аЯрЁБс>ўџ CEўџџџBџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС3 №ПDjbjb^^ MSh<h<>џџџџџџlЬЬЬЬЬЬЬ$˜˜˜˜˜ Є$˜хЖдфффффффЂЄЄЄЄЄЄ,› ЛŒаЬфффффа<ЬЬффд<<<фмЬфЬфЂ<№TDTЬЬЬЬфЂ<f<ЂЬЬЂШ –фȘ˜Р|ЂЂххЂG<GЂ<Ух SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1“Are Chemists Too Shy For Their Own Good?” Remarks by Madeleine Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief, C&EN at the Chemical Information Division meeting American Chemical Society, Orlando, Florida, April 9, 2002 Good morning...and thanks for showing up so early. First, let me assure you that if you stay to the end of my talk, I will answer the question posed by the title. But first let me talk about the title, which was inspired by the May 24 issue of Nature, which caught my eye with this blurb: “Chemists: Too shy for their own good.” Not a question, mind you, but a statement. Needless to say, I was hooked. I quickly opened up the journal to find not one but two articles devoted to the topic (Nature, 411, 399,408). The first was an editorial, titled “A discipline buried by success.” The gist of the editorial is familiar terrain to those of us in this room. “Chemistry’s goal of understanding the form and function of molecules and studying how they interact is at the very heart of scientific endeavor. Yet its versatility comes at a price: recognition--or more accurately, lack of it.” The editorial then goes on to define chemistry, noting that it is no longer just restricted to the traditional sub-fields known as organic, inorganic, and physical. Rather, the field now encompasses other fields such as catalysis, polymers, materials science, combinatorial chemistry, genomics, and so forth. “Chemists and chemistry have never been more vital to science and society than now,” the editorial states. But “the discipline is easily misunderstood, and those working in it are frequently under appreciated.... Chemists have allowed those from outside the field to characterize it--to define what chemistry is and what it is not. To the public, chemical science is too often synonymous with the industry with which it shares its name. So chemistry means belching chimneys and poisoned rivers, not life-saving medicines and space age materials. To other researchers, policy-makers and crucially, young scientists, it is sometimes seen as a mature discipline with its most important and stimulating work behind it. Chemists, on the other hand, tell a different story. They speak excitedly about the promise of molecular electronics, the challenges presented by the need for sustainable energy,” and the opportunities for pharmaceuticals derived from the human genome sequences. In the article, Nature writer David Adam asks: “What’s in a name? In the melting pot of modern science, chemistry’s cutting edge is being rebranded as biology or nanotechnology. ... Chemistry likes to style itself as the ‘central science’ but perhaps ‘bridesmaid science’ would be more appropriate. While other scientific disciplines reap maximum publicity from their triumphs, chemists have seen some of their brightest moments claimed by rival fields. From the discovery of lifesaving drugs to the explosion of work on carbon nanotubes, new developments in chemistry often seem to end up being appropriated by other disciplines.” Among the eminent chemists interviewed by the author were George Whitesides and Stuart Schreiber of Harvard--and they both agreed with the author. All of us could give many different examples of this. Nearly all of the major accomplishments in biology, for example, depend hugely on chemistry. Early work on DNA was done by chemists. Chemists also played a vital role in developing NMR--which we’ll hear about later from Jack Roberts--and its medical spin-off, magnetic resonance imaging. I love this line from Adam’s article--indeed, I wish I had written it! “Like the supporters of an impoverished lower-league soccer club, chemists have grown used to seeing their star performers transferred to more glamorous teams. Even Nobel prizewinning chemistry, it seems, does not stay chemistry for long. The discovery of fullerenes was awarded the chemistry Nobel in 1996, but much of the work that has stemmed from that discovery is now seen as applied physics or nanotechnology.” C&EN’s Managing Editor gave still another example in an editorial in C&EN in the September 3 issue titled, “No Chemistry, No Physics.” In that editorial, he wrote: “Maybe it’s time we threw in the towel, because it sure seems like we’re losing the battle. What battle