Better Living Through Organic Chemistry

This ink was compounded with the assistance of organic chemistry. The paper on which it is printed is another expression of that science. So, too, are the trees whence that paper came and the receptors in your eyes by which you see. Lift up your eyes. Except for glass (inorganic chemistry), it is unlikely that you can see anything that is uninfluenced by organic chemistry. Even the metal and concrete you see probably have been painted and waterproofed. Chemistry, especially the organic variety, is of immense economic and biological importance, so much so that chemistry may well be justified in describing itself as the central science. You might well expect that this importance, this wider relevance, would be apparent in the textbooks from which the subject is taught. You would be wrong. One organic chemistry text "Advanced Organic Chemistry," Third Edition by I. March, dominates the university scene on both sides of the Atlantic. You can read this book from page 1 through page 1,300 without finding a hint that its subject is of economic importance. The only clue that organic chemistry is relevant to biology is found in the preface, it contains a note to the effect that the author will not discuss biology. Nowhere in the book do you find mention of ink or paper, nor even of cellulose. By the same token, you are not likely to find glass, steel or concrete mentioned in current inorganic chemistry texts. Why? We live in the age of fundamental science and are unconcerned with applications or wider relevance of our studies. Chemistry, we’re told, is about reactions, structures and mechanisms. This was not always so. Thirty years ago, as today, one text dominated the universities: the third edition of Fieser and Fieser’s Organic Chemistry. One need read only the first half page to discover that its subject is one of economic importance and biological significance. Needless to say, the book covers cellulose, dyestuffs and oils, if not inks and paints per se. Similarly, the inorganic texts of the day do not neglect steel, glass or concrete. A generation ago, books started with an account, including diagrams of equipment, of the techniques on which their contents were based. Today you may find graphs, but not equipment. So just what do today’s chemistry texts contain? Invariably you will find quantum and wave mechanics in pride of place. These topics are quite useless to the paper maker, although they might just manage to predict distillation behavior for the whiskey distiller. However, he would find it more reliable, quicker and cheaper just to try the experiment. But how to measure a boiling point? Today’s texts won’t tell you. Organic chemistry is no longer concerned with anything perceptible to the senses, with anything that can be seen, smelled or tasted. Nor is it concerned with anything directly measurable, without extensive computation between measurements and datum. In these texts, you will find more dipole moments than boiling or melting points. Still, we doubtless are making vast strides in basic understanding by concentrating on fundamentals. After all, many of the organic chemistry professors of the 1940s and ‘50s became quite seriously rich from their inventions and discoveries. They are not likely to have done that while engaged in fundamental science (known then as "pure science"); they must have neglected their duties and wasted their time doing applied re- search. Some, indeed, were so corrupted that they even spent periods working in industry. We now have many more researchers, with better funding, and few have ever left the one true home of science, the university. So programs must advance apace. Despite which, the 1940s and ‘50s saw more substantial advance in organic chemistry than we have had since. We have slow progress and many new techniques (although not so many improved ones) but we do not seem to have had a fundamental insight for 23 years—since the discovery of frontier orbitals and the pericyclic reaction. Yet our numerous academics are all devoting themselves to fundamental research. Except when they appear on television to complain of poor salaries. It is not surprising that their salaries are less than that of the president of a major industrial corporation, for they have ceased to justify themselves. They no longer do much of direct economic benefit to themselves or anyone else. They fail to demonstrate the relevance and importance of their subject to their students. A subject that no longer shows its students that it is important is unlikely to demonstrate that fact to its paymasters, the politicians. The relationship between fundamental science and applied science is not simple, but neither is it certain that fundamental science comes first. Consider two legends of organic chemistry: Kekulé's dream allegories of the cyclic structure of benzene and Perkin’s discovery of the first synthetic dye, mauveine. Kekulé had the basic insight that permitted understanding of mauveine, but mauveine had been on the market for three years before Kekuléé dozed in his armchair. Even today, much fundamental research is aimed at understanding what has been going on for 50 years in the reactors of the petro-chemical industry. A science that assumes that the answer to the chicken-and-egg problem must be more fundamental science is in danger of losing both funds and students to more obviously relevant, applied and interesting fields. On both sides of the Atlantic we are now alarmed by the imminent prospect of too few chemistry students. We have had too few good ones for years. Chemistry claims to be the central science. But how close is science these days to chemistry? Simon Roman” is a chemist working (not surprisingly) in industry. His address is 2 Upper Roemary Hill, Kenilworth CV8 2PA,UK

Better Living Through Organic Chemistry

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of