Reactions

Litigation overload

The July 25 issue of C&EN has two examples of why the U.S. is falling behind not only in research, but also in the application of research results. Lawsuits against DuPont for Teflon-coated cookware are nothing but a blatant attempt by legal crooks to extort money under the guise of protecting the public (page 13); another article reports that lawyers for a teenager can now sue paint suppliers for supposed damage from lead paint applied in 1900 and 1905 (page 16). I know of discoveries that have never been used because someone might sue, and this is now considered normal behavior. I guess the only way to avoid lawyers is to never change anything, and then they'll sue because you didn't use new information. They are a plague. Shakespeare had the right idea.

Werner Zimmt
Tuscon, Ariz.

Interdisciplinary tack on teaching

I am concerned with the sensibility of Wayne Moorehead's suggestion in his letter "Forensics False Start" (C&EN, July 25, page 5). He says, "Criminalistics (forensic science), an applied science, should be taught by current or past practitioners ... regardless of the degree."

As a chemist with a terminal degree in analytical chemistry, I have taught forensic science for four years at two separate institutions. I do not presently process casework, nor have I ever worked in a crime laboratory. Initially, I questioned my legitimacy as a forensic science educator. I did not find myself openly welcomed into many forensic science circles (I could not obtain full membership in regional organizations.) Now, however, I more fully appreciate the interdisciplinary nature of forensic science and my role as a forensic science educator.

How many health occupation educators are also practitioners? How many business professors are CEOs? How many chemistry professors work in petroleum plants? Yet all of these educators prepare students for such professions. Why should forensic science be any different? Could it be that forensic science has been raised to the status of royalty, justifying special treatment? Could it be that the recent forensic science hype has created an insatiable desire for everyone to obtain a piece of the forensic pie? Do we know how to share the pie?

The truth is that the pie is quite large and has been prepared through an interdisciplinary effort. Forensic science would not exist without its practitioners (crime-scene investigators, criminalists, attorneys, law enforcement personnel, profilers, and more). It would not exist without research scientists pushing the envelope of science. It would not exist without engineers, in association with scientists, designing new analytical instruments. It would not exist without nurses, doctors, dentists, computer scientists, shoe manufacturers, accountants, media specialists, and so on, all graciously contributing their expertise to the field of forensic science. Forensic science would not exist without well-qualified professors/instructors educating prospective forensic scientists in their respective disciplines. And this is the very reason why terminal degrees are required (and should be appreciated). Universities (and their respective departments) cannot maintain national accreditation otherwise.

It must be understood that forensic science is not a discipline, but rather an applied field borrowing from many disciplines. As a science educator, I accept my role of preparing prospective forensic scientists to be scientists. And I remind you that in many languages, the noun comes first and the adjective second.

David C. Collins
Pueblo, Colo.

ACS-approved degrees are their own reward

Terrence Lee's recent letter suggesting that ACS's CPT-approved bachelor's degree has outlived its usefulness is way off base (C&EN, July 25, page 5). Because of my research and professional interests, I am a member of ACS; however, until several years ago, I was a physics professor at a midsized liberal arts college that offered both approved and nonapproved degrees in chemistry. While students do quite well with the nonapproved degrees on average, there is a significant difference in quantitative skill between these two groups.

The approved program requires four semesters of math, four of physics (at the same level as engineers and physics majors), and a year of physical chemistry. By comparison, the nonapproved program requires two semesters of calculus at a lower level, two semesters of algebra-based physics, and one semester of physical chemistry (at a lower level).

For those companies and positions that require quantitative reasoning, there is no comparison between these two groups. If such reasoning skills are of no use to employers, I would be surprised. My guess is that the approved degree is highly valued by those employers who can read résumés, look beyond grade-point averages, and think when they hire. What should ACS do for approved degree holders anyway? The degree is to a certain extent its own reward, and only by longitudinal studies will its value to members be established.

The degree gives our chemistry department a significant advantage in internal funding. When new equipment, or a professor, or some other funding has been needed, the ACS-approved degree was always a reason, and the administration bought it nearly every time (at least from my vantage point in physics).

According to the Council of Undergraduate Education, a large number of scientists come from smaller and midsized liberal arts colleges that do not have doctoral programs. The approved degree, even if shunned by some (or far too many) students, helps these schools achieve top-flight chemistry programs and hence remain a significant part of the pipeline of scientists.

