Reactions

Forever trademarked

Rick Mullin's article on the recent wave of rebranding was informative, but omitted one critical element that drives the branding effort (C&EN, June 6, page 15). Unlike patents and copyrights (which have a fixed life span) and trade secrets (which can be rediscovered independently), a trademark can last forever. As long as the mark is used correctly (as a proper adjective followed by a noun, and never as a noun or a verb), the U.S. federal trademark registration can be renewed at 10-year intervals ad infinitum. For example, the oldest U.S. trademark registration, for Bayer-brand pain relievers, was granted on June 6, 1922, and remains in force.

With luck (and a lot of marketing dollars), the new marks will "click" with relevant consumers. The risk, of course, is much like the risk of a new romance: The opposite of love isn't hate; it's indifference. If there's one thing marketers can't stomach, it's consumer indifference.

Joseph T. Leone
Madison, Wis.

Mentoring in high school

I am a high school junior and a faithful reader of my father's collection of C&EN. I read "Intel Foundation Young Scientist Award" with great interest, since I myself was a Grand Award Winner at the Intel International Science & Engineering Fair (C&EN, May 30, page 70).

I congratulate wholeheartedly the top three young scientists for their outstanding achievements. However, the story about Stephen Schulz (a high school senior from Germany with a chemistry project) in your report could be misleading. The article reads: "Schulz has been experimenting with chemistry since first grade and has built a small laboratory in his backyard. He also develops electronics, which gave him the idea to try using printed circuits for his lab on a chip."

I do not dispute the accuracy of the story, but the majority of the 1,444 finalists who attended the Intel International Science & Engineering Fair in Phoenix use laboratories in the buildings of private industries and universities. More important, the generosity of these institutions and the guidance from mentors in the labs are crucial for nurturing the students' interests and their success in science.

There are currently more than 60 students in my school participating in the science research program, but none of them is working on a chemistry project because of the lack of mentors in this field. I strongly encourage more scientists in the chemistry community to be involved in high school science research programs. I am aware that the American Chemical Society is a sponsor of Intel ISEF, but the best way to promote chemistry is to work directly with students in the schools and to have every member of the society involved.

Jason C. Zhang
Yorktown Heights, N.Y.

Fuel for the fire

Incidents such as those described in "Fighting Lab Fires" highlight the critical role of safety in chemical operations (C&EN, May 23, page 34). The article reminds us that chemistry students need a strong education in chemical safety and a positive attitude about safety. Our chemists need to be able to combine their critical thinking skills with firm chemical safety knowledge so they can recognize hazards, assess the risk of those hazards, and manage the risks in their operations. In general, the chemical enterprise is concerned about safety and provides strong emphasis in their operations.

But in the C&EN article, James A. Kaufman states that academics are often unwilling to follow rigorous safety protocols because "it's just not part of the culture." His comment that he learned more about safety in one day at Dow than he had learned in 25 years at school is a particularly striking, but not an unusual, observation. Although we have made progress in improving safety, and some academic institutions have made dramatic attempts in strengthening their safety efforts, we are not where we need to be.

Those of us who employ new chemists hear new employees comment that they are amazed at the emphasis on safety in our chemical enterprises--a reflection that safety does not receive adequate emphasis in many academic programs. The ACS Committee on Professional Training's (CPT) guidelines call for safety to be an integral and important part of the chemistry curriculum in the classroom and laboratory, but many academic chemistry departments have not incorporated this guidance and offer little safety education to their students. When academic faculty members are queried about this need, there is agreement that safety is important. But when suggestions are made that students need to receive more education in chemical safety, the faculty invariably responds that there is no further room in the curriculum for this topic--there are too many other important topics that must be covered. Although there are a number of reasons for this lack of concern for safety education, in general it seems that many academic institutions do not hold safety in the same regard as private or governmental chemical enterprise.

We have all heard concerns about the public's chemophobia. Perhaps collectively as chemists, we should realize that it is our joint responsibility to improve the image of chemistry in the public's eye. A good step in that direction begins with improved safety education of our chemistry students, our future chemists. The members of the ACS Division of Chemical Health & Safety (CHAS) are interested in strengthening the safety education of undergraduates.

