Editorial
The Permanency of Fading Boundaries
I
t is easy to suggestfroma reading of the current research literature that the distinctions between the traditional chemistry subdisciplines—analytical, biochemical, inorganic, organic, physical, and polymer—are fading. Sophisticated spectroscopy revealing molecular dynamics in monolayers appears in Analytical Chemistry. Applications of electron transfer theory appear in Inorganic Chemistry. Syntheses in The Journal of Organic Chemistry often have a very biochemical flavor and purpose. New analytical measurements appear in The Journal of Physical Chemistry. But wait, you say. Mixing between the subdisciplines is an old, not a new, phenomenon, and you are, of course, quite correct. This is especially obvious for measurement tools. Laser spectroscopy was adopted from the physicists by physical chemists and has now been enthusiastically adopted by analytical chemists for our own purposes. The electrochemical techniques of voltammetry, developed by analytical chemists, are now standard fare in research on transition metal complexes. Chemometrics in analytical chemistry is regularly infused with theory adoptedfromstatistics and applied mathematics. Will the mixing of knowledge lead eventually to the fading of the chemical subdisciplines as separate identities? I think not. Despite the historical intermingling, the subdisciplines persist and prosper. How? First, the research literature just reflects how currents of knowledge continually flow between the subdisciplines; these currents help push back theirfrontiers.Second, judging the evolution of analytical chemistry simply from the current research literature omits other important activities that are only indirectly visualizedfromthe research literature, namely teaching and commerce. The organization of the teaching of chemistry is by subdiscipline, and there is in the commerce of chemistry great demand for workers in chemical subdisci-
plines, quality control and synthesis being significant examples. The identities of chemical areas are strongly and especially rooted in how chemistry is taught at the college and graduate levels to its future practitioners. On a national, and indeed worldwide, basis, preservation and continuing renewal of the body of knowledge that we call analytical chemistry is over the long haul entrusted to faculty who call themselves analytical chemists. The same can be said about the other chemical subdisciplines and will be true as long as it is accepted that teaching is most effectively done in packages of related principles and facts and as long as the faculty entrusted with each package maintain a modern competency and thus the respect of their faculty colleagues. What's in the analytical package may and will change over time as what is judged important to teach evolves, and therein, like research journals, the boundaries between chemical subdisciplines change without truly fading. Analytical chemistry as a subdiscipline is blessed with a substantial employment base in chemical and related industry and thereby with an additional kind of permanence. The need to know how to do chemical measurements, and to do them in large quantities, continues to grow. I believe that faculty who teach analytical chemistry should convey to their students the importance of the roles that practicing analytical chemists play in chemical industry, because many students will find good career choices there and be justly proud of having an identity as an analytical chemist. So as one analytical chemist to another, I'll see you in 2016, but you may not recognize me!
Analytical Chemistry News & Features, August 1, 1996 457 A