Michael Fisch
Lakewood, Ohio

Problem-solving prowess

After reading in-depth coverage and praise in the New York Times on the $437 million in grants the Gates Foundation was awarding to 43 scientists, I could hardly wait to see what C&EN had to add to this from a chemist's point of view (July 4, page 9). Disappointingly little as it turned out; it was barely a page.

The foundation listed 14 goals that it wants scientists to pursue. As summarized by the NYT, they included the following: vaccines that need no refrigeration and that can be administered without needles, vaccines that create immunity with one dose and that are safe for newborns, new ways to kill or cripple mosquitoes, more nutritious staple crops, better animal models for human diseases, blood tests that can be done in villages without electricity, and new ways to attack diseases such as tuberculosis and hepatitis while they are dormant. Truly forward-looking and inspiring, this challenge has been compared with John F. Kennedy's inspirational statement that led to the moon landings. Did the condition that the results can be patented but have to be made available to developing countries at low cost or free spark the disinterest?

In any case, as a chemist, I am humbled to see that such a powerful foundation believes that science holds solutions to the world's persistent inequities. However, I would like to expand on that and assert that we already have solutions. We know how to provide clean water and energy. Most childhood diseases cost pennies to prevent, and many children still do not get vaccines even though they are available. We know how to prevent the death of many people from AIDS in Africa alone. The most needed HIV/AIDS drugs have been released from patent protection. Why are they not produced in sufficient quantities and at affordable prices?

On Sept. 17, I will travel to Kenya, Uganda, and Cameroon to survey possible production sites, conduct needs assessments, and secure agreements to build manufacturing plants to produce off-patent generic HIV/AIDS drugs strictly for local use. I challenge each C&EN reader to get involved (more information can be found online at chem.qc.edu/~aidsfree). It may take a village to raise a child, but it will take the world to save the world.

Rolande R. Hodel
Ossining, N.Y.

Safe and sound

In the discussion of Archer RC, however, we disagree with the depiction of 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol monoisobutyrate (TMB), which has been the industry-standard, top-performing coalescent for decades. The article incorrectly implies that TMB is unsafe. In particular, use of the caption "Safety Switch" in the molecular diagram of TMB is misleading.

TMB has a long history of safe use. Exposures are minimized by its low volatility, and data from toxicology studies indicate it to be of low acute and chronic toxicity by all routes of exposure. TMB is neither on EPA's Hazardous Air Pollutants list nor on the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act Toxics Release Inventory.

Equally important, TMB is not considered a volatile organic compound (VOC) in many parts of the world. The European Union's recent Decopaint Directive and the Australian Paint Approval Scheme conclude that TMB is not a VOC because it has a boiling point greater than 250 °C. While the article discusses U.S.-based awards, for accuracy and clarity's sake, we believe that it should have noted the difference in status among different geographic regions.

Murray Deal
General Manager, Coatings
Eastman Chemical
Kingsport, Tenn.

Less taxing policy

In your editorial "Get Serious About Energy," you imply that we are responsible for our wasteful energy use (C&EN, Aug. 1, page 5). Indeed we are. Tacit government and industry policies result in relatively low costs for petroleum-based resources, which, in turn, encourage wasteful consumption. A tax on carbon-based energy resources might help cool off our petroleum use, but protests of unfairness (especially to lower income families) have discouraged adoption of such a measure.

Perhaps a tax on petroleum products might be more palatable if it were phased in gradually. An extra 5 or 10 cents per gal per year would hardly be noticed, yet over a long enough time (say 10 to 20 years), the increasing tax could result in a significant incentive for saving energy. A time frame of 10 or 20 years would give automakers plenty of opportunity to design and market more fuel-efficient models and would give the public a chance to adapt to the higher fuel costs.

Robert Cassidy
Warwick, N.Y.

Hiding behind names

So the American Chemistry Council wants to "turn the tide of public opinion about the chemical industry" (C&EN, June 27, page 18)? They might start by firing their own spin doctors and reverting to their former honest and straightforward name, the Chemical Manufacturers Association. Not only are they not a "council," but the new name projects to the public a pseudoacademic aura, and I am surprised that there has not been more of an uproar in ACS regarding the similarity of name.

I am also a 40-year emeritus member of the Association of German Chemists; in that country, the industry group is known frankly and simply as the Union of the Chemical Industry.

A little more transparency would help our image immensely, and it should start at home.

John T. Burridge
East Providence, R.I.