President's Message

The chemical profession in transition

I find it useful to think of the American Chemical Society as a complex orga­nization with many diverse activities that are really mechanisms of pursuing four mutually supportive goals. To ad­vance one is to advance the other three. To diminish one is to diminish the other three in time. Consequently, there can be no significance in the order in which the goals are listed:

• To extend chemistry the science and chemistry the resource.

• To enhance the productivity and the professional well-being of individual chemists and chemical engineers.

• To promote the development and the viability of the institutions of par­ticular interest to chemists and chemi­cal engineers.

• To promote the contribution of the chemical profession to the public wel­fare.

I believe that ACS matters must be viewed against the background of the state of the chemical profession in general. This communication is focused upon the profession with the expecta­tion that later communications will be focused upon more specific ACS goals and activities. It is estimated that ap­proximately 50% of the chemists in the U.S. are members of ACS. The society is not the profession, but its members constitute a very influential part of the profession.

The chemical profession is in a pe­riod of rapid transition brought about by a combination of developments within the profession itself and by pressures generated by social, economic, and political change. It is essential that chemists seek to understand the dy­namics of this transition and appreciate the challenges and opportunities that are inherent in the changes taking place. ACS provides forums through which many of these related matters are explored.

The chemical profession has achieved unprecedented capabilities to study structure and the fundamental nature of chemical processes, to study a wide array of complex natural and synthetic systems, and to use that chemical knowledge in the control of chemical processes to achieve specific ends. These capabilities are the cul­mination of advances in empirical and

theoretical knowledge, of the devel­opment of an expanding array of pow­erful methodologies, of the advent of instruments of unprecedented sensi­tivity, precision, and speed, and of our growing capacity to capitalize on computer facilities in the assimilation and processing of vast quantities of information.

The chemical profession is justified in its pride in these evidences of crea­tivity and productivity. These achieve­ments are the base for future creativity and productivity. The achievements also make it possible to further explore the answer to a question that is of pri­mary interest to chemists and the gen­eral public. What is the impact of spe­cific chemicals, both naturally occurring and synthetic, upon human health and the environment? In these studies a number of areas of concern have been identified. In many cases, the problems are not new. The capacity of the sci­entific community to identify problems, to monitor systems, and to study the impact of various chemicals is vastly improved and in some cases entirely new. Herein arises a new reality that the chemical profession and the public must face together. Where old prac­tices are shown to be inadequate, new practices must be developed in keeping with our current understanding of the nature of the risks involved.

What is socially acceptable in one age may be entirely unacceptable in another. Current rhetoric reflects the concern for the quality of life and all the attributes associated with that concept. These include a concern for the pro­tection of health and safety, the pro­tection of the environment, and the conservation of natural resources. These are not new concerns but the diligence with which they have been translated into action is. I suspect future historians may relate the heightened concern for the protection of the envi­ronment and the conservation of natural resources to those magnificent photo­graphs of our planet receding into the distance as spacecrafts moved away from the earth. These photographs with all their beauty starkly revealed the fi­nite nature of our planet and at the same time conveyed a sense of a deli­cately sculptured land surface wrapped

in an ever changing atmospheric sys­tem.

Coupled with changing social atti­tudes has been a growing recognition of the economic reality and the social reality that the costs of goods and ser­vices to society go beyond the costs of production and distribution. They in­clude the dollar costs and the environ­mental impacts inherent in the disposal of production wastes and the final dis­posal of products. They also may in­clude the dollar costs and the personal tragedies of impaired health, reduced earning capacity, and reduced life span of individuals who may or may not have been involved in the production or the use of the particular good or service.

A symptom of the expanded knowl­edge base and the changes in public attitudes has been the number of reg­ulatory acts that have been enacted at both the state and federal levels. In all cases, the goals of the legislation have been to protect human health and the environment. I have no quarrel with the

2 C&EN Jan. 2, 1978

goals of these regulatory laws; I doubt that many chemists do. I am, however, critical of the details of some acts and extremely apprehensive as to the manner in which these acts have been or may be implemented.

Is there a conflict between scientists and society that underlies the pressure from the public to regulate the use of chemicals? I doubt that the conflict, if indeed there is a conflict, is a significant factor. The driving force is a concern for the protection of human health and the environment. Scientists are scien­tists only in the manner in which we choose to be professionally involved. In all other respects, we are a part of the public. We breathe the same air, we eat the same food, we share the same concerns for health and the environ­ment, and we share the same concerns for posterity.

