CORRESPONDENCE USELESS SCIENTIFIC OR CHEMICAL KNOWLEDGE To the Editor DEARSIR: The article by Professor Dehn on "Useless Chemical Knowledge," published in the June, 1932, number of the JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION (pp. 107577), calls for considerable comment. Professor Dehn would have us believe that "all scientific literature contains a preponderating mass of perfectly useless knowledge and the percentage of the useless becomes larger as theories bolstered by observation become useless." Of course chemical literature is included, in fact is the entering wedge of his final attack on science in general. Professor Dehn does not state whether by "perfectly useless knowledge" he means that which is immediately useless, or that which will remain useless indefinitely. In either case he courts justifiable criticism because no scientist-physicist, chemist, or biologist--can truthfully appraise the present or future value of a published observation or theory. The admitted limits of our knowledge prevent this. Nevertheless, within reasonable bounds it is believed that most scientists favor the view that a large portion of the published observation and theories have some potential value, either present or future. Nor is this view without solid foundation, for the history of science, including chemistry, is full of impressive examples that support it. In fact, by and large, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that our present civilization, good or bad, has been profoundly influenced by the discoveries of science. So much so that the man in the street is rapidly changing his credo from religion to science and developing an almost sublime faith in its possibilities when applied to his life and future. Theoretical and applied science is exoteric. I t publishes its truth to the world for any and all who can read and learn. Even admitting that a certain portion of the data given out has indifferent value due to careless observation or faulty reasoning, that is a far cry from asserting that the preponderating mass is "perfectly useless." Indeed, such a conclusion implies a very narrow view of the facts. Professor Dehn is correct enough when he points out that "no one can learn more than a small percentage" of the published literature of chemistry or of any other science for that matter. But why be cast down or take the defeatist attitude on account of this! From a practical standpoint the active and advancing investigator is not disturbed by such matters.
His problem may be small or large. S d c e it to state he marshals and arranges his data, decides on his point of attack, and promptly forgets what is foreign to his scientific needs. In fact his future success often depends on his ability to do this very thing. Professor Dehn deprecates the large volume of scientific publications that appear continuously because they "inundate, stiile and chill" our scholarship. However, a careful survey of many articles in Science fails to show any symptoms of this kind. Indeed the contributors in their various fields usually exhibit an enthusiasm and unflagging interest that has similar effects on the reader. In fact it should be stimulating to learn that there are more worlds to conquer than ever before, because this means adventure and in that adventure an accepted challenge to man's ingenuity and critical intelligence. Even admitting the seemingly large cost of scientific investigation and publication is this not a mere bagatelle in comparison to the cost (1) of advertising that is often vicious, (2) of fiction good, indifferent, and bad (mostly the latter), (3) of the several duplications of many commercial products hardly to be distinguished from one another, and (4) of the innumerable "rackets" that have a demoralizing effect on our civilization. I t is the fashion to question the value of any activity that does not yield a decided return of dollars and cents, if not to those engaged, at least to others who can profit by it. Hence, a common attitude of many influential men is to regard as futile scientific investigation that does not lend itself to commercial gain. Because practical application is our shibboleth we lose sight of the large cultural values of chemistry and the other sciences. However, in this rapidly changing and shifting world of men and things it would appear that the more constructive and humanizing thought of science could be used to distinct advantage in giving us a more correct appraisal of conditions as they are. Rationally at least this could lead to directed activities and improved practical solutions of the larger problems that confront us. This is a point that Professor Dehn overlooks, but nevertheless it is one that should demand a larger attention as the time goes on. The larger universities with their able staffs of scientific investigators and teachers have a large part to play in these matters. Science may become a redeeming or destroying angel. Let us hope it will be the former.
