The American Chemical Society begins the year 1998 in excellent condition. We enter the year with nearly 156,000 members, the largest scientific society the world has ever known. We are growing by more than 2,000 members a year at a time when many scholarly societies are losing members. Our finances are being superbly handled. Our reserves are at a new high, and our balance sheet is on solid ground.

Yet, as I assume the presidency, I am concerned with our society's future. The" rules of the game" by which the American Chemical Society came to its success have changed. The World Wide Web and the Internet have altered our concept of information transfer to an extent not seen since Gutenberg. The merging of primary and secondary publications will surely affect Chemical Abstracts Service in ways not yet clearly understood. Our science itself no longer neatly fits the old categories: inorganic, organic, physical, analytical, and biochemistry. The young chemist of today feels far less responsibility to his or her professional society than was the case 40 years ago. Globalization threatens to change the chemical industry, the science of chemistry, and the life of the individual chemist forever. And all of these issues find themselves overlain by a resurgent antiscience, a chemophobia emerging not just from the uneducated but also from the universities and the intellectuals among us.

Chemophobia
In April 1996, Allen Bard wrote in a guest editorial in Chemical & Engineering News of "The Antiscience Cancer." I believe the metaphor is apt. Chemophobia, like cancer, can manifest itself in many different ways. New Age obscurantism, superstition, the exaltation of feeling over fact-all these lead to a rejection of scientific rationality. More serious yet is the rejection of scientific modernism by the academic advocates of postmodernism. This philosophical school holds that science is culturally based and is therefore no more objective than any other branch of knowledge.

That is not true. While no one can question that the problems scientists undertake to solve and the techniques they employ are at least partially determined by culture, the end results of science are not. Observables remain the same regardless of the race, religion, age, or gender of the observer. At sea level, water does boil at 100 °C in Singapore, San Francisco, and Seoul. While models designed to explain phenomena may be culturally based, repeated observation and experimentation lead inexorably to a convergence of these models. The same quantum mechanical picture of a covalent bond is taught today in Cambodia, Canada, and the Cameroons.

Unlike the humanities and social sciences, science begins with the premise that truth exists and that it is knowable. The scientist devotes his or her life to bringing us closer to that truth. While we may only asymptotically approach it, we, as scientists, know it is there. Quantum mechanics, with appropriate relativistic corrections, does seem to explain experimental observations. Verifiable exceptions to the Laws of Thermodynamics have yet to be demonstrated.

This belief in an absolute truth discoverable by observation and experimentation is what makes science unique. It does not make science better or worse than other forms of knowledge, just different. Consider theology. Here, truth exists but faith is the test. In the humanities, truth is not absolute, is not unchanging, and is culturally determined. What is the meaning of a painting or symphony? Here the test of "truth" is authority. The most distinguished scholars set the standard.

Academic criticism of science is appropriate and healthy. Certainly historians can argue the relative benefits of Fritz Haber's work in developing artificial fertilizers and the evil of that same work prolonging World War I. The problem arises when the core belief of science is rejected, for by rejecting the existence of objective truth, one grants permission to disregard that truth and make scientific fact a matter of a majority vote, or the opinion of the most persuasive orator. In essence, it opens the door for the many variants of chemophobia not only among intellectuals but among the average citizenry.

What do the average man and woman think when they hear the word "chemical"? Regretfully, it is often equated with narcotics, or even worse, with poison. I visited a supermarket a few days ago to do our week's shopping and encountered miraculous products-chemical-free produce. Where, then, are those wondrous chemicals that make our food nutritious-the vitamins, carbohydrates, amino acids, minerals, proteins, and lipids? Where are the esters that give delightful and distinctive fragrance to many fruits?

Of course, I understand that what was really meant was no herbicides, no pesticides, and no artificial fertilizer. Yet one might well ask, Is a carrot grown in animal waste, a stew of Escherichia coli and other microorganisms, healthier than one grown with manufactured ammonia derivatives? Is it good stewardship of the environment to let weeds compete with food crops for water and nutrients? Is it really desirable to share our food with insects and rodents? Apparently, a significant fraction of the public thinks so. When "60 Minutes" and actress Meryl Streep made presentations against the growth retardant Alar, the opinion of the international scientific community was ineffective. Supermarkets banned apples that had been treated with Alar, senators threatened congressional action, and its maker, Uniroyal, withdrew the product from the market. Yet the only evidence for problems with the compound was toxic effects when mice were fed extraordinarily large doses. Even salt and sugar would show similar effects at such dosages.

