Jan. 5, page 4: Contributions to the ACS Scholars Program over the past 20 years were understated. The total as of December 2014 was $8.5 million, rather than $3.5 million.
I enjoyed reading “C&EN Talks with Shaughnessy Naughton” and learning about her political action committee activities aimed at getting scientists elected to public office (C&EN, Oct. 27, 2014, page 24). It’s about time we start taking political issues and activities seriously in this country—we’ve been misled and sold out by various wannabes who simply don’t know what they’re talking about for far too long.
But this raises some questions regarding what ACS is doing (or not doing) at the division level: Wouldn’t it make sense to form a Division on Science in the Public Interest or perhaps roll that idea into one of the already existing divisions that have that interest? Would it make sense for ACS to issue a view on global climate change/warming as a check on what the self-appointed official organizations are doing? Since science is not a vote but a process for learning, would it be appropriate for ACS to weigh in on how “science” is used to make public policy?
Editor’s note: ACS does, in fact, have a public policy statement on climate change; see http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/promote/globalclimate change.html.