As one attempt to address this critical gap in the chemical education process, CHAS has offered symposia titled "Teaching Safety." CHAS is now seeking advice or comments on how the academic "culture" might be more accepting of the importance of a strong education in chemical safety. We also invite anyone with an interest in this problem to attend our Teaching Safety symposium at each ACS national meeting and help showcase those academic programs that offer strong chemical education programs. CPT is now accepting input for the revision of its guidelines, and this may be an opportunity to better address the safety education of undergraduates. In short, we believe that "safety is everyone's job."

Russell Phifer, chair, ACS Division of Chemical Health & Safety
West Grove, Pa.

I read with interest the article on the Ohio State University fire. I was glad to see that the graduate students reacted quickly and that no one was seriously injured. While the article did an excellent job of pointing out fire safety issues, one less obvious point was not addressed: off-site backup of lab data.

While we all hope a major catastrophe like the OSU fire won't happen to us, at least part of the psychological shock of the loss of laboratory space can be relieved by knowing that most of your data are still available off-site.

In my graduate school days, I was just as guilty as most folks probably are of not keeping an off-site backup. I had a lab notebook with duplicate pages for carbon copies but kept the copies in the same lab.

Leonard C. Keifer
Gaithersburg, Md.

It is ironic that one issue of C&EN contains both an article about a fire at Ohio State University and an article about China, where one of the difficulties is a lack of safety precautions in some labs (May 23, page 11). Safety precautions in U.S. academic labs are atrocious, as shown by the number of accidents reported.

After about 30 years in industry, I went to North Dakota State University as professor and chairman of the polymers and coatings department. At that time, our labs were in the same building with the chemistry department. It took about one day for me to realize that the building was a bomb waiting to explode. There were no safety rules or inspections. When I suggested that we set up a joint safety inspection group with the chemistry faculty, I was told that it would be a waste of time and that there was no problem. It was before the days of 9/11, and there was no direct way to contact the fire department. Needless to say, we set up safety inspections.

At OSU, it was reported that there were 40 or more liters of hexane in the lab. I have no idea how much hexane they used in a day, but I would be amazed if it approached 40 L. The excess hexane should have been stored in a fireproof, sprinkler-equipped room, along with what I would suppose were a lot of other highly flammable materials in the various labs in the building. This wasn't even mentioned in the discussion of the postfire investigation.

Zeno W. Wicks Jr.
Louisville, Ky.

Memories of a mentor

I was delighted to read that Paul S. Anderson has been named the 2006 Priestley Medalist (C&EN, June 13, page 5). As one of many who started a career in drug discovery under his tutelage, I'd like to share some of Anderson's accomplishments that I believe are not as well-known to the public as his scientific work and leadership in the broader chemistry communities.

To many colleagues, Anderson has been one of the most accomplished managers in the field. His efforts in recruiting the brightest young scientists to his organization have no parallel. He taught us that innovation is vital to our success. He is a master of providing people with an environment that allows their imagination and dedication to lead to breakthrough discoveries. He puts the process and organization in place, then gets out of the way to allow the most innovative people to take over. He encouraged us to be proud of big ideas and take ownership of them. Anderson is remarkable in terms of training and understanding his people and what's important to them.

Hong Liu
San Diego

Degree snobbery?

I am a member of ACS and have an associate's degree in chemistry technology. I regularly read C&EN and visit the chemistry.org website, and I have noticed that in most articles and polls dealing with levels of education, my degree level is omitted or relegated to "undergraduate student" or "less than bachelor's degree" (the latter being truly insulting). In some extreme cases, I would have been forced to check the "high school and some college" box, but I refuse to even participate in those polls.

I have worked in the industry for 15 years and currently occupy a leadership position in my laboratory, but the feedback I get from this society lends the impression that I don't really count. Chemical technicians are an integral part of almost every laboratory in every field. Most of us have had as much, and in some cases more, chemistry-related education as B.S.-level scientists. The only real difference is that we do not have the "breadth" courses that round out a four-year degree. I can't imagine this makes us less able to comprehend the issues and information generated by ACS.

In the future, I think you would do well to include this often overlooked section of the chemical industry in your field of vision. I would like to think that the good people writing these articles and conducting these polls have not fallen victim to an affliction that unfortunately pervades our industry, namely that of being "degree snobs." We may not have completed an art appreciation course, but chances are when you need someone to actually perform a particularly difficult laboratory procedure, you won't let that stop you from asking for our help.

Ernest Lee Rector III
Newark, Del.