Jun
30
30
The Editor's Blog
The Art Of Science
Posted by Rachel Pepling on June 30, 2008 in The Editor's Blog
Rudy sings high praises for Bill Green’s “Water, Ice & Stone: Science and Memory on the Antarctic Lakes” in his editorial this week.
High Potency
Jun
16
16
Posted by Rachel Pepling on June 16, 2008 in Ripped From the Pages, The Editor's Blog
Nothing terribly controversial in this week’s editorