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
More on Trump and science
January 2, 2017
| A version of this story appeared in
Volume 95, Issue 1
I’ve read Ms. Rita Hessley’s letter on page 5 in the Dec. 12/19, 2016, issue advocating “a strong and unrelenting pushback” to the “powerful members of science-focused congressional funding committees and putative presidential advisers [who] are unabashedly facts-denying, science-denying, evidence-denying, and of inquiry-free mindlessness.” I also read that she does “not mean angry outbursts of vacuous rhetoric.”
I am so confused.
Charles K. Thomas
Prescott, Ariz.
Corrections:
Nov. 21, 2016, page 13:In the business news story titled “Roche launches cancer network,” the market research firm Decision Resources says checkpoint inhibitors are expected to account for 95% of the cancer immunotherapy market, not the cancer therapy market, by 2025.
Dec. 12/19, 2016, page 8:In the science news story about fluorinated azides, the reaction scheme depicts one starting reagent as C8H17Si(CH3)3; the molecule should have been fluorinated, C8F17Si(CH3)3.
Dec. 12/19, 2016, page 26:The Year in Review article on liquid metal research incorrectly described work from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, on stretchable devices embedded in gloves to detect strain. The devices were actually printed on polymeric skin patches.
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 X