186
CORRESPONDENCE Whither Organic Synthesis? The rapid pace at which new methods are developed and total syntheses are completed massages us into believing that the field of organic synthesis is in a healthy state of development. New methodology abounds at a rate that defies attempts at categorization (especially in organometallics) and precludes evaluation of the “method of choice“ without access to computerized searches. Natural product structural elucidation and total synthesis often appear in the same communication. New concepts become “established” in short order, for example, the intramolecular Diels-Alder strategy. In any area of science undergoing rapid change, chaos is not uncommon, but questions of direction, consolidation, and worthiness of pursuit must now be asked. The discovery of a new method has inherent value, but would the method not contribute more if its scope were tested on multifunctional systems rather than on commercially available or off-the-shelf substances? Similarly, would a new protective group not receive more intelligent application if the initial study were carried out under a broad variety of conditions (e.g., pH scale) indicative of the group’s stability and instability? Editors and referees might request such substance in publications according to a standardized format. The achievement of a total synthesis is no longer an uncertainty in the career of a graduate student, nor is a strategy which follows well-grooved concepts and use of trusted reagents. Assurance, both in achievement and design, makes for little advancement of the science. Are we tackling too many safe target molecules and not challenging ourselves sufficiently in conceptual thinking? These two points are not unrelated. Leading practitioners and thinkers have expounded on the need for structural information on new reagents and intermediates, for simple classification schemes of reactions, and for the discovery of new reagents for specific purposes. It is increasingly crucial not to be satisfied solely by the end result of synthesis but to develop a new method, to test a new mechanistic concept, or to formulate a new strategy. Enantioselective synthesis, already reflecting the current state of the art, requires mechanistic insight and, thereby, finer tuning. What may and should be expected? Comprehensible computer information storage and retrieval systems are being developed. These will allow systematic access to the immense body of literature on reactions and may lead to predictions of new ones. Structural identification of organometallic reagents and intermediates by X-ray techniques will improve our perception of reactions. Closer glimpses of the nature of enzyme active sites will lead to design of synthetic reagents with improved selectivity. An inkling of this promise is seen in crown ether and related macrocyclic chemistry. General use of computer-assisted synthetic design will permit quick dismissal of the “readily achievable” strategies and promote thinking of creative new ones. Mechanistic knowledge will be gained only by renewed support of fundamental physical organic chemistry. Organic synthesis may be at an evolutionary crossroad. Although synthesis will always be needed, it can find itself
0001-4842 /83 /0116-0186$01.50/0
in a period of conceptual stasis’ unless its frontiers continue to show creative and challenging opportunities. Victor Snieckus liniversity of Waterloo Waterloo, Canada (1) Stent, G. S. ‘Paradoxes of Progress”;W. H.Freeman: San Francisco, 1978; Chapter 2.
The Current Literature, and Some Suggestions There are a number of factors contributing to the increase in rate of appearance of published material, with every indication that the immediate future is predictable by extrapolation. How can we cope? Computer-assisted literature searches are indicated, but my recent attempts in that direction have demonstrated the inadequacy of the data base. I hope this problem is being addressed. I have come to recognize the value of good reviews, and I trust others will join me in giving thanks to the authors who wrote them. These integrative efforts will increase in importance as the literature expands. Lastly, from conversations I have learned that most readings of the literature, outside of the immediate areas of our current research, consist of scanning the titles, the authors’ identities, and less frequently the abstracts which follow. There is no obvious remedy, but this practice sometimes leads to an unfortunate conclusion. Authors B write a paper disputing the earlier work of Authors A. The reader concludes Authors A must be in serious error, especially if he is reading a prestigious journal, since the manuscript must have been refered by experts. This may be the case, but often it is not for the simple reason that referees are as busy as the rest of us, and they may not have read the article with care. Authors A can respond, but this may appear in print a year later, with an interim period accumulating damage to the credibility of A. This is often a serious matter, since the loss of credibility is usually accompanied by (1)decreased prospects for young associates, (2) effects on funding, promotions, tenure, and salary increases, (3) decreased interest on the part of prospective students and postdoctorals, and (4)fewer lecture invitations, etc. There are two remedies that occur to me. First, Authors A should be given the opportunity to respond at the refereeing stage, and their report should go to the other referees, who, one hopes, are free of direct involvement. Second, there should be a Response Section in the journal, where Authors A may make their objections known, preferentially by simultaneous publication with the manuscript of Authors B. The Editors should have their usual role in deciding what is printable. This system would protect Authors A, it would alert the reader to the nature of the controversy, and it might even inject a personal aspect which I would find interesting. Philip S. Skell Department of Chemistry Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
0 1983 American Chemical Society
