a t 160’ C. is over 2.5 per cent unless they determine it, and how can it be found unless the Ash is determined? It is worthy of note t h a t the report gives “Correction for Acetylizable impurities in the Residue non-volatile a t 160’ C. hTo mention is made of the Acetyl Value of the Residue nor of the Allowance. Was the Allowance made? The percentage of water is given, which is one of the most unsatisfactory of all tests, and which is not called for in the regular forms. Can you blame A for wondering if the International Standard Method was ‘carried out a t all, or feeling t h a t he is being handed a gold brick? One “Authority”(?) on the Analysis of Soap Lye Crude by the International Standard Method refuses t o give anything but the final Glycerol Content. Let us study the three different results a moment. I s it likely t h a t B or B’s chemists are going t o make errors against their interests by three-quarters of a per cent? I s it likely that A’s chemists would both make a n error of 1.38 per cent, knowing t h a t their figures were sure t o be checked? This is not a n isolated case. I can cite others like it in every detail, in which other parties were concerned. What is the Answer? .Do our leading chemists as referees, relying on their having the last word and their reputation, do careless work or leave the work t o incompetent men? Do they carry out the International Standard Method according t o specifications, and, if they do, W H Y do they object to giving the result a t every step? If such a report were given, then we poor unskilful chemists could check our work and find our errors. If we have a standard, let us live up t o it. One who knows writes t h a t in cases of samples being referred to a referee, the reports are “almost always in favor of the buyer.” W h y ? I s there no way to obtain satisfaction in the matter? If the work is done in order t o reach the final figure, what objection can be raised to giving the figures according to the reguI hope other chemists and soap-makers will take lar forms! u p the discussion and see if we can start something in the right E. A. RAY. direction. [I have in my possession a pound of the sealed sample (referred t o above) taken b y a public s:rmpler, from the same mixture, and a t the same Lime as were the other three samples, and am willing to suhmit a portion of it t o anyone wishing t o examine it.-E. A. R 1
ican manufacturing conditions, he can make good if he has anything to make good on. But if he is infected with B . research tersanctus-God help him. Cords of good white paper and millions of cubic feet of air are used up annually in extolling research, but the average young chemist doesn’t know what the word means. As nearly as I can judge, he thinks it means from $1,500 to $z,ooo a year, a beautiful white laboratory, and plenty of time in which to read the morning paper and wait for inspiration. If he will realize t h a t commercial research means a dollar sign and not a halo, and go t o work on the problems that present themselves with the means at his disposal, or that can be obtained by the exercise of all his tact, he may know what research means after a year or two. As the American dyestuff industry is generally taken as the “horrible example” in these lamentations, I hope to be allowed to state that a large number of useful dyes are made in this country and they are just as good as the same dyes of German make. Furthermore, if John Smith, A. C., has any well-developed plan by which the American Coal Tar Color industry can be extended, I know where he can find all kinds of financial support for it. It should be understood, however, t h a t while Rene Bohn can probably get backing for a test tube experiment, John Smith, A. C., will have to show something more. W. H. WATKIKS BUFFALO, N. Y. Aug. 8, 1913
WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH THE AMERICAN CHEMIST?
Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: I n Mr. J. M. Matthews’ reply t o Mr. Grosh’s article with the above title (THISJOURNAL, 5 , 626 and 692, respectively), he states t h a t one of the main troubles with the American Chemist is t h a t he wants real money for his services, truly a heinous condition, while his German colleague is willing to work on “prospects.” We have heard the dogma preached from Wall Street for many years: “Young man, don’t work for money. Work for experience and when you are old enough we will give you a nice little pension.” The trouble is not with the chemist but with the manufacMALDEN, MASS. turer. Instead of regarding his research chemist as a highly July 26 1913 trained specialist, he regards him as a day laborer, makes him punch a time clock and thinks t h a t if favorable results are not WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH THE AMERICAN CHEMIST? obtained immediately, the man is not worth his hire. Would he for one minute think of putting his physician on such a basisEditor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: No Cure, No Pay? I feel the need of expressing myself on some of the ideas p u t I n the case of the physician or lawyer, even laymen can apforth in the address of Mr. Daniel M. Grosh in THISJOURNAL, preciate the difficulties with which he struggles, but the chemist 5, 692 battles only with “ the innate perversity of inanimate things,” Years ago I \ v w engaged with other chemists in promoting and that, as we all know, is absurdly easy! the development of the American dyestuff industry, by sitting Of course, the manufacturer has had enough experience with comfortably in the laboratory and lamenting its comparative “has-been,” “would-be” and “analytical” chemists who pretended insignificance. In the midst of our lamentations the boss walked t o be “research” chemists. It is this class who have puttered in and started thmgs ‘by remarking ’ Quit your tin-canning and away the manufacturer’s time, money and patience and prejuget t o work.” diced him against research. These “has-been” chemists, too, are What is the use in celebrating the ability, the energy and always crying that there is a vast difference between laboratory efficiency of the American chemist and damning the manufacand factory research. turer and capitalist? There is only one kind of research, and that is research that The manufacturer and capitalist won’t be convinced of the brings results t o the person who commands it. The skilled reerror of their ways, and their lost opportunities for fortune, by search chemist must have a large modicum of “horse-sense” talk or printers’ ink. They must be shown and they won’t need any more showing than their German analogues, though, of which is acquired neither by experience nor association. course, Rene Bohn, for instance, will have less trouble in showAnd after all, suppose a young chemist has worked for some ing a German, than John Smith, A. C., will have in showing an time on “prospects” and finally has achieved something for a American. msnufacturer. What guarantee has he that his work will he John Smith, A. C., is up against certain conditions t h a t he remunerated? Will there not be hundreds of new chemists must meet, and “tin-canning” isn’t the best method of approach. waiting eagerly in the bread line :for some !manufacturer to let If John Smith, A . C., has a job and will adapt himself to Amerthem work on prospects?
