius-the impulsive and prolific innovator who produces a new theory with apparent ease during his youth. I n contrast, Sophus Mads Jgrgensen, Werner's primary scientific adversary, was exemplified as the other extreme-the classic genius, who slowly and painstakingly develops a traditional theory to new consequences. I have since realized that Werner's personality was too complex and self-contradictory to be acconlmodated by Ostwald's oversimplified dichotomy, inasmuch as he combined the romantic genius' intuitive brilliance in the realm of theory with the classic genius' experimental persistence. The typical romantic genius of the stereotype would have been satisfied with the product of the initial flash of insight and left to others the arduous task of accumulating the experimental data necessary for its proof. Werner, on the other hand, firmly convinced of his theory's validity, devoted the remainder of his career-a full quarter-century-to an almost unprecedented series of
The author wishes to acknowledge the financial support of the History and Philosophy of Science Program of the NSF Division of Social Sciences, and of the American Philosophical Society, which made possible a year's study of Alfred Werner's coardination theorv s t Universitiit Ziirich. He also wishes to thank the ~ n l i f o r a i a ~ ~ t aCollege te at Fresno for a leave of absence
experiments which verified the coordination theory in almost every particular. The Nonquontitative Genius
I n search of another manner of characterizing Werner then, I have appropriated the phrase "nonquantitative genius," a designation once casually used by Professor Ernst Schumacher during a conversation. Like all dichotomies, a division of scientific geniuses into those who expressed themselves largely in mathematical terms as opposed to those whose achievements were primarily qualitative has its limitations, yet characterizing Werner as a typical example of a nonquantitative genius seems particularly apt. Throughout his career, all Werner's contributions were essentially qualitative; even his celebrated conductivity studies with Arturo Miolati @a, 7 ) were only semiquantitative. Fnthermore, he consistently earned low or failing grades in mathematics and geometry during his student years at the Ziirich Eidgenossisches Polytechnikum. Werner's predilection for the qualitative approach seems to me to raise some disturbing questions about the direction in which chemistry and chemical education are currently heading and the effect of this trend upon a present-day student with Werner's intellectual make-up. The Trend toward Quantiflcation
Today most branches of chemistry, including coordination chemistry itself, are rapidly becoming more mathematical and abstract, and this t,rend, which is reflected in our modern chemistry courses, has apparently not yet reached its peak. The freshman who can glibly discuss free energy, entropy, molecular orbital theory, and similar sophisticated topics, hut who may be unable to balance a simple equation or to predict the solubility of a given salt, while admittedly a rara auis, nevertheless is found with increasing frequency among the fauna of the college campus. As a college professor, I am grateful to my colleagues in the secondary schools for the higher level of mathematical preparedness of entering freshmen, a situation which has made higher level college courses possible. As a practicing scientist, I am grateful for the power and advantages of the mathematical approach, which Volume 43, Number 12, December 1966
/
677
facilitate my research activities. Nevertheless, it seems to me that scientists and educators, like other human beings, are continually in danger of becoming slaves to fashions and trends. Consequently, we must guard against a repetition of the imbalance that was rife during the late nineteenth century, an era when faith in science, especially quantitative science, was virtually unlimited. For those scientists and teachers who are excessively fond of and preoccupied with the quantitative approach, I would cite the example of Alfred Werner, the founder of modern inorganic stereochemistry. Here is dramatic proof that mathematical ability is not necessarily a prerequisite for success in chemistry. Failure to recognize this fact may well result in a tragic waste of scientific manpower. Physicochemical Methods
Closely allied to the growth in quantification, another of the trends partially responsible for the renaissance in inorganic chemistry since World War I1 is the increasing application of physical chemistry to the investigation of inorganic systems. Again, education has kept up with and responded to this "new look," and general chemistry courses are more and more being transformed into elementary physical chemistry courses. As one fully cognizant of the power of the physicochemical approach, I hesitate to draw upon my head the enmity of the shades of Arrhenius, Ostwald, and van't Hoff. Instead, I will merely point out that if Werner were alive today, he would probably possess strong opinions on this subject, for in a letter of June 23, 1904 to Richard Lorenz, editor of the Zeitschrift fur anmganische Chemie, he resigned from the editorial board because that journal "has gradually developed so strongly in the physicochemical direction that it no longer meets the needs and expectations of the pure inorganic chemist." Scientific "Hardware"
