Resfrucfuring ACS: Is Our Vision Too Narrow?
Those interested in the inner workings of the American Chemical Society are anguishing in the throes of a critical examination of the operations of the Society. The struggle is toward a major reorganization of ACS structure, governance, and management. In barest outline, here is what has happened thus fac In the Spring of 1974 the ACS Board and Council commissioned a $100,000 independent review of the Society's activities-the first in nearly 30 years. Among other things, Arthur D. Little, Inc., the management consultant conducting the review, was asked to develop alternative governance and structure possibilities, and to examine the Society's Early this year, Little presented an publication extensive report (C. and E. News, March 10, 1975, p. 27). Its - - kev feature was the recommendation that ACS should split its governance structure into two parts-one devoted t o membership affairs, the other to scientific affairs. The latter included the Society's publications which the report recommended be shielded somewhat from the vascillating moods of the membership. The report also advised ACS olanners: a) to re-examine the ohiectives of the Society and i o establish widely understood ioles; b) to define better lines of accountability; and c) to establish means to allow differences of opinion to he legitimately expressed and conflicts openly resolved. Following receipt of the report, the Board and Council created a task force to coordinate the Society's reactions to it. Three subcommittees of this task force now have presented reactions and, in two cases, recommendations of their own (C. and E. News, August 18, 1975, p. 42). Most striking among these is the suggestion of the subcommittee on organization that all ACS operations be run under the direction of four mission-oriented commissions appointed iointlv hv the Board and Council. These commissions "~ would handle publications, education, memher affairs and nublic affairs. The subcommittee suegestina -. .this plan urges ;hat it not he implemented hastily. The Little studv and the work of the task force have identified many iniportant issues and areas where redefinition. refocusing. -. and reoreanhation of the Society's efforts might lead to a strongei and more united organization. However, before limiting our considerations to the issues and recommendations included in these reports, perhaps we should he certain that the remedies suggested will treat the disease and not simply the symptoms. In an effort to stimulate thinking along these lines, several questions are posed: Question I . In our deliberations on reorganization, how much of what we debate and plan is hased on consideration of where the Society and the profession are going and why, and how much is hased on developing solutions to short fall problems that could be resolved readily if our energies were directed toward larger, more important matters? For example, is the debate over the distribution of power between the Board and Council as important in the long run as a debate over how the profession can mobilize to better serve the American people, and how it can move to create better opportunities for those who wish to pursue careers in chemistry? Question 2. As we strive to implement the most widely held concern of ACS members, namely, that the Society's scientific reputation he protected, are we also establishing ~d
d
.
mechanisms for protecting the safety and welfare of the society a t large, especially in those areas of our competence and concern? Surely the scientific reputation of the Society can have meaning only when the social and physical environments are stable, and when the larger society looks upon the science as a positive contributor. Question 3. As we seek ways to influence public policy toward more and more faithful support of the scientific enterprise, are we providing or advocating corresponding support and encouragement for activities that help the public understand those facets of our work and discipline that bear on its welfare and safety? We have seen that the answer t o the attitude, "The puhlic he damned" is "Science he canned," and even the most stubborn among us now must recognize that the public has both the power and the will to make this happen. Conversely, the puhlic has responded generously in the past to a science that shows a desire to he helpful. A commitment by the profession toward greatly improved public understanding is in the best interests of all. Question 4. As we look for better ways for enabling members to be heard and for open resolution of conflicts, are we doing anything substantive t o tackle the most crippling congenital problem of the professional chemist-his extreme vulnerability in a) a work force whose size contracts and expands with even minor economic perturbations; h) an economic system that takes scientific and inventive flashes of genius for granted, and that all too often mistakes quick and dirty answers for long-term solutions? While there can he disagreements about the importance or even the pertinence of some of the preceding questions, this issue strikes a t the heart of our very existence. I t affects not only our members but also the viability of both the science and the orofession. It is difficult to see how we can continue to put off squarely facing this matter. Question 5. As we move toward safeeuardina the quality a i d integrity of ACS journals and otiler puh'licatio& are we working as creatively toward increniing their effectiveness in communirating with users and in organizing the knowledge in the science as we are toward offering authors a facile outlet for reporting their work? Some hard and highly creative work is needed here lest we become victims of our own excesses. Question 6. As we re-examine our views and posture regarding professionalism, will we also include among chemistry orofessionals those who devote their professional lives to
