The Humanity of Chemistry
In May, 1959, I was in graduate school, benefiting from the post-sputnik boom in science and technology. Throughout the country, scientists and students were similarly enjoying an unprecidented level of public support for research, development, and education. Nevertheless, in the midst of this Periclean Age, C. P. Snow sounded a cautionary note. In his Rede Lecture a t Cambridge University, the scientist-novelist argued that the world of intellect consists of two cultures, separated by an artifically created chasm ( I ) . Of course, many of us had already experienced the apparent dichotomy between the literary and the scientific traditions. But so long as most of the money was on the scientific side, we did not worry too much about the gap. I need not remind you that today, 15 years later, things are quite different. The alliance between science and technology, which we successfully exploited for so long, has backfired. Some of the same discoveries once highly touted as great achievements of modern chemistry have revealed some rather undesirable features. For example, in only a few short years, DDT has gone from a blessing to a bane. Indeed, to some, all technological advances are now regarded as "brought to you by the same great folks who gave you Napalm and Thalidomide." The public conception of science, never based on much genuine uuderstanding, has changed from one of wonder to one of mistrust. Even the rational process, whlch is so much a part of science, is being seriously questioned by students and teachers alike. Suddenly we have hecome agonizingly aware of the gulf between the two cultures. We want the public to know us scientists as the good guys we really are, hoping that understanding (and money and maybe even love) will follow. After all, we argue, a knowledge of science is hound to be helpful to the layman in this modern era; and, not so incidentally (we confess in our more candid moments), we also stand to profit. For example, just look a t the thousands of humanities and social science majors who could fill our classrooms and raise our departmental enrollments. I do not mean to cynically suggest that because our motives are not altogether altrustic, they are base. Rather, I consider the recent rediscovery of the nonscience major to be a positive development in chemical education. For I believe chemistry can do much to bridge the intercultural gap which Ideplore. I a m arguing here that the particular effectiveness of chemistry lies in the fact that the bridge which it builds rests upon twin pillars of concepts and consequences. Chemistry is a product of the imaginative intellect, hut its implications are immense. Indeed, I think it safe to say that there are few, if any, other fields of human endeavor which reveal so much of profound heauty and wonder, and a nractical influence uDon simultaneouslv exert so ereat " everyday existence. Of course, the correlation is hardly coincidental. It is ~reciselvbecause chemists have succeeded in discovering so m a n y unexpected and lovely things about our world that they have gained the power to change it for better or for worse. Given this dualism or, to use Bohr's more apt term, this complementarity, it is somewhat surprising that it has not 172
/
Journal of Chemical Education
provocative opinion been more widely exploited in chemical education. Chemistry courses for science majors have traditionally emphasized the principles of chemistry and the properties of chemicals, paying scant attention to the applications of that knowledge, or even to its creative aspects. Perhaps the implicit assumption, that students contemplating careers in science are already aware of the intellectual and practical significance of their chosen disciplines, is justified. I frankly doubt it; I fear we are producing too many technicians and titrators who are more-or-less ignorant of the nature and importance of chemistry. On the other hand, I am certain that the vast majority of nonscientists are even less well informed about the science which I happen to find fascinating. Nor are they likely to gain such an understanding and appreciation from "exposure" to a n infinitely dilute majors' course, bereft of both intellectual rigor and pragmatic relevance. On this there seems to he little debate. The "watereddown" majors' course is fast disappearing. But no widely accepted replacement has yet emerged; there is no consensus on what chemistry a nonmajor should know. I do not consider this a serious ~ r o h l e m .for heteroeeneitv in course content and approacc reflect; the humality of the chemistlteacher and the humaneness of the science. However, I 'must confess to some serious misgivings about courses which overcompensate for past pedagogical errors by concentrating almost exclusively upon the applications and misapplications of chemistry, to the all-but-utter exclusion of the basic principles of the science. Such courses often ill-advisedly emasculate the subject matter in an attempt to rectify what, in fact, have been inadequacies in approach, emphasis, and style. To shift metaphors, the baby of content is thrown out with the bathwater of pedaeoev. The resultine view of chemistrv is a s badlv biased as ihhat produced by tlhe courses which have been replaced. Undouhtedlv, the maioritv . . of my colleaaues would aeree that it is dishonest to offer a chemistr; course witl;&t teaching some chemistry. It is also condescending, for it tacitly assumes that nonscience majors are unable or unwilling to acquire an understanding of the fundamental concepts of chemistry. That is grossly unfair-hoth to the students and to the science. Moreover, I fear that the "relevance" of chemistry appreciation courses may he illusory and ephemeral. A discussion of carbon mondxide and hydrocarbon exhaust emission will have little lasting value without a parallel study of combustion. And topics such as the energy crisis and thermal pollution are empty without a t least a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics. Therefore, I return to my original thesis, that this bridge between science and the humanities must be based upon both the intellectual content of chemistry and its useful ubiquity. By leading our students across the chasm which seems to separate the two cultures, we can not only humanize the scientist, hut Simonize the humanist. At this point the reader should quite properly demand to see some specific characteristics of chemistry which ilPresented in part at the 166th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Chicago, Illinois, August, 1973.
