Priestley
Medal
Address
Ernest H. Volwiler Abbott Laboratories North Chicago, 111.
The Rising Tide of Chemistry Collaboration and assistance are commonly needed to get a job done. Sciences cannot be fenced in Joseph Priestley, for whom this annual award was named, \vas< a most versatile personality—preacher, linguist, philosopher, author, and scientist— whose restless and discerning mind turned to chemistry as an outlet for his boundless mental energies. Unpopularity of his views of freedom and dogma did not extinguish the creativity of his chemical investigations. When he found it expedient to flee from England to America, his new homeland gained an additional intellectual catalyst in science, which through the years has contributed much to the technological development of our country. Priestley's discovery of oxygen in 1774, while he was still in England, is the best remembered fact of his life, for it is given to few men to discover a new chemical element and one so
chloride and ammonia and carbon monoxide, and he enthusiastically studied their properties and chemical reactions. We give due credit to Priestley for his accurate and significant investigations when both scientific knowledge and apparatus were scarce. But we are prone condescendingly to chide his memory because he did not discard the phlogiston theory of his day in favor of Lavoisier's then new theory of oxidation and combustion. Priestley himself had eloquently written, "The more ingenious a man is, the more effectively he is entangled in his errors, his ingenuity only helping to deceive himself by evading the force of truth." Yet in Priestley's behalf it should be said that sound evidence for the new theory of oxidation developed only gradually, and Priestley's own researches eventually helped to bury the phlogiston theory even though he himself was unconvinced the new concept was valid. Irrespective of theory, the chemical studies which he carried on during a 30-year span, both in England and in the United States, laid the groundwork for much of our later chemical progress. Priestley's great success in extending the-boundaries of chemistry, which he did almost single-handedly, might imply that in modern times we have overemphasized the group attack on chemivital to human life and civilization. cal problems. Undoubtedly at times Not only was he the first to prepare and this has been the case. John Jukes of isolate oxygen, but he carefully investi- Oxford University recently studied the gated its chemical and even its bio- sources of important inventions daring logical properties. He showed the close the industrial age. A common idea is relationship that exists between com- that the scientific investigator of the bustion and respiration. Yet his inter- nineteenth century, like Priestley, ests in chemistry were extended con- worked in isolation using the kitchen siderably beyond oxygen. He was so stove, whereas twentieth century disdevoted to the study of gases that he coveries have come from the "brainstorming" efforts of large groups. has properly been called t h e "father of pneumatic chemistry." H e was the Jukes points out the fallacy of both first to prepare and isolate hydrogen concepts. The early investigators were 96
C&BN
APRIL
2 8,
1958
often in close touch with the best intellectuals of their times; Priestley kept u p a voluminous correspondence and h a d personal contacts with men like Benjamin Franklin and Lavoisier. Like m a n y self-motivated scientists of our day, these men worked as individuals, b u t they kept themselves well informed of what their contemporaries were doing. Joseph Priestley's discovery of oxygen came from his fortuitous experiment of heating mercuric oxide with a burning glass. The lightning stroke of scientific discovery strikes only one person at a time. Advances in knowledge then extend like the sections of a telescope. Practically every scientific discovery has developed in this way, no matter how many capable investigators were engaged in the research. In short, science is a peculiarly personal endeavor. An effective director of research can hardly expect to spell out or to dictate t h e exact approach to a scientific project. Actually, the success of the effort is likely to be measured by the freedom given to the capable scientist to plan and carry out his own attack on the problem. This understanding of the origin of new concepts does not, however, imply that group effort is either unnecessary or ineffective. Quite the contrary. As John Donne once wrote, "No man is an island." When scientists work as a group, their thoughts differ and their approaches to a problem vary. When one develops a basic idea which has promise, other members of the group can extend and expand it more rapidly than the same people could do as individual investigators. That is why cross-fertilization in science is so essential—and secrecy, so easily overdone even in the security sense, can b e so deadening to rapid advance. The testing and application of modern chemical theory are now complex
freedom from conformity of scientific thought. Rather, we looked at their dogma in the biological sciences in the field of plant genetics a n d assumed the same situation in chemistry and physics. Our assumption was incorrect. The