Skepticism of science and scientists extends beyond agrochemicals to pharmaceuticals, and to our colleagues in bio- and nuclear technologies. Ban artificial bovine growth hormone (BGH), even though the identical compound is already present naturally in milk and has been safely ingested by humans for millennia and scientific experts are clearly not convinced of BGH's ill health effects. This product has been deemed safe by several national health organizations, including the Food & Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Agriculture, the American Dietetic Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Indeed, a panel of scientists, veterinarians, and a dairy farmer appointed by NIH reviewed the published studies and listened to all sides. They did not see this as a cause for concern since the amount of BGH that is in milk is less than what is typical in adults' saliva. One may well question the economic sense of the product but not its safety.

We, as scientists, need to stand up for the positive things chemistry has done while honestly and openly accepting the negatives. As I wrote in my statement when I ran for the presidency, "I am proud to be a chemist." Chemistry has done more to reduce the death rate and improve the quality of life than has any other profession. In the 70 years between 1920 and 1990, life expectancy in the U.S. increased 50%, much of that increase due to the discoveries of chemists like you, and to products of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Chlorine disinfection of water has virtually eliminated cholera and dysentery in Western countries, yet 2.5 million children still die annually in countries that do not chlorinate. Insecticides control and eliminate debilitating tropical diseases. Fungicides and artificial fertilizers allow farmers to feed an Earth that long since would have starved, condemned to a Malthusian catastrophe. Polymers clothe and house us. Catalysts make usable the energy that transports and warms us. Refrigerants free us from daily shopping, minimize food spoilage, and facilitate productive settlement in warm climates. Contraceptives have changed forever women's lives. Medicinal chemicals improve the quality of life for the infirm and often make the difference between life and death.

Benefits and risks
Benefits, however, are not without risk. Science is not perfect. Skepticism and criticism are often justified. But to a great measure, science is afflicted by a common human trait: accepting the bad while ignoring the good. As Shakespeare has aptly written, when he has Anthony say of Caesar, "The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones." Consider, for example, DDT, whose insecticidal properties were discovered in 1939. The use of DDT increased enormously after World War II, because it was effective against the Anopheles mosquito that spreads malaria and the Pediculus humanus lice that carry typhus. The World Health Organization estimates that, during the period of DDT's use, approximately 25 million lives were saved by essentially eliminating endemic malaria and giving productive lives to many in developing nations. Today, however, DDT is remembered instead for a "silent spring." Chlorofluorocarbons, which were developed as inert compounds to remove toxic sulfur dioxide and ammonia from refrigerators, are damned now as the cause of an ozone hole. Polychlorinated biphenyls, which replaced flammable fluids in air-conditioning units, have been damned as carcinogens.

Has science had its failures? Of course it has. Yet I would proudly compare our success rate to that of economists, lawyers, and legislators. For every thalidomide, there are literally thousands of nylons, polyurethanes, urea fertilizers, and methyldopas clothing us, housing us, feeding us, and curing us. There never was a silent spring, but there was environmental damage due to insecticides. The earlier chlorofluorocarbons may, in fact, have damaged the ozone layer. Thalidomide did cause horrendous deformities. Yet it would be a very foolish person who would claim humankind is worse off today with chemicals of the 20th century than it was in 1900 without them. Despite this, chemists, chemistry, and the chemical industry evoke negative reactions in many people.

The antichemistry, antiscience, and anti-intellectualism that pervade our modern society directly affect our profession and its practitioners. While articles on astrology and UFOs in supermarket tabloids probably do little harm, the negative treatment of science and scientists on television, in the press, in the universities, and in the movies does serious damage. And when government regulations and jury decisions totally ignore scientific evidence, leading to billion-dollar losses to the chemical industry and even to bankruptcy, it should be no surprise that research funding by government and industry goes down, new compounds that could improve our lives are not discovered, jobs are lost, and chemistry becomes a less desirable major for the best and brightest. Antiscience sentiment directly affects industrial, academic, and government scientists, and it negatively affects our science and our society.

