Snowmass Means Us!
opinion In the opening pages of "Walden," Henry David Thoreau states t,hat "it is never too late to give up our prejudices" (1). I t seems to me that in a very meaningful way the recent report of the Snowmass conference in THIS JOURNAL (8) is a clarion call from a lofty mountain setting to those of us engaged in the valley of the everyday challenges of "doing chemistry" to cast aside our prejudices and begin to speak in a fresh way to our colleagues and to society at large. All who practice chemistry are feeling the ripplings of new insights and responsibilities suddenly popping up everywhere at once. We know that we must respond; the question is only how. My intent is not to restate the excellent recommendations of the Panel on Chemistry for Citizens headed by Richard Wolfgang (3). Rat,her I want to suggest some specific mechanisms whereby each of us can become more involved in our own "backyards," in order that we might begin to stir the ground a bit for the eventual plant,ing of programs spinning-off from the Snowrnass concern. The major point that cannot he overemphasized is t,hat if we do not make these efforts in the spirit of meeting obhers on their "own" ground and in t,he spirit of being willing to re-examine old prejudices, then I am afraid the Snowmass challenge will have dissolved with the melting snows in the spring. Now to some suggestions-with the expectation that many will wish to improve on them and that at least some will be acted upon. (1) Why don't we entirely drop our make-a-minichemist courses for nonscience majors? I n my opinion the vast majority of these courses are in reality nothing more than shortened presentations of the jargon in our introductory science major courses (you know, the gas laws without mat,hemat.ics kind of thing). I n a recent discussion in THIS JOURNAL about a nonmajor chemistry course, Woke (4) reported on a substantial effort to bridge this gap. I n my view, it is unfortunate that most of the innovations attempted met with little success, but my opening point about old prejudices can be illustrated when one looks a t the course outline. Even though it contains a number of contemporary and interest-provoking points in the sub-detail, the major topics still bear a striking resemblance to the chapter headings in almost any int,roductory high school or chemistry text one happens to pick up. I would submit that by using questions as an outline, as Woike suggests, one could manage to cover a whale of a lot of chemical ground by answering them with specific illustrations about what does go on in chemistry, and thereby giving the nonscientist some basis upon which to judge the "scient,fic claims" that pop up in the popular literature. To cite just one example, one could talk about the chemical facts of life that it is sheer folly to think that we can put tons of
anything we want in our water (he it sewage, phosphates, detergents, or NTA) without a t some time, a t some cost, removing it from the water before drinking it again. The sum of what I am saying is that perhaps we would get farther with the nonmajors if we selected a radically differentframework for the course and "hung" the chemical information on it. We say we don't expect to make them mini-chemists, but until we begin to find out how they view chemistry and how to have them ask questions about it, all the facts in the world will not make any dent beyond the next exam. A stimulating example of this kind of approach can be found by reading Lowe's brief article (5). (2) Seek out another teaching colleague who teaches in a nonscience area and persuade him (or her) to let you come and listen to his class rap about chemistry and science in general. Try to resist the impulse to pontificate and say, "Oh, but you've got it all wrong; let me tell you really how it is." Go as a listener and take notes. But make the students he precise and specific about their criticism and frustrations so that they get beyond the level of "I had a lousy science teacher in high school" or "scientists are all atheists." Then go back to your office, close your door, settle down with your favorite beverage or pipe and ponder what you have heard. After you have collected a response, return to that nonscience classroom and tell them how you see it in response to their concerns. Hopefully, then, you both will he ready for some meaningful dialogue and contact. (3) Why not try suggestion 2 with a high school group or some local citizens? Get in touch with a high school teacher who can in turn put you in touch with some local students, or take a few businessmen, local politicians, or housewives (or husbands, depending upon the nature and objections of your spouse) to lunch. I n either case, sit down and hammer out some questions about science and chemistry. Then after you have had a chance to work out your response, volunteer to give a talk a t the high school or local civic club. If you have something to respond to that is similar to the opinions and questions of your audience, your chances of getting through will be better than if you tried to convince everyone that we need more good science because you say so. Be prepared to listen. One suggestion for starting would be to have everybody write down their opinions about science. (4) Many colleges and universities have ACS Student Affiliate groups. If you have one, why not get them to choose as a theme for the year Communication with Others? Once a month arrange a joint meeting with some other club on campus, say the English or Art Club. Either go and listen, or go armed with Volume 48, Number 7 1 , November 1971
/
725
some information about what you see the role of chemistry to be-then let them shoot away. My last comments are in regard to the re-evaluation of our own personal prejudices as they concern the direction of science. I n broad terms it is my contention that we must begin to narrow the gap between the values tbat guide the science we do and the values that guide the application of that science in our technological society. Erich Fromm (among many others) has stated that one of the guiding principles of our present technological society is the "maxim that something mght to be done because it is technically possible to do it" (6). However, Lewis Mumford has countered recently with the statement that "science now makes all things possible . . . , but it does not thereby make all possible things desirable" (7). The theologian and ethicist Paul Ramsey (8) raises the same issue in this manner: "But the sine qua non of any morality a t all, of any future for humanism, must be the premise that there may be a number of things tbat we can do that ought not to be done." The question is one of the long range implications of a technological imperative. Are there some things that we should not do, or is anything called the pursuit of knowledge to be allowed? The question may sound like it has an easy answer, but this is deceiving because we just do not have an adequate intellectual framework for the guidance or use of science. The social values surrounding the use of science are now an arena where every scientist and citizen must participate, not just a few philosophically or politically minded spokesmen. The much debated book "The Greening of America" by Charles Reich (9) also strikes the same chords:
726
/
Journal o f Chemicol Educofion
"Technology demands of man a new mind-a higher, transcendent reason-if it is to be controlled and guided rather than to become an unthinking monster. It demands a new individual responsibility for values, or it will dictate all values." There will be a future; the question is what will we have to say about itscience as usual or science with a new consciousness? I am persuaded that it is the latter case; but even at that, our problems are really just starting. If Snowmass can get us to overcome our inertia and carry us away from continued moaning about the depressed job market and the cutting of funds for science so that we can truly communicate with our society about what many label "this accursed Science," then surely its challenge sball have been worthwhile. But the acceptance of this challenge depends squarely upon you and me, not tomorrow but today. Lilemlure Cited (1) T a o n ~ n oHmnr , DAvm, "Waldan," The New Amerioan Library, New York, 1960, p. 10. (2) J. CHEY. EDUE..48,4 (1971). (3) J. C m r . Enoo., 48,22 (1871). (4) WOLXE, R. L., J. CBEM. EDUO.,47,788 (1970). ( 5 ) LOWE.J*xm N . . J. CHEY. EDYC., 47, 818 (1970).
(6) fa ox^. E R ~ R"The . Revolution of Hope," Bantam Books, h a . , New York, 1968, p. 33. (7) M u x m s o , LEWL, "The Myth of the Machine: The Pentagon of Power," Haroourt Brace Jouanovioh. Ino., New York. 1970, p. 128. ''Fabricated Man." Yale University Press. New Haven, (8) R*rsr;r, PAUL. ,O"O " 1s" -r.",".."".
(9) REICH.CRIRLEB, "The Greening of America," Random House, Inc.. New York. 1970, p. 5.
David P. Young Maryville College Maryville. Tennessee 37801
