VOLUME24 NUMBER 8
Industrial AND ENGINEERING Chemistrv
AUGUST 1932
J
HARRIEONE. How& EDWR
The Editor’s Point of View
W
E PROTEST. While the scientist had to
,-
mercury, arsenic, and splinters-reputed to have been anticipate that the increasing interest of the found in many brands of toilet tissue. This announcepublic in his work would lead to overstatement, ment contains no quantitative data upon which anyone misunderstanding, and even misinterpretation, he had can make comparisons or decide for himself what no reason to believe that unfair advantage would be hazard is involved. However, a summary of analyses taken. We refer to display advertising in which parts secured by the American Medical Association from the of reports have been amplified and misinterpreted, the chemist making the investigation shows that arsenic was fear of hazardous compounds exploited, and the quan- found in only 1.8 per cent of the 660 brands examined titative basis upon which conclusions have been and the maximum in a single sheet of a toilet paper reached omitted. of the same weight as the advertised tissue would conAdvertisements of this kind do not mislead the dis- tain not to exceed 1/20,mgrain of arsenic, and the statecriminating reader, but he forms too small a percentage ments regarding mercury were equally unsatisfactory. of the total population. Published announcements Many claims of medicinal interest appear to have no on alleged scientific subjects should contain no state- basis in fact as revealed by the report [J. Am. Med. ments that cannot be adequately justified from the ASSOC.,99, 241 (1932)l. The second example has to do with heat and irritants laboratory data, which include details as to methods, authority for the threshold of hazard set up, in cigarette smoke. Here again quantitative data are the actual quantities found, and a scientific inter- absent, although a record of the determination of pretation of the results. If the work is of the importance British thermal units per pound of cigarettes is to be the advertiser would have one believe, then the results found in the printed report available to scientists or should first be reported through scientific channels and technical authorities who may care to request it. A fully discussed before being made available to the lay careful study of this report, which gives the results of public or used as the basis of conservative, straight- a number of oxygen bomb determinations on different forward, and truthful advertising copy. Generalities, cigarettes, reveals very little upon which to base the qualitative results, and exaggerated claims woven into statements found in the advertising. In the concluan explanation of the report constitute little more than sions the authors of this report, after stating that the a prostitution of science. Such tactics are especially results show a certain brand to be cooler in the sense unfortunate when practiced by those who may have that it has a lower heat value (B. t. u. per pound) say, done much to advance standards within their own “It is a reasonable assumption that the smoke from industry. If the quantitative data which should be such a cigarette as it is smoked would therefore convey cited are omitted from advertising, the lay reader fewer heat units to the tongue.” This point is cermisses little, but he should be given the opportunity tainly open to argument, and, while the report makes to distinguish for himself between data of no signifi- some reference to actual measurements on the smoke cance and those which might mean something. The itself, these data are not presented. Furthermore, the habit of copy writers in giving their own interpretation conclusions undertake to explain why there may be a of data too often leads to the publication of opinion difference in B. t. u., but unfortunately these explanarather than a statement of confirmed fact, with the tions fit in too plausibly with the advertising campaign result that a scientist who may have made a perfectly of the sponsor. No quantitative data are given upon honest and bona fide report finds himself so exploited which to base them, and no comparative tests to prove and advertised with the product as to lose caste with the point seem to have been run. Furthermore, it is his associates. a nice question whether there is a significant difference Two recent advertisements fall in this category. in the temperature of smoke from cigarettes as smoked One is a series dealing with harmful impurities-acids, and whether a “hot” smoke may not be the result of a 8417
848
INDUSTRIAL AND E N G I N E E R I N G C H E M I S T R Y
number of complicated variables, including the presence of irritants of one type or another and without regard to sensible heat. In other words, such a report as is available fails to provide the quantitative data upon which the subsequent advertising copy could in any way be justified. The report carefully avoids a statement as to the university connections of the men said to sponsor it, but the newspaper advertising makes the most of the fact that two of the men who checked the test described are scientists at two leading universities. This is again a general statement with the hope of influencing the uncritical public. Science has a definite duty to perform and a valuable work which it can do in differentiating between good and poor, suitable and unsuitable, in the products of trade which are offered to the public. We must expect that some of the work done by scientists will be faulty. We must anticipate that many are not sufficiently careful in analyzing their problems before undertaking their work. Important factors may be overlooked. Wrong conclusions may be reached. Data may be imperfectly interpreted. These errors are best avoided and differences eliminated if such scientific reports are made to recognize national scientific organizations. When finally issued they should be so safeguarded that improper use may not be made of them and that unsupported claims may he avoided. No effort should be made to further sales through engendering fear, or through confusing the lay public with scientific terms, high sounding yet meaningless to the majority. Science cannot serve the public through any such means as the advertisements under discussion, the ultimate result of which can be only harmful.
C
ONTINUE RESEARCH. While the consensus of opinion seems to be that business is certainly no worse and perhaps slightly better than it has been, we are obliged to look forward to at least a few more months of distressing depression. Some industries between now and the first of January will be arranging their budgets for 1933. It must be borne in upon our captains of finance that research and the chemist have become permanent necessities for successful industries. They have become fixed charges, and the organization that would make progress can no more leave such an item out of its budget than it can omit insurance and taxes and still expect to survive. Capital needs only t,o remember the lessons of the past. That this lesson has been a t least partially learned has been amply proved by the sincere reluctance with which some trained chemists have been separated from their customary employment. When prosperity returns, as it must, the chemist will again be in great demand, but he can perform the tasks that will then
Vol. 24, No, 8
be placed before him only if he has been able during the interim to continue unabated the research which yields the information he will need to apply. Research to pay must be uninterrupted, must go on in continuity, and, instead of lessening the effort during times of depression, it is then that concentration can be put upon the most important problems. Dwight T. Farnham says that "great intelligence is required to draw the line between necessary economy and destructive retrenchment.'' A display of such intelligence involves emphasis upon research today and refusal to yield to any temptation to curtail such investment.
0
P
.
ROGRAMS AND SYMPOSIA. As we approach we again hear the annual meeting of the SOCIETY, the often-expressed wish that authors should give more attention to the presentation of their papers. We have repeatedly advocated that abstracts of papers, and better, the papers themselves be required in advance, thus permitting careful evaluation by the division and allocation of time in proportion to importance. Some speakers are unable to distinguish between minute details of procedure, which should be published but which are tedious for an audience, and the broad principles of the discussion which should be presented concisely, thus leaving time for helpful discussion. Division officers should take definite action to improve programs in this respect, in order that both authors and those who have come great distances to hear and discuss the papers may derive the maximum benefit. Symposium sessions have become an established feature of scientific meetings. They fail to accomplish their greatest good when the audience is left without guidance which would come from the skilful coiirdination and summary of what has been presented. It is customary for the chairman of a symposium to open its session with an explanatory statement, so that all may know the general subject, the objective to be achieved, and the means by which points of interest will be presented. It is rare, however, that a symposium is closed by some one capable of bringing together in concise succinct statements what has been brought out in the discussions, to what extent the goal has been reached, and what the net results of the effort have been. A symposium is not organized and carried through without a great deal of effort. It will be difficult to compute just what such a program costs, but we can agree that it is a substantial sum. Nothing should be left undone, therefore, that would tend to enhance the value of the return. A summary of the results by the chairman or perhaps some one appointed for the purpose is invaluable in this connection.