is that? The one where we convince the general public of the significant contributions chemistry is making to the well-being of humanity.” His point of reference was the August 20 issue of Time magazine titled “America’s Best Science & Medicine.” In that issue, the Time editors focused on the most exciting fields of research and then looked for the men and women who are doing the most cutting edge research within those fields. The magazine honors 18 individuals in cellular biology, human origins, child psychology, pediatrics, genomics, cardiology, oncology, climatology, ecology, AIDS research, astrophysics, paleontology, biomedical engineering, neurobiology, cell death, spinal cord repair, molecular mechanics, and lifetime achievement. No chemistry, no physics. MIT chemical engineer Robert Langer is honored for his work on drug delivery but he’s called a materials scientist. He’s actually a Ph.D. chemical engineer. Anyone who knows Bob Langer knows that his success is dependent on his brilliance as a chemical engineer and a chemist--and he’s proud of doing both chemistry and chemical engineering. The one chemist on the Time list is University of California, Berkeley chemistry professor Carlos Bustamante, cited in the molecular mechanics category for his use of lasers and an atomic force microscope to physically manipulate DNA and proteins. What’s remarkable, Rudy pointed out, is how hard Time works to avoid using the words chemist and chemistry. Let me tell you another story. I had dinner with Presidential science adviser John H. Marburger III at the end of January prior to a briefing he gave to reporters. At dinner, we were talking about the public’s understanding of science and the fact that the public/media like astronomy and exotic particles in physics but the media doesn’t write or broadcast much about chemistry and I asked him why chemistry doesn’t get good press. He ticked off a list of reasons: “Pollution, napalm in Vietnam, smells in the lab, boring teachers, it’s not visual.” I said I thought he was being a bit hard on chemistry and he said, “Well, chemistry does have a lot of exciting things…like self-replicating systems.” But he seemed hard pressed to come up with anything else. “Your turn will come,” he assured me. I asked him “In my lifetime?” and he laughed, and didn’t reply further. Needless to say I wasn’t laughing. Will this happen in my lifetime? Not unless we all agree that it’s time to do something about it. And before I tell you what it is we need to do, let me make a few more observations. It is my perception that there has long been an aversion to science, at least since the end of the Sputnik era (mid-1960s). I do think it coincides with the Vietnam War. When I was growing up in the 1940s and 1950s, science and technology were seen in a very positive light (despite the atomic and hydrogen bombs). This was the Golden Age of Science in general. I’ve been discussing these issues with one of my Senior Editors, Stephen Ritter, and this is what he had to say: “In the Golden Age of Science, Everyman was interested in science. There were television programs like ‘Watch Mr. Wizard’ and DuPont’s slogan was ‘Better things for better living through chemistry.’ “Everyman wanted to see us put a man on the moon. This same type of tangible science continues to move forward but Everyman is no longer interested in the details, only the outcomes. Everyman is burned out. How many times do you want to watch the space shuttle take off and land? Do you care anymore that there is a faster microprocessor? The public is still interested in medical advances, but the time available for embracing this tangible science has also evaporated. People have less and less free time.” There’s also another aspect to this. Science is hard, chemistry is hard, and it’s always been hard. It’s not for sissies or people who don’t want to work hard. I think parents of the generation of kids in elementary school now came through their education at a time when the law and business were the careers to aspire to. They took, I suspect, very little science in school and it now is hard for them to encourage their kids or help them with their homework and so they discourage their tots from taking it up. I’ve written a lot about this subject in my editorials over the years, and I also give a speech on the subject called “From Sputnik to Gene Splicing: Attracting the Best and the Brightest to Science.” But in most of those editorials and in a lot of the speeches--except when I talk