The antiscience cancer of which Allen Bard wrote truly threatens to metastasize and overwhelm us all. How can ACS work to resolve this problem? Surely, National Chemistry Week has made a difference in the public's attitude toward science, and the International Chemistry Celebration (IChC) scheduled for 1999 will do more. The efforts of our Education Division, with its high school and college curricula and its many programs for elementary school children, along with "Kids and Chemistry" should, over the long haul, improve public perceptions. There is no long haul, however, for the unemployed industrial chemist, the academic researcher whose grants are drying up, the government scientist whose division is being defunded, and the chemistry major who reluctantly decides that medicine promises a better future. Help is needed now.

ACS has taken firm action here. Ronald Breslow, our 1996 president, called for a stronger effort at effective public relations. This past year, influenced by his efforts, we have totally restructured our public relations and government relations efforts. For the first time, we have a director of communications whose training and background is in public relations. She is firmly committed to support and coordinate our efforts at "selling our science" to often skeptical consumers. Our new director of government relations comes from many successful years working for congressional leaders on the Hill. His contacts and organizational abilities are already bearing fruit. But even the best run national program can go only so far without the active, and I repeat, active, support of our 156,000 members. Unless you challenge those who would misrepresent chemistry in the media, and unless you make the effort to visit and write to your congressional representatives, the efforts of the society will be to no avail.

Globalization
Globalization is a concept that leaves few people neutral. To some, it implies a loss of jobs and a decline in the living standards of Americans. To others, it is our only hope as the world moves toward the 21st century. Neither of these polar positions accurately reflects my position. To me, globalization is simply here; it is inevitable, and we have no choice but to make the best of it.

Let us consider just the society. Did you know that over half the income received by ACS comes from outside the U.S.? Did you know that half of all papers published in ACS journals comes from outside our borders? Did you know that a tenth of our total membership is from other countries? Did you know that many of our employed members work for companies that are headquartered outside the U.S.? Think about what your society would be without those dollars, members, papers, and jobs. The days when your membership dues alone could support society programs are long gone. These programs, which mean so much to you and our other members, are supported by income from publications, from Chemical Abstracts Service, and from investments of previous surpluses derived from these sources. And more than half of that money comes from abroad.

In August, I attended a meeting in Geneva where several dozen chemical society presidents from throughout the world met to discuss common problems. I was not surprised to learn that the problems we confront in America are virtually identical in kind, if not always in scale, to those problems confronting our colleagues overseas. In Finland, Britain, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, and Taiwan there is concern that the global marketplace is causing job displacement. Environmental, animal rights, and safety legislation, without any real scientific basis, is being proposed and enacted, and will profoundly affect chemists. Science education at the elementary and secondary level is correctly perceived as inadequate at best and, more often, as just plain awful. Even undergraduate and doctoral education needs major repairs. And the public worldwide is ill informed about chemistry.

While misery loves company, the fact that our problems are shared by others throughout the world should give us little comfort. Rather we must join with our sister organizations in the U.S. and with our newfound colleagues internationally to attack these issues.

At the Geneva meeting, I discussed these issues with Joshua Jortner, president of the International Union of Pure & Applied Chemistry, and Heinemann Professor of Physical Chemistry at Tel Aviv University. He has called a meeting of chemical society leaders from throughout the world to address these issues. In a few weeks, therefore, Jortner; Larry Weiler, the president of the Canadian Society for Chemistry; and I will be meeting with the presidents of the African, Latin American, Asian, and European Chemical Federations at IUPAC headquarters in North Carolina to set an agenda for global cooperation to attack what are becoming increasingly global problems.

As I traveled abroad last year as president-elect, I was surprised and delighted to see the respect in which ACS is held. Many of the officers of Asian and European societies came to me to express their pride in being members of ACS. It is a fact that the leaders of our profession worldwide look to ACS for direction. If ACS is to live up to its charter, and if it is to continue to serve chemistry and chemists in the U.S., the society must accept this leadership and work more closely than ever with our colleagues abroad, for whether we like it or not, the American Chemical Society is irrevocably international.

I'll never forget the spring 1985 national meeting. It took place in Miami Beach. Norman LeBel and I were the speakers at the Divisional Officers' Dinner, known more commonly as the DOG dinner. We spoke about the successful 1984 Pacific Basin Congress. After our presentation, one divisional leader complained that while Pacifichem was nice, Norm and I should be spending our time on American chemistry. The absurdity of the concept still rings in my ears. American chemistry? Shall we restrict ourselves to those very few elements discovered by Americans? Are Grignard reagents and the Diels-Alder reaction off limits? Are quantum mechanics and the Bohr atom out of bounds; are we excluded from using atomic absorption spectroscopy? I sincerely hope that now, 12 years later, such xenophobia is but a fading memory.