I n these days when useful but complicated instruments are in danger of degenerating into status symbols, we should not forget that Werner laid the experimental foundations of coordination chemistry by using the most elementary and unpretentious kinds of physical and chemical equipment. Armed only with the most primitive a p p a r a t u s a platinum spatula, watch glasses, and porous clay plates-Werner subjected his complexes to the most diverse reactions, transformations, and operations. Now I am not decrying the use of elaborate instruments and facilities per se. Certainly, we have come a long way from the "Catacombs," those unfinished cellars and storage rooms for wood in which the major portion of Werner's life's work was performed. Today we must train our students to function in a world in which Werner's tools and facilities seem positively paleolithic. Granted Davy's statement that "nothing tends so much to the advancement of knowledge as the application of a new instrument" (8). Granted that Werner's greatest experimental achievement, his resolution of coordination compounds in 1911 (Sa, 9),was made possible largely by the advances in polarimetry which took place at about that time. Never678
/
journal of Chemical Education
theless, we must avoid an excessive dependence upon and veneration of instruments and modern facilities. Means versus Ends
At this point, we may appropriately explore a relatively neglected topic-the idea of science as a means rather than as an end. As pragmatic scientists, we are almost exclusively concerned with results, even in so-called basic research, and just as Werner did, we choose without question the most direct means of achieving this end. Our choice of the chemical system to be studied, the techniques, the instruments, and so forth are all means to an end. This we accept as selfevident. In other fields of human endeavor, however, we accept as equally self-evident the paramount importance of the means. I n music, for example, we readily grant a composer the right deliberately to turn his back upon the immense forces of the symphony orchestra in order to work in a more modest medium such as a sonata or a string quartet, if he so chooses. Yet why are we so reluctant to grant the scientist the same privilege? He too is a human being. Surely he too is "expressing himself'' and, to be sure, in a manner closer to that of the artist than we are accustomed to acknowledge. To return to Werner again, the coordination theory with its simple and unified explanation of such a wide diversity of chemical phenomena is as much an aesthetic triumph as a scientific one. The importance of the satisfaction to be derived from the activity rather than its results is not a new idea, but hitherto it has been stressed more within a religious or philosophical context rather than a scientific one. Should we not let our students know of the great personal satisfaction that we derive from our work, regardless of its results? Have we as scientists perhaps taken ourselves too seriously? The function of the scientist as h m o sapiens (reasoning man) has been more than adequately emphasized. That this role is paramount is, of course, indisputable, but can't we at least acknowledge to a small degree his role as h m o ludens (playing man)? Werner's Theory and the "Flash of Genius"
The last aspect of Werner's work to be considered here involves the circumstances surrounding the genesis of his coordination theory-a perfect example of what Garrett has called the "Flash of Genius" (10). According to Werner's student and co-worker Paul PfeilTer (If),
. . . the inspiration oilme to [Werner] like a Bash. One morning at two o'clock he awoke with a. start: the 1ong;sought solution of thk problem had lodged in his brain. He arose from his bed, and by f i ~ eo'clock in the afternoon the essential points of the coordination theory were achieved. Werner was trained as an organic chemist and had never evinced more than a passing interest in the inorganic field. He had first occupied himself with theories of metal-ammines a mere six or seven months before he published his "Beitrag zur K a s t i t u t i a anorganischer Verbindungen" (Sa, 12) at the age of twenty-six. How, with almost no experimental background, was he able to devise at a single stroke a new and revolutionary
approach so perfect as to require only minor subsequent modification? The answer, although perhaps unexpected, is, upon reflection, quite obvious. Almost by definition, the iconoclast is young and inexperienced (IS). The "young Turk'' is as common in science as in other fields. To quote from Kuhn's intriguing book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (14): Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change. Obviously these are the men who, being little committed by prior practice to the traditional rules of normal science, are particularly likely to see that these rules no longer define a playable game and to conceive mother set that can replace them.
..