and time-consuming, involving many scientific disciplines. Collaboration and assistance are commonly needed to get a job done. This is true in both the physical and the life sciences. Chemistry, with its multiplicity of phases, is an outstanding example of a collaborative science. The discoveries of fixed nitrogen, or of plastics, or of antibiotics, or of synthetic fibers needed the efforts of hundreds of skilled scientists to make them practical and usable. "The sciences cannot be fenced in. Depending on the fields in which they are engaged, chemists require close collaboration not only with other chemists, hut also with mathematicians, physicists, biologists, and engineers. ^A danger, of course, lies in the easily adopted attitude of scientific conformity- On the world scene, we have all observed the strenuous and often successful efforts to get masses of people to think as their leaders do. Chemists and other scientists are trained to inquire and explore and to venture afield in their thinking. If they are placed in an intellectual strait jacket of conformity, there will be little of the frontier piercing advances of a Priestley or a Pasteur or a Niels Bohr. I n recent years we have underestimated certain Russian capabilities partly because we did not know thai their scientists have been given much
AMERICAN* CHE:NII€AL SOCIETY
provides good examples of both t h e individual and the group in action. The Society, with its more than 83,000 members, is the largest scientific body in the world. To improve its effective operations, its organization has twice been overhauled during the last 40 years. The extensive literature which the Society publishes is pre-eminent. In every part of our country, local sections with great autonomy carry on extensive programs to advance chemistry and chemists. The objective of the Society may well be said to be the organization of individual efforts. Every professional man or woman wants to have his contributions to society recognized for their true worth. Chemists have often felt that they were not understood or given credit for their broad professional activities. Certainly there has been some basis for this feeling. Some other professions, notably medicine and law, for many centuries have been better understood and appreciated than chemistry. A solid reputation is established only with the passage of time. Our science has been making long strides to close this gap so that now the public understands our work and contributions to the general welfare much better than ever before. Such understanding also places greater responsibilities on each of us. It calls on us to be willing to assume demanding assignments as educated citizens. Being trained as physical or life scientists does not automatically make us expert social scientists, but certainly such training in logical and straightforward thinking does not subtract from our capacity to serve in public fields outside our profession. The pressure of world population and the resolve of nations to raise their standard of living are clear signs that more and more will be asked of science in the future. For many years, and particularly since World War I I , the voices of many chemists have been raised to warn that our country needs stronger scientific effort to hold its place as a leading nation, provided with both military security and a n advancing domestic economy. The public is beginning to grasp this concept of our great reliance on chemistry and other sciences, but undei-
standing h a s come more slowly than our national welfare requires. A philosopher has said, "What is honored in a country is cultivated there." The able investigator has not been adequatelyappreciated or supported. Such neglect is not new. When Lavoisier was executed, the judge of t h e tribunal which sentenced him said, ~~ France has no need of scholars." Vestiges of this attitude have been apparent in suspicion of intellectualism and in an occasional derisive reference to scientists as "eggheads"" and residents of ivory towers. Until the public provides proper status to t h e scientist, as well as t o scholars in other fields, our national welfare and even our existence as a free people will remain in jeopardy. Neither vast material resources nor a potent military establishment is a good long-term substitute for intellectual power.
A great deal of good was accomplished b y the launching of t h e first earth satellite. It caused our nation to re-examine its scientific competence and to take stronger steps t o encourage education in science and mathematics. as well as in other fields such a s languages, social sciences, and the humanities. The jolt to our smug assurance brought o u t o u r major shortcomings. When a successful satellite of our own was launched, w e breathed a national sigh of relief. T h e feelings of disappointment and elation were both exaggerated. The United States undoubtedly is behind the Soviet Union in satellites a n d certain missiles, b u t we are ahead of it in many other fields of science and technology. U.S.S.R. has put her efforts into a "crash" military program with great success. Let us not assume, however, that our own science has been of little consequence. Most of t h e important theoretical and experimental APRIL
2 8.
