Restructuring Chemistry Curricula
I
I
provocative opinion
EDIT~X'S NOTE:pr0fess~rYOllng'peolllmll"Restrodnring Chernislry CUIT'~DIIIR" ill~llgtlr~tes & new f e ~ t u l eill THIS JOURNAL. "Provocative ()pinion,2, it,s irnplies, is designed lo bring to our readers topics of vital concern to chemistry fscukies, pfesented as posit,inllor opinion papers. It is our hope that this page will activate s. slightly different cornmunieat,mu &hin onr cornrnunit,y--one that will foster rethinking and possibly reform through open exchange of views. It may not be possible t,oprtblirh all of the manuscripts submit,tedfor this page in the space available here. Our d m is t,o enlaree t,he Let,te~.s-to-t,he-Editorpages to aceotnmodat,e nceeptable eornmunieat,ionsnot printed in this calnrnn.
Imperceptibly, for the past several years a profound change has been developing which only r o cently has both become obvious and some of its implications denotable. Directly put: it is simply true that an understanding of chemistry is no longer best obtained by dividing this subject into the traditional branches of organic, inorganic, analytical, and physical chemistry, nor can biochemistry be considered as a fifth division. Of course, these divisions will remain in our language and will still have considerable utility for many years to come, especially in the literature, in handily classifying publications, for example. But it has now become evident that these compartments no longer serve their original purpose: neatly dividing rhemistry into separate topical areas in ordcr that the whole subject might be hetter comprehended. To amplify, we might state that a person who calls himself a physical chemist can be distinguished as a physical chemist because he asks this question of data that he has obtained: "What do these data signify; how can they be best interpreted?" The analytical chemist can be similarly identified in an operational way; when he looks a t data he says: "How can I get better data the next time I try?" (Here by better data he means data that are more precise, or an experimental procedure that is more efficiently carried out, interfering substances removed in a cleaner way, etc.) But these two questions are not different. The significance and interpretation of data depend upon t.heir validity, and valid data are useful only when they are interpreted. It is surely true that one who works with substances that are often called organic compounds will also ask these questions when he looks a t his data, and the same applies to the chemist who works with substances that have been called inorganic compounds. With respect to the organic and inorganic division of chemistry, does sodium carbonate really d i e r from benzene? Is tris(acety1acetonate)chromium organic or inorganic? True enough, for NaC03 and C6Hs we can say that the bonds are ionic in one case and covalent in another, but this distinction is artificial; whatever the bond may be, its essence lies in an electrostatic interaction between and among similar and opposite charges. We cannot say even this much for (CH&OCHCOCH&Cr. To oversimplify, perhaps once we could say that those who worked in biochemistry studied the chemistry of systems related to life processes. Such a broad statement 564
/
Journal of Chemical Education
was not too useful, even then; today, certainly, the biochemist also asks about the significance of his data and how he might get better data; he is not concerned in an essential way that the data are obtained from systems directly involving biological phenomena. There is no unique feature which really distinguishes hiochemistry from any other classical division of chemistry just as there is no feature today which dist,ingnishes organic from physical chemistry. We can then ask these questions: "What is chemistry? What is the structure of chemistry? What are its essentials? How are we to subdivide the subject for the student in order that it might be more comprehensible?" There are several reasonable answers today, none of which rely upon the traditional divisions but each presenting advantages in the modern sense: thus, ehemistrv can he divided into structure and chemical dynamics; or into topical areas which include aspects of the traditional divisions-such as particles, states of matter, bonds, ions, chemical energy, mechanisms of reactions, periodic relations and structure, and thermodynamics; or in other ways. Today the reasons are clear why familiar, topical areas such as polymer chemistry, nuclear chemistry, colloid (surface) chemistry, and radiation chemistry never really did fit the four traditional divisions. One wonders why we did not see this long ago. Educationally, this seems to indicate a considerable restructuring of our typical chemistry curricula. It is unsatisfactory to change the title of the course in physical chemistry to "The acquisition and the significance of data"; and if this is all that is changed, little modernization has taken place. The time has come for the beginning of a serious effort to obtain several, carefully designed, satisfactory answers to the question "What is the structure of chemistry?" We ought to begin now to find these answers and to develop curricula to fit each of the answers which will stand the test of severe criticism. Probably no single universally acceptable curricula will be found; those days are gone. By tomorrow, curricula which then still retain vestiges of what once was indeed an almost universally accepted topical arrangement will not he viable for many more years; they may even be unacceptable now.
Jay A. Young King's College Wilkes-Borre, Pennsylvania 18702