lustrate its humanistic nature. And that is just what I hope to provide in the few remaining paragraphs, illustrated with examples from my own teaching. 1) First of all, chemistry (and all of science) is full of ambiguity and the clash of ideas. Too often, in our passion for neatness, we teachers hide this fact from our students and misrepresent science as a monolith rising majestically towards omniscience. We pay too much attention to answers-not enough to questions. Anyone growing up in the last half of the 20th century has probably developed some tolerance for uncertainty. Indeed, if the student is in art or literature or political science rather than chemistry, it may he because he loves the ambiguity of men and nature and fails to see it recognized by science. He may only perceive what a student of mine called the "antiseptic arrogance" of science and scientists. Fortunately, it is easy to dispel this misconception by reintroducing controversy into our courses and demonstrating that behind almost every law set in sacred hold-face type there was an encounter between conflicting ideas: phlogiston or oxygen, atoms or a continuum, particles or waves, and so on. You can supply many more examples, hopefully some contemporary ones like polywater. However, as you well know, certain current chemical controversies are too specialized to be easily understood by beginning students. Pivotal issues in the earlier development of chemistry are often more readily comprehended. And therefore, I find real merit in a hybrid historical/phenomenological approach to the subject. But I also grant that this approach may he more successful with nonscience majors than with their technically inclined fellow students who already know the "right" answers (though perhaps for the wrong reasons, or no reasons a t all.) I think members of both groups could gain valuable perspective from Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (2). 2) The clash of concepts implies some way of evaluating hypotheses, and here chemistry teachers have an excellent opportunity to illustrate the experimental, logical, mathematical, and even aesthetic bases for validation in the sciences, and to compare and contrast them with evaluative ~roceduresin the social sciences. the humanities. and the'arts. Why was Rutherford's sola; system model of the atom more satisfactorv than the Kelvin-Thomnson raisin pudding? On what kvidehce did Count ~ u m f o r d discount the caloric theory? And why is it reasonable to speak of an electron as both a particle and a wave? 3) The fact that the evolution of chemistry, through the process alluded to in my first two points, suggests a series of approximations, represents an interesting characteristic of scientific truth. Your more metaphysical (or metachemical) students could easily spend an hour discussing whether all truth is equally relative. 4) It is also important to emphasize that the interpretations of the ambiguities of nature have required the exercise of creative imagination every bit as brilliant and perceptive as that which has produced mankind's greatest music, painting, and poetry. Perhaps nowhere is this inner vision better illustrated than in its application to the unseen world of the atom-from Democritus through Dalton to de Broglie and beyond. And nowhere is themeative kinship between art and science better stated than in Jacob Brouowski's little book, "Science and Human Values" (3). 5) My fifth point is that in their need to know, scientists have employed a wide variety of approaches, not a single method. Remember that the serendipidous discovery of Becquerel and the methodical search of the Curies took place in the same laboratory, only a few years apart. Moreover, the methodological diversity of chemists only reflects their personal variety. Contemporary folklore to the contrary, scientists are compounded of flesh and blood with feet of clay. Ask your students to read Watson's "The Double Helix" if they need convincing (4). And, if
they think science is a passionless pursuit, tell them about Davy cavorting in his laboratory or Travers rhapsodizing over "the blaze of crimson light" that signaled the discoverv of neon. 6 ) In addition to their scientific achievements, many chemists have been d e e.~-l vinvolved with humanitv. Lavoisier's contributions to educational, economic, and agricultural reform would have insured his place in history, even if he had never written Trait6 6Umentaire de Chimie. His contemporary, Joseph Priestley, is probably better known as a theologian, philosopher, and social theorist than as the discoverer of the gas which helped the Frenchman revolutionize chemistry. Indeed, several years ago, Priestley served as the focal point of a seminar in which . students and facultv from the chemist^. ~ h i l o s o ~ h vhistory and English departments of ~ a c a l e d t e r~ o i l e g eexplored British intellectual history in the late 18th century. Most students of literature (and of chemistry) are probably unaware that Davy proofread the second edition of Wordsworth's "Lyrical Ballads" and shepherded it through the presses, and was himself a poet, if a mediocre one. Even antiestablishmentarianism is nothing new. A century ago hirsute Dmitri Mendeleev resigned his professorship over a dispute in which he espoused and advocated student objections to the irrelevancy of the curriculum, which says, I suspect, something about relevance. For more modern evidence of the social involvement of scientists one need only think of Linus Pauling debating Edward Teller on nuclear testing and policy, or Barry Commoner debating Paul Ehrlich on the ecological crisis and population growth. 