The employment of U.S. chemists no longer depends only on what happens in New York, Wilmington, or Washington, but also on political and economic decisions made in Basel, Brussels, Leverkusen, Tokyo, and Singapore. How strong would our science be, and how effective the programs of ACS, were we to establish boundaries that excluded "foreign chemistry"? Cut half the programs we currently support and you will get a sense of where your society and where you as chemists and members would be without international involvement.

Chemistry is international; the chemical industry is rapidly becoming so, but chemists are lagging behind, fearing the unknown and what it might mean to them in their universities and industrial labs. Yet, one can no more stop globalization than one can return Russia to communism. The "dust bin of history" is filled with anachronistic beliefs and Luddites of all stripes. The world moves on. The time has come for ACS to work with our members and colleagues to facilitate this transition into the world of the 21st century. One can liken the process to the birth of a baby. The nationalistic womb is comfortable, but the world outside is much more exciting. The birth process is painful, but we can ease the pain and smooth the process.

What are some of the issues we should jointly tackle? First, legislative and governmental issues. It is no longer true that we need only look to Washington, D.C., to understand the regulatory environment in which we operate. Trade policy, patent laws, copyrights, environmental legislation, and animal rights laws passed in Brussels or in Washington have broad extraterritorial effects. The effects of trade blocs, such as Mercosur, the Andean Group, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the European Union, and political groupings such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations will be great. A few years ago, when I chaired the ACS Board of Directors, the society was threatened with a lawsuit by a European company that claimed that one of our policies violated European law. After consulting with our European solicitor, it became obvious that the company was right. Fortunately, we were able to resolve the issue with no lawsuit and with no loss to the society, but the fact remains that we were woefully ignorant of European law and yet we were and are subject to it.

Second, we can cooperate in developing the public's understanding of science. National Chemistry Week began as an idea of former ACS President George Pimentel. Over the decade, it has spread to several countries and has proven effective. We now are looking to 1999 and IChC, a celebration of world chemistry. But one-time events are likely to fade rapidly from memory while the need for understanding continues indefinitely. Consider the legal cases in which science says one thing but a jury says another. Consider the failure of food irradiation to gain acceptance despite 40 years of testing and hundreds if not thousands of deaths due to bacterial infections that could have been prevented with irradiation. Consider Switzerland, of all countries, where more than 111,000 citizens called for a referendum on whether to ban biotechnology research. The vote is imminent.

Third, we need cooperation in chemical education. ACS already has developed and marketed curricula for the nonscientist at both the high school and college levels, and it is developing a curriculum for chemistry majors based on biochemistry. We have developed standards for a chemistry major. Yet we, like the Europeans I met at the Presidents' Conference, remain dissatisfied, particularly with science education. The results of the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress Tests were discouraging. Even more discouraging, according to the New York Times, "Education officials hailed [the results] as progress toward meeting national goals in science." Only 25% of our students were rated "proficient," and only 3% "advanced." In California, our most populous state, over half the students had less than a basic knowledge of science.

Yet as chemistry becomes more global, American students must compete with students from Germany, Japan, Taiwan, and Hungary. While dissatisfaction with science education may be global, the U.S. at the precollege level seems to be worse off than most. Scientific success in the 21st century will come to those who are most prepared regardless of their nationality. Are we preparing our students for the world they will face?

Conclusion
During this year, the ACS Board and you--our members--will need to respond to the challenges this society confronts thanks to globalization and chemophobia. We must be certain that our income-producing activities remain healthy and that our programs continue to serve the needs of our members and the profession. During 1998, I will contribute several "Comments" to Chemical & Engineering News in which I will describe in more detail my concerns for the many facets of our society.

Forty-three years ago, when I joined ACS, there was a membership slogan, "It's your society." In 1998, that slogan is more apropos than ever before. The problems confronting us as chemists and our profession, chemistry, are larger than ever. You may well ask, "What is the society doing for me?" But if you look in a mirror you will see that you are the society. Only through increased volunteer efforts of our members can we achieve the goals we all strive for.