to high school kids--I’m preaching to the choir. As I am today. Let me say that I don’t think there is anything that the chemical profession could have done to change this situation or to have prevented it from happening. I think it is an evolutionary process. But I think it is time for the chemical profession to do something about this and reclaim chemistry achievements as its own. To fail to do so will mean that we will fail to attract the best and the brightest young students, and if we fail to attract young people to chemistry, then the discipline as we know it will surely become completely invisible. In the Nature article, Harvard University’s Stuart Schreiber noted a few other reasons why chemistry is so invisible. He points out the difficulty of explaining chemistry to non-experts. Often the biological aspects of a chemical discovery are easier to explain. In addition, both Schreiber and Whitesides note that the drive towards interdisciplinary research is coming from young researchers “keen to stretch their wings. Some senior academic chemists are less enthusiastic,” Schreiber says, “which is one reason why the discipline has failed to brand its contribution to emerging areas.” The solution, Nature said in its editorial, is that “more of the frontline chemists streaming across the discipline’s borders into attention-grabbing multidisciplinary research must make their voices heard. They should proclaim their roles to colleagues and try to ensure that chemical contributions are made known to the media.” Indeed they should. And if you doubt the power of a well thought out, sustained effort to influence public opinion, you should take a look at the success of the American Chemistry Council’s pilot “Good Chemistry Campaign.” In 2000, when the Chemical Manufacturers Association changed its name to ACC, it also adopted a slogan, “Good Chemistry Makes It Possible.” In February 2001, ACC launched a pilot campaign using this slogan in three locales (C&EN, May 14, page 13). The campaign had four goals: transform industry identity to one that is dynamic and innovative, achieve recognition for industry-wide initiatives such as Responsible Care, communicate the benefits of products made possible by chemistry, and earn the respect of key audiences. At the ACC general membership meeting in June, chemical executives were briefed on the pilot in Pittsburgh; Springfield, Mass.; and Iberville Parish, La. A key component of each location was advertising on billboards, on radio, and in newspapers. But equally important was the participation of chemical company employees in community events tailored to the specific locale. Studies conducted in February, before the $1.5 million campaign got underway, and in May, after the public had been exposed to ads, showed a definite positive shift in favorable perception of the chemical industry and the business of chemistry. For example, of members of the public over the age of 25 who were polled,14% were favorable toward the chemical industry at the beginning of February, but by late May 38% held a favorable opinion. ACC is now analyzing the pilot and hopes to expand the program on a national, sustainable scale. Dow Chemical CEO Michael Parker told ACC members at that meeting: “We are, as an industry, talented, capable people. But we need to marry our great analytical capabilities to our emotion, passion, belief, and commitment,” in connecting to the public and communicating the value of the chemical industry to society. The Nature editorial put it this way: “If more chemists established these connections themselves, and talked up the potential benefits, their contributions would not be so easily overlooked.” There is a profound and daunting challenge facing the chemical industry, chemistry as a discipline, and chemists and chemical engineers as a profession. Each of us must make a personal commitment to communicating the value of chemistry. I’m sure that each of the subsequent speakers in this symposium will have something to say about communicating the value of chemistry. But here is what I’m proposing: Each of us must make it a personal challenge to make chemistry tangible and accessible to everyone. And we must enlist our colleagues and our students in this effort. How? Write articles directed to children or for the general public for your local newspaper. Volunteer to answer questions for an “Ask the Chemist”column in a local paper. Volunteer to speak about chemistry to local civic groups, scouts, community associations, or