Even the circumstances surrounding the genesis of Werner's coordination theory are not unusual (15) (We are all familiar with KekulB's dreams of the benzene ring and of the self-linking of carbon atoms.) Kuhn tells us that "the new paradigm, or a sufficient hint to permit later articulation, emerges a11 at once, sometimes in the middle of the night, in the mind of a man deeply immersed in crisis." The great leap forward, then, comes "not by deliberation and interpret* tion, but by a relatively sudden and unstructured event." Certainly every one of us who has done any research has had an idea elude h i even after prolonged thought, onlv to have our subconscious later uresent us spon- " taneously with the solution. The experience is h i q uitous, but how many of us pass it on to our students as one legitimate method of practical everyday problemsolving? Instead, do we not leave them and the public with the impression that our achievements are always produced by application of the highly-touted scientific method?' A related misconception held by students and public alike is the false but alluring view of the progress of science as a smooth, unbroken, steadily ascending line. By failing to remind them that the history of science, in common with all history, is not a continuous function but a quantized one that proceeds in spurts (or even occasionally with backward steps), we are unwittingly guilty of rewriting history. Conclusion
The contributions of Alfred Werner, as we have seen, may be viewed not only in the light of their concrete significance to chemistry hut also in relation to the wider ramifications which emerge when we consider A refreshing and welcome exception is provided by Joel H. Hildebrand (16), who prefers the flexible term "methods of science" to the more rigid "scientifio method." 1
his personality and intellect. He was nonquantitative in his approach, and his coordination theory, that masterpiece of chemical systematics which he has bequeathed to us, demonstrates perfectly the power and advantages of this modus operandi in basic research. Though sometimes unsophisticated, his thinking and experimental techniques were always personal, original, and creative in the fullest sense of this currently muchabused word. I n Werner's work and thought, intuition often played as great a role as reason. He unhesitatingly discarded current and well-established beliefs and practices when they did not suit his purposes. His strong inner conviction and supreme self-confidenceprovided him with the ~ersistentdrive reauired to carw out his ideas in the face of strong opposition from his peers and colleagues. I n short, Alfred Werner exemplifies values that are dangerously neglected in a science which, like the world in which it functions, is becoming increasingly mechanistic and depersonalized. Literature Cited (1) KAUFFMAN, G. B., "Alfred Werner--Founder of Coordina-
tion Chemistry," Springer-Verlilg, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1966. (2) "The Alfred Werner Cerdennial Symposium," G. B. KAUFFMAN, Symposium Chairman, Advances in Chemistrv Series. American Chemical Society, .. Washington, . D. k., 1966: 12) K A ~ ~ A- NB.. .~ 1%) "Classics in Coordination Chem- FF ~M G. ~ ~ istry, ~ k t 1 . hi selected Papem of Alfred Werner," Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1966; (b) J. CHEM. Eouc., 43, 155 (1966); (c) Chymia, 12, in press. (4) KAUFFMAN, G. B., J. CHEM.EDUC.,36, 521 (1959), reprinted in "Selected Readings in the History of ChemA. J., AND KIEFFER,W. F., J. istry," compiled by IHDE, CHEM.EDUC.,Easton, Pa., 1965, p. 185; Chyma, 6, 180 ,.\
~~
(1960).
(5) OSTWALD,W., in BUGGE,G., "Das Buch der gmssen Chemiker," Verlag Chemie, Berlin, 1929, Vol. 1, p. 405. (6) FARBER, E., J. CHEM.EDUC.,30, 600 (1953). (7) WERNER,A., and MI~LATI,A,, Z. physik. Chem., 12, 35 (1893); 14, 506 (1894); 21, 225 (1896). (8) DAYY,J., ed., "The Collected Works of Sir Humphry Davy," Smith, Elder & Co., London, 1840, Val. IV, p. 3i. (9) WERNER, A,, Ber., 44, 1887 (1911). (10) GARRETI.,A. B., "The Flash of Genius," D. Van Nastrand Ca., Inc., Princeton, N. J . , 1963. See also J. CHEM. Eouc., 39 and 40. (11) PFEIFFER,P., Z. Angew. Chern., 33, 3 i (19'20); J. CHEM. EDUC.,5, 1090 (1928). (12) WERNER, A,, Z. Anorg. Chem., 3, 267 (1893). (13) LEHMAN, H. C., "Age and Achievement," Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1953. (14) KUHN,T. S., "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962. (15) H A D ~ A RJ., D ,"Subconscient intuition, et logique dans la
recherche seientifique," Imprimerie Alen~nnaise,Alenp n , n. d. (lecture delivered Dec. 8, 1945). (16) HILDEBRAND, J. H., "Science in the Making," Columbia Uuiversity Press, New York, 1957.
Volume 43, Number 1 2 , December 1 9 6 6
/
679