1958
C&EN
97
The flood of diplomas has been but a tranquilizer that blocks a hard look at our educational system as the American people w a n t ardently. Implicit in the need is the acute short age of capable teachers, particularly in the secondary and even in the primary schools. Many of the bright young high school students, whose interest in science careers has suddenly been set on fire, can hardly b e expected to de velop into t h e best scientists unless and until we supply and support a much larger number of well trained teachers to lead and inspire them. Lee A. DuBridge has recently stated that to do the needed job, our school communities should increase bv oOVc our tax burden for education. Are our citizens across the nation prepared to make this sacrifice? It comes down to understanding and discipline and serious application to the job that every citizen has to do at local and national levels. Neither complacency nor a four-day work week will accomplish it. W e , as chemists, can do much indi vidually by our scientific accomplish ments, our teaching, and our commu nity relationships. O n the assumption that effective steps are being taken to attract more capable young people towards scientific careers, let us look at the available supply. T h e latest figures I bave are from the U. S. Office of Education for the aca demic year 1956-57. Of 340,300 who obtained four-year college degrees, 12,900 were in pyhsical sciences, 13,900 were in biological sciences, 31,200 were in engineering, and 5500 w e r e in mathematics. Other pertinent data come from the National Science Foun dation. In April 1954, graduate enroll ment in education amounted to 60,000 students. To a large extent, they were learning how to teach and not w h a t to teach. By comparison, 51,000 graduate students were estimated to be in die a conglomerate of partial knowledge natural sciences, including engineering; which may pass for a secondary school another 61,000 were enrolled in education. Too often the flood of hun psychology, social sciences, humanities, dreds of thousands of graduating di and certain professional fields. Even though the numbers in science plomas which cover our land year after year has been but a mental tranquilizer have been rising since 1955, there are that blocks a firm, hard look at our edu too few for national security and wel cational system. T h e encouraging fare. We know specifically that this is aspect of our situation is that broad true in chemistry and chemical engi attention is now directed to a serious neering. Qualified and capable chem search for ways to stimulate interest of ists will b e in increasing demand for our capable youngsters in scientific teaching and for research in industry careers. a n d government. Alan W a t e r m a n has We will get just as many scientists pointed out that the United States can
work on the atomic nucleus has been done in this country. The transistor was developed here. W e a r e far in advance of the U.S.S.R. in discover ing and developing potent new medicinals, synthetic fibers a n d many other types of chemical products. Though our world w a s not wrecked when Sputnik I was launched, neither was it entirely mended when our own Explorer I rose into orbit. W e are an enthusiastic people, but we can't afford to b e volatile. W e can't now assume that all our weaknesses will be cor rected automatically. There is no need to remind chemists that volatile sub stances evaporate quickly. L e t it not be so with our new found enthusiasm for scientific education. Indeed the greatest of such weak nesses is in our education of future scientists. W e take pride in our na tional literacy, but our national scien tific literacy leaves something to b e de sired. For two generations, it some times seemed that we were trying to educate the "whole" m a n a n d create happy and adjusted individuals. This is a laudable goal, but we now findin the present world situation—that there is a great need for more rigid standards of knowledge and more basic information inside the head, rather than
98
C&EN
APRIL
2 8,
1958
hardly hope to produce a s many scien tists and engineers a s the Soviet Union, with its greater population and g r o w t h rate, but we can s e t our goals of quality performance. This is a logical and, I believe, an attainable objective. In hi c Priestley Award address in 1950, Charles A. Kxaus s^iid, "Although the shooting war ended five years ago and the cold war Holds Forth t r i e men ace of another hot w a r , our Government in Washington h a s done little t o pro mote research in this country."
Whether or not we think t r i e Gov ernment has movecl most effectively, w e observe that it h a s since taken some long steps in this direction. I n 1957, the estimated research and d e v e l o p ment expenditures were $7.4 billion by industry, $0.8 billion b y colleges, uni versities, and other nonprofit o r g a n i z a tions, a n d $1.4 bullion b y the Federal Government. To the expenditures for research sponsored by the military services and the long established agencies such as the Bureau of Standards and t h e Public Health Service a r e ΠΟΛ\' a d d e d very substantial research funds flowing through the National Science F o u n d a tion, t h e Atomic Energy Commission, and t h e National Institutes of Health, The money is ava-ilable. The problem is how to spend it usefully and find the scientists to carry through s\ich re search. All of us expect: government to have a significant role in accumulating and developing new knowledge. H o w e v e r , there is a wide divergence of opinion on h o w much research should b e done with government money. T h e r e is good logic in channeling government funds into basic research, leaving the major part of applied researcH, except for armament effort, in private hands.
T h e National Science Foundation's programs h a v e b e e n good applications of this philosophy. This points up the responsibility that w e have, a s scientists, to aid our representatives in the Government to attain reasonable and wise research objectives. Looking back on the successful development of the atomic b o m b by means of a "crash" program of research a n d development, many p e o p l e have jumped to the conclusion that all important problems c a n similarly a n d almost simultaneouslv be solved by allout, "crash" efforts. They believe that the Government can do it by l a w . There seem t o be some flaws in this reasoning. It is true that a major problem should be solvable more rapidly by such concentration of intense effort. T h e fault lies i n assuming that a major part of all important problems can be so solved at once. I n some areas, more basic information is needed before a broad attack can be m a d e w i t h o u t great waste. Also, there are only a limited number of capable scientists in the world. Congress can appropriate h u g e sums for a variety of "crash" programs if it wishes, b u t it must b e recognized that this will n o t increase t o t a l scientific effort. Such action may j u s t divert scientific talent from private to government control. In certain fields, especially for defense, such policies are sometimes necessary; b u t o u r nation cannot afford a n unlimited n u m b e r of these extremely extensive "crash" projects. O n e is reminded that while one wife is a blessing, t w o or more can be a moral extravagance. Although this is a meeting of chemists, it has seemed appropriate t o speak a good deal about science generally because t h e favorable and adverse factors apply to all sciences. In chemistry, there are two very broad problems for the future which encompass nearly everything: t h e structure of matter a n d the nature of the living cell. W h e n man really understands t h e structure of matter, h e should b e able to control his environment a n d to satisfy his need for energy. W h e n he h a s a real grasp of the nature of living cells of plants a n d animals, including those of his own body, h e will much more be m a s t e r of his own physical fate. In all these stupendous scientific problems of t h e future, chemists a n d chemistry will b e on a rising tide. Let us be as well prepared as possible by training, effort, a n d attitude to play our part.