There is a very real conflict, an in­escapable conflict, that we should un­derstand. This is a conflict within soci­ety; it involves everyone. The individual expects to have the benefits of goods and services; the individual expects to be protected from the negative impacts of goods and services and from the negative impacts associated with their production. All technological innova­tions, regardless of how great their positive impact on society, also have a negative impact on society. This is characteristic of all change. Scientists escalate the conflict by accelerating the rate of change through the development of new options, the development of new goods and services.

Chemists and chemical engineers have contributed to the public welfare in many and varied ways in satisfying basic needs and supporting diverse human activities: food, shelter, clothing, medical services, national defense, transportation, communication, and recreation. The contributions of the chemical profession are powerful fac­tors in enhancing the quality of life— even to reducing the dependency of society on human labor and thus freeing the individual to engage in activities of personal choice. These contributions of the chemical profession have been and are significant forces in the evolu­tion of our social, economic, and polit­ical systems. The value placed by the public on chemistry the resource and chemistry the science is clearly dem­onstrated by the purchase of goods and services and the allocation of tax dol­lars to support research. It is important that we are fully aware of the very se­cure symbiotic relation with the public so that we can work together with

confidence in directing our energies to the pursuit of the common goal of pro­moting the public welfare. The chemi­cal profession itself is not under attack. The ideal is to develop new options that continuously move toward providing maximum benefits and minimum risks.

The concept of benefit/risk analy­sis—risk/benefit analysis if you are a pessimist—is essential to decision making. In principle at least, scientists or economists can evaluate a benefit/ risk ratio as long as the ratio is dimen-sionless (lives/lives or dollars/dollars). The evaluation of a ratio involving units such as dollars/lives becomes a value judgment that lies in neither the realm of economics nor the realm of the nat­ural sciences. In a democratic society, such value judgments only can be made by the public or by elected officials who are their surrogate.

In the space remaining, I shall turn briefly to the implications for the chemical profession and ACS of our expanded capabilities and the changing social, economic, and political climate. The goals of ACS remain the same. The feasibilities of the various pathways to achieving them have changed, are changing. The magnitude and the di­rection of investment in both research and development are being re-evalu­ated. Employment opportunities are changing. The viability of an increasing number of institutions, particularly small institutions, is being threatened. The rate of technological innovation is di­minishing.

I have given considerable thought to the contribution that I can make during my years as an ACS officer. My deci­sion is to focus on three very closely related fronts. These are:

• To develop ACS capability to in­teract constructively with regulatory agencies.

• To mobilize ACS prestige behind the development of programs in high schools and in colleges and universities of meaningful programs in chemistry for the general student—the students who will become the voter, the legislator, the lawyer, the administrator, the manager, etc.

• To expand our self-image of the roles that are appropriate and honora­ble activities for professional chem­ists.

During 1977, I gave top priority to heading up the ACS effort to interact constructively with the Environmental Protection Agency in the implementa­tion of the Toxic Substances Control Act. This has been a learning process

and I now have no doubt that ACS can play a uniquely constructive role in the implementation of TSCA and other regulatory acts. My first priority in 1978 remains in this area. The manner in which regulatory practices develop will be a very powerful factor in determining the welfare of the public—and the fu­ture of the chemical profession. Early in 1978, the Committee on Chemistry & Public Affairs will bring together representatives of the relevant ACS units in a two- or three-day conference to explore the coordination of the total ACS effort in the areas of health, safety, and environmental impact.

We have done very well in teaching students who become professional scientists but we have not even gone to bat in supporting meaningful education for the great majority of students in our education system. This situation is not going to change unless professional chemists recognize the value of edu­cation in chemistry for the student who is not professionally driven to achieve technical competence and work to change the reward systems that cur­rently give almost all the Brownie points to those who produce the students "who go on." The future depends upon the degree the general public and our elected officials understand the nature of the benefits and the risks involved. Early in 1978, I shall bring together a group to explore the role of ACS in promoting meaningful education ap­proach to a fundamental problem. The regulatory matters are in part a symp­tom of the same problem.

Current events undoubtedly will lead to cutbacks in some activities and the expansion or initiation of others. The impact on the professional well-being of chemists will depend almost entirely upon our concept of the activities ap­propriate to a professional chemist. If the concept is restrictive, the impact will be destructive to many individuals, and the leadership of the chemical profession will be diminished. If the concept is expansive, individuals will be encouraged to reach out and to capi­talize on new opportunities; the lead­ership of the profession will expand with the new opportunities.

My personal opinion is that the chemical profession is a more exciting profession than it has ever been. The problems are troublesome, but the challenges and the opportunities are there. We would not want it any other way. In meeting the problems we en­hance the chemical profession, we serve the public welfare.

Anna J. Harrison

Jan. 2, 1978C&EN 3