EDITORIAL

Why a Big Society? Is size an advantage in a scientific

and educational society such as the ACS?

In American society today there is constant boil­ing of public opinion over bigness. Big Busi­

ness, Big Government, and now Big Science are debated and—usually—decried.

The American Chemical Society is big by the scale on which its type of organization is meas­ured. Should its further growth be encouraged? Certainly not, if bigness for the sake of bigness alone is the criterion. But certainly so in terms of the resources of intellect and energy that can be organized in support of its objectives, most simply summarized as "the advancement of chemistry in all its branches."

Reading the annual report of the ACS (page 55) affords some insight, into the variety and extent of the informational and educational ac­tivities of this huge society designed to be useful to its members, and to others. The report shows that the ACS has the spirit and the strength to experiment and to build in many directions.

It is recognized that the occasional true genius makes contributions that influence society to an extent greater even than the work of perhaps all his contemporary colleagues. Much of genuine innovation can be said to arise from a relatively small group of scientists and technologists; their leads are then put into the hands of larger groups of competent people who work the technological changes and advancements on which our econ­omy and some of our social changes turn.

The geniuses and the small groups of highly innovative individuals certainly could exist and proceed with their work in very limited circles. Were we to revert to such a system, very large bodies of technically trained people would lose

access to the wellsprings of today's rapidly ad­vancing scientific knowledge. Without continu­ous and invigorating contact with the acknowl­edged leaders, these large groups would dwindle toward the vanishing point. There would be no need of them. If the advancement of chemistry in all its branches is to move most effectively, then, i t is most important that paths and instru­ments of communication, not only of specific knowledge but also of spirit, be effective.

Chemists in this country form by far the largest body of scientists trained to a single discipline. Projections of trends in education for scientific careers indicate that this will con­tinue to be true. Furthermore, projections of demand for chemists and chemical engineers indicate that industry outside what we now class as chemical and allied products industries may need even greater numbers of chemists in the next 10 years than will the chemical and allied products industries. Therefore, in the interest not only of aiding and supporting the rapid ad­vancement of the pure science of chemistry, but also of assisting in its application through tech­nology, there is much to be achieved through the most effective relationship of the frontiers of science with the general body of chemists and chemical engineers in the daily practice of their professions.

MAR. 15, 196 5 C & E N 7