ACS Award—Priestley M e d a l
ERNEST H. VOLWILER Ernest H . Volwiler's accomplishments both a s scientist a n d business leader have resulted in n u m e r o u s a w a r d s , including honorary doctorates from five colleges a n d universities. B u t , for a chemist, few honors can be greater t h a n t h e Priestley Medal. Previous winners h a v e included such top chemists a s T h o m a s Midgley, Jr., James B. C o nant, Roger Adams, E d w a r d B . Weidlein, C a r l S. Marvel, Charles A . T h o m a s . This year, another distinguished scientist is added to t h e list—Ernest H. Volwiler, until r e cently president a n d general manag e r of Abbott Laboratories a n d n o w chairman of the board. Over the past 40 years, Volwiler h a s made major contributions t o pharmaceutical research and p r o d u c tion, encompassing almost all phases of the drug industry. He has d i rected important work on such produ c t s as anesthetics, sedatives, h y p n o t i c s , anticoagulants, vitamins, hormones, sulfa drugs, and antibiotics. H e h a s also been a key figure i n commercializing m a n y other p h a r m a ceuticals, in addition to the synthetic sweetener, Sucaryl. • College C a r e e r . T h e son of a farmer, Ernest Volwiler w a s born i n Hamilton, Ohio, in 1 8 9 3 . H e t a u g h t for a year at a public school i n Reilly, Ohio, before entering Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, i n 1911. T h r o u g h the guidance of t w o college instructors, he decided t o take up a career in chemistry. I n 1914, he received his B.A. cinn laude and then obtained his P h . D . from University of Illinois in 1918. Volwiler was t h e first g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t to get his doctorate under Roger Adams. I t was Adams (then, a s now, a consultant to Abbott Laboratories) w h o encouraged Volwiler t o join the North Chicago firm as a research chemist. World W a r I w a s o n , a n d t h e nation faced t h e challenge of producing drugs n o longer obtainable from Germany. Volwiler's first job with Abbott involved manufacturing t h e h y p notic, barbital, a n d t h e anesthetic, procaine. T o meet urgent p r o d u c tion needs, he frequently worked
around t h e clock, managing t o take occasional cat naps on a cot in o n e corner of the plant. I n 1 9 2 0 , t w o years after joining Abbott, Volwiler became chief chemist. Recognizing a man of rare talent a n d initiative, the company named h i m director of research a n d a m e m b e r of its board of directors in 1930. Appointed executive vice p r e s i d e n t in 1946, h e was advanced to president a n d general manager f o u r years later. Today, as chairman of the board, h e heads a company w i t h over 8000 employees a n d with n e t sales of more than $110 million. • Flair for L e a d e r s h i p . In getting things d o n e , Volwiler is the kind of executive who inspires his associates. At the same time, h e sets an example b y his own clear thinking a n d energy. As one of his greatest attributes, h e is able t o sense implications of research developments that, at the moment, m a y merely be in t h e earliest experimental stage. Immediately after World W a r I I , Volwiler, at the request of t h e U. S. S u r g e o n General a n d t h e Chemical W a r f a r e Service, h e a d e d a team of scientists that explored t h e G e r m a n chemical industry. His group b r o u g h t back m u c h information of value t o t h e Defense D e p a r t m e n t a n d t h e pharmaceutical industry. Volwiler has also m a d e contribut i o n s t o the A M E R I C A N CHEMICAL SOCIETY. Starting out in 1922 as
editor-in-chief of the Chicago Section publication, Chemical Bulletin, h e b e c a m e chairman of t h e section in 19524 a n d in the same year chairman of the Division of Medicinal Chemistry. Later he rose to top positions in the ACS—President of the Society in 19.50, director from 1944 t o 1949 a n d 1 9 5 2 to 1956, a n d Chairman of the Board of Directors from 1954 to 1956. For t h e past t w o years, he h a s been p r e s i d e n t of American Drug Manufacturers Association. This year, he w a s elected chairman-designate of t h e Division of Chemistry and Chemical Technology of t h e National A c a d e m y of Sciences—National R e search Council. APRIL
2 8,
1958
C&EN
9 9
