Advertisement
Grab your lab coat. Let's get started
Welcome!
Welcome!
Create an account below to get 6 C&EN articles per month, receive newsletters and more - all free.
It seems this is your first time logging in online. Please enter the following information to continue.
As an ACS member you automatically get access to this site. All we need is few more details to create your reading experience.
Not you? Sign in with a different account.
Not you? Sign in with a different account.
ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
Policy
Facts first, please
January 16, 2006
| A version of this story appeared in
Volume 84, Issue 3
I have been retired now for 10 years, but I have been doing some consulting for a variety of companies. The technical information that I get from C&EN is important to me because it helps me keep up on the general events that are happening in our society, in the chemical industry, in research developments, and in government regulations.
The priorities in two recent issues of C&EN have given me pause.
In the Oct. 31, 2005, issue, page 21, there is a report called "Activists oppose DOE plan for plutonium." I do think that this is news, but I would rather read about what the Department of Energy is actually doing so that I can make a judgment about the validity of the "activists."
As a chemist with long experience, I want to have the facts and make my own decision about whether the opposition reported here is valid. Reporting that there is opposition to some act is not, in and of itself, news.
Also in the Oct. 31 issue, page 22, there is a very good article on the planned changes for the right-to-know law. The comments from environmental groups are given in the fifth paragraph, before any mention of a company representative in the seventh paragraph.
In the Nov. 7, 2005, issue, page 9, the talk by President Bush announcing his strategy for avoiding a flu pandemic is reported. In the fifth paragraph is a reference to a comment by an advocacy group. Their comment adds nothing to the importance of the President's speech.
I just ask myself why the comments by the environmental groups are given space before the comments by scientists or business representatives. As a scientist, why should I care more for such groups than about what scientists or businesspeople think?
From my perspective, I want you to provide me with the following:
◾ What the facts are.
◾ What scientists think about the situation. These can be scientists in business.
◾ What others with an interest think about the situation. This should be present, but not a prime position, and certainly not the only point of the article.
Leonard O. Moore
Menominee, Mich.
Advertisement
You might also like...
The power is now in your (nitrile gloved) hands
Sign up for a free account to get more articles. Or choose the ACS option that’s right for you.
Already have an ACS ID? Log in
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on Twitter