local school PTA meeting. Whether you have children in school or not, volunteer to help out at a neighborhood school. If your university or company has a community outreach program, figure out a way to participate. A little help goes a long way. Assist teachers in finding resources that they can use to better integrate science into their whole curriculum--including reading, writing, math, and history. If you don’t know how to get started, contact the American Chemical Society’s Education Department and Membership Departments and let them help you. They have tons of information for doing just that. And then there is telling your story in other ways. When was the last time you went to the public relations officer at your company or university and asked him or her to write a news release about your latest achievement? Have you ever done this? Or did you give up because the person in the pr office didn’t understand what you were so excited about and you didn’t think it was worth your effort to explain it? I know some chemists who may overdo this--they are the super hypers of their work--you know them too and they shall remain nameless--but most of you don’t do it enough. When I visit universities, I talk with faculty members and invariably they ask me how we select stories in C&EN. It is a complex process, but in the end, we have to pick and choose each week from hundreds of articles. Needless to say, we can’t possibly read the abstracts of hundreds of articles--so we do rely to some extent on people bringing their best work to our attention. When I tell them that, the response is typically: “I don’t want to toot my own horn.” Folks, if you don’t toot it, who will? The biologists? I don’t think so! When an article like the one in Time appears in which there is no mention of the role of chemistry, write a letter to the editor. We at C&EN, of course, are not throwing in the towel. We will continue to report each week on the best chemistry that is done here in the U.S. and around the world. But we can’t do it alone. You have to be a part of the solution. So the answer to my question: “Are Chemists Too Shy for Their Own Good?” is a resounding YES. Nature said it this way: “Chemists should stop hiding their Bunsen burners under bushels.” Cute, but really out of date. Chemists involved in basic research and in industry have a great story to tell. Let’s eschew modesty and tell it! жмЯезкa b €†‘•отKO]aЛc('+-+€-‡-6”6…A‰A/C5CDDјѕјюхюхюмюйюхюхюхюхюхюЮЩТЩТЩТЩТЩТЩ 6B*ph B*ph0JB*OJQJphCJ$5B*CJ$ph6B*CJ$ph B*CJ$phmH  jUmH #AtЁмнƒ„WXчш_ a b ˜ ™ lmoшщ€ийТУ§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§b ˜ ™ lmoшщ€ийТУKL]^ƒ„кл23š›МOP O ц ’!“!##Ž%%%•'–'b(c(ѕ(і(М)Н)++p-q-Н.О. /Ё/Ў1Џ1(3)3I5J5ˆ6‰6K798:8Ž99ш9щ99:::;;;2<ќ<§<E?F?AAcAdAЮBЯBаBЉCЊCDўўќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќќ[УKL]^ƒ„кл23š›МOP O ц ’!“!##Ž%%%•'–'b(c(§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§c(ѕ(і(М)Н)++p-q-Н.О. /Ё/Ў1Џ1(3)3I5J5ˆ6‰6K798:8Ž99ш9щ99:::§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§::;;;2<ќ<§<E?F?AAcAdAЮBЯBаBЉCЊCD§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§)вд€€€€€€€€€...()()()..)() 0PАа/ Ар=!А "А # $ %АА А 8в$џџџџџџџџџ 1hАа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %А i(@ёџ( NormalCJmH <A@ђџЁ< Default Paragraph Font4ўOђџё4 EmailStyle15 CJOJQJb>Rџџџџ+Sџџџџџџ z™ џџ z™ џџ z™ џџ z™ џџ z™ џџ z™ џџ z™ џџ z™bM Уш•!)-Ј7>›ˆJ D#Уc(::D$&'(D%> •€ˆњ   € ‰ , 6 !+БПФЪъђ – є§EMH&R&4,=,4&4и8о8>tvоы +  : >@ц"є"2-?-i.l.‹=Ј=>333333333џџmsj95hC:\Documents and Settings\msj95\My Documents\jacobs\Speeches\Are Chemists Too Shy For Their Own Good.docchem;Macintosh HD:Desktop Folder:Are Chemists Too Shy For Their џ@€дU˜ ~w>@ @GTimes New Roman5€Symbol3 Arial"1ˆ№аhк’d†к’d†к’d†ќ73m!№  ДД0х>@2ƒQ№џџ( Are Chemists Too Shy For Their Own Goodmsj95chemўџ р…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0 ˜ др№ќ (4 P \ h t€ˆ˜')вAre Chemists Too Shy For Their Own GoodordAremsj95hesj9sj9Normalechemle2emMicrosoft Word 9.0h@@єюWэцС@єюWэцС@єюWэцСќ73ўџ еЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0 hp|„Œ” œЄЌД М ё'ACSmх>Я )вAre Chemists Too Shy For Their Own Good Title  !"#$%&'()ўџџџ+,-./01ўџџџ3456789ўџџџ;<=>?@Aўџџџ§џџџDўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РF€ЌaнЫцСF€1Tableџџџџџџџџџџџџ*WordDocumentџџџџџџџџMSSummaryInformation(џџџџ2DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ:CompObjџџџџXObjectPoolџџџџџџџџџџџџ€ЌaнЫцС€ЌaнЫцСџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџ РFMicrosoft Word DocumentўџџџNB6WWord.Document.8