7) But a chemistry course, even one which recognizes the diversity of chemists, should be primarily concerned with the specific science and its impact. An often neglected aspect is the influence which chemistry exerts upon the wider world of ideas. Admittedly, the most dramatic and far-reaching scientific intellectual revolutions-theCopernican, the Darwinian, and the Freudian-do not directly involve chemistry. But alchemy, for instance, was an im-' portant manifestation of medieval man's self-conception, and the transmutation of that protoscience into chemistry certainly had significant intellectual implications. For several years, I have taught an alchemy course during our January Interim Term, and at first I was amazed by the extent of student interest (5). But perhaps it is not so surprizing after all, given its romantic appeal. Moving into more conventional curriculum, I note that courses for nonscience majors frequently pay scant attention to quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, as being too difficult. Yet, I have repeatedly found in general chemistry courses, that students with only limited mathematical training and aptitude readily comprehend the basic concepts of these subdisciplines. Moreover, I have delivered lectures on quantum mechanics to students a t the Minneapolis College of Art and Design, to aesthetics classes a t Macalester, and as part of a now-defunct general education course. In every case I have been gratified by the enthusiastic response and the perceptive questions. At least a partial explanation must lie in the fact that these subjects are intrinsically interesting to any thinking person. For they say something significant about the structure and function of the universe. Indeed, I have seldom met a person who is not fascinated, and often a bit disconcerted, by the idea of entropy or the Heisenherg Uncertainty Principle. Again, I would urge that we not sell our science short by underestimating our audience. 8) I intend to add little about the specific practical consequences of chemistry. The topic is currently popular, and the examples are legion. The Haher process lengthened World War I, but produces low-cost fertilizer which has saved thousands from starvation. The atomic bomb hastened the end of World War 11, hut killed over 150,ON human beings in the process. Insecticides and herbicides Volume 51. Number 3. March 1974
/
173
increase crop yields in famine-ridden countries, hut accumulate in song birds and children. Modern miracle drugs increase the span of existence, hut not always the quality of life on an overcrowded planet. It is, I think, instructive that all these instances of the implications of chemistry pose ethical dilemmas. We are hack to ambiguity, often in matters of life and death. Traditionally, it has been the role of the humanities to consider the human condition and the choices which mankind must make. And without doubt, we need the wisdom of philosophers and theologians, the perspective of historians and anthropologists, the insight of psychologists and poets, the imagination of artists and composers. But I submit that science, too, can contribute to our common and universal cause, the enhancement of the human condition. Perhaps, in the final analysis, the primary achievement of science is, in the words of L. S. Kuhie, "the humility and honesty with which it constantly corrects its own errors'' (6). It is this, he goes on to state, which
174
/
Journal ot Chemical Education
makes science "the greatest of the humanities." This latter claim is a hold one, hut its validity is not a t issue here. The salient fact is that the chasm hetween the two cultures is an artificial creation. And I submit that the bridge of chemistry can span it and thus demonstrate the fundamental unity of all knowledge. Literature Cited 11) Snow, C, P.,"The Two Culturn and the k i m t i f i e Reuolutian," Cambridge Univ e ~ i t yPress, New York. 1959. (2) ~ u h n .T. S.. T h e structure of Scientific &olutions;' University of Chicap Pros, Chieagolllinois. 1962. (3) Brono-ki, J.. "Scienceand Human Valuos," Harper & Brothers, New Y n k . 1956. (4) Watson. J. D.. "The Double Holir,"Athoncum. New York, 1968. 151 bhwertz, A. T.,J. CHEM. EDUC. 46.655 11969). 16) Kubie, L. S.,DaedaIu9l,305119621.
A. Truman Schwartz Macalester College St. Paul, Minnesota 551 05
