Letters

I was delighted to see a photograph of Friedrich August Kekulé, one of the architects of the structural theory of organic chemistry, in Science Archive (September 7, 1987, P. 28). You describe the dream that led to the ring structure for benzene, a structure he first proposed in 1865. He divulged the origin of that idea 25 years later at a celebration hosted by the chemical industry that gained immeasurably from that one proposal. The benzene dream was the second he described, the first being a reverie he had while riding a double-decker bus in London, which led to the proposal of the remarkable chain-forming capacity of carbon atoms. Considering the controversy currently going on about whether these dreams actually occurred, and in view of the fact that a centennial symposium on the 1890 benzene festivities will be held in April 1990 at the Boston meeting of the American Chemical Society, it might be good to set the record straight. We have his own words. He did not fall asleep in his laboratory “During my stay in Ghent, I resided in elegant bachelor quarters in the main thoroughfare. My study, however, faced a narrow side-alley and no daylight penetrated it. For the chemist who spends his day in the laboratory this mattered little. I was sitting writing at my textbook but the work did not progress; my thoughts were here. I turned my chair to the fire and dozed...” (F.R. Japp translation in Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 35, 1958, p. 21). Interestingly enough, Mendeleyev also is said to have come to his great unifying idea, the periodic table of the elements, while trying to write a textbook that would make more sense to students. —Theodor Benfey Guilford College 5800 W Friendly Ave. Greensboro, NC 27410 Austrians, Anyone? In “A Very Silly Experiment Bears Fruit” (November 16, 1987, p. 12), Simon Roman asks the reader to think of a well-known Austrian scientist, and then he can name only three as he disparages Austria as a source of science and scientists. He seems to have overlooked Wolfgang Pauli, Richard Kuhn, Max Perutz, Victor Hess, Ludwig Boltzmann, Ernst Mach and Lise Meitner, among many others. Contrary to Roman’s thesis of a dearth of scientists from Austria (for what he considers “cultural reasons”), Austria has produced many scientists and mathematicians of the highest caliber, no small number from Vienna, the heart of the culture he so disparages. If one considers all of Austria-Hungary—the Empire, as it were—then the number swells to a level that is truly astonishing. Perhaps Roman should spend some time in one of the those libraries or offices where he thinks so little is done, and read a bit about the history of science, particularly in Austria. —Henry Heatherly Dept. of Mathematics University of Southwestern Louisiana P.O. Box 41010 Lafayette, LA 70504-1010 Wrong Photo At least with this reader, THE SCIENTIST has lost some credibility with its page 1 photo in the October 5,1987 issue. The photograph is at least six years old (more likely eight years old) and was taken long before the issues reported on in the story arose. Furthermore, Johnson and Miller are not preparing sequencing gels in the photo. Rather, they are preparing the second dimension of two-dimensional gels for the separation of proteins. I also suspect, but do not know for certain, that John Baxter hasn’t worn that tie in the last five years. —Robert Ivarie Dept. of Genetics University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 Editor’s note: The photograph of John Baxter’s lab was taken in 1980 and supplied to us by the University of California-San Francisco with no indication that it was not a recent photograph. In addition, the process Ivaric describes is correct. Here is a recent photo of Baxter with, presumably, a recent tie. Soviet Science The review of my book The Communist Party and Soviet Science by Zhores A. Medvedev (July 27, 1987, p. 20) seems to be negative. But since his negative reaction is based on the belief—all too common among reviewers—that I have not written the book he thinks I should have written, there is little I can say. I certainly agree that the book is one “written by a professional Sovietologist for professional Sovietologists” and that it assumes some knowledge of the history of the present structure and state of Soviet science. The book does, after all, appear in an academic series published by an academic institution. Perhaps the title does not adequately reflect the academic nature of the work, but it most certainly does describe precisely what the book is about—the relationship between the Communist Party, through its ideology and in more detail its apparatus, and Soviet science and scientists. It is not a book, either comprehensive or introductory, about “Soviet science itself” (numbers of research scientists, financial allocations, and so forth), and if it were I would have called it something different. In general, I agree with the interpretation of the recent past, present and future that Medvedev presents in the second half of his review. —Stephen Fortescue School of Political Science University of New South Wales P.O. Box 1 Kensington, NSW Australia 2033 Bring Joy to Math Congratulations on a timely, clear “call to arms” for our nation’s math teachers and curriculum developers in Eugene Garfield’s “Let’s Revitalize Math Education” (November 2, 1987, p. 9). Having taught mathematics and science in high schools, universities and medical schools in England and the United States, I find that a vital aspect of successful student training appears to be “How do we instill the right attitude toward problem-solving?” Too frequently, I have been confronted with one of the following student types: the student who is mortally afraid of getting involved with the question, or the student whose attitude is “cut out the thought process. Just tell me how to get an A in this class.” Both are exceedingly joyless situations. How do these types evolve? I suggest that the disjointed 40-minute travail of exercise-solving without a more expansive view of math as a whole trivializes our teaching and precludes the association of skills we have segmented due to our compulsive drilling of tiny fragments of mathematics. One way to address the current malaise in math and science is to bring hack joy and wonder to study. How? First, do not withhold information. When a student is curious enough to ask a searching question, answer it. Second, relate your subject to the vibrant experience of the real world. In my high school department, we accomplish this by rolling up our collective sleeves and working on long-term projects as well as the more conventional classroom experiences. We carry out projects in science using two electron microscopes donated to us by a local medical college. We perform metallurgical research for local businesses. Students, teachers and parents all get involved in this process. This approach removes study from the realm of a drill exercise and fosters a business-like, matter-of-fact approach to problem-solving. The first premise is “the problem has a solution.” The second is “I’ll play with it until it strikes me.” Math and science talents can only be fostered in an environment that is visionary enough to allow looking for answers in creative ways and where, through example, joy replaces duty. —H.S. MacDonald Brookfield Academy 3400 N. Brookfield Rd. Brookfield, WI 53005 Ending Human Life I believe humankind cannot be reminded too often of the Holocaust—we forget too easily. So I was pleased to see Tomás Radil’s article “The Long Shadow of the Nazi Doctors” (September 21, 1987, p. 12). Without wishing to make any unjustifiable analogies, I would be interested in learning the opinion of Radii and other readers on the present-day participation of doctors and researchers in the termination, rather than the prolongation of human life—namely, abortion and euthanasia. —Frank J. Loprest 838 Winthrop Drive Yardley, PA 19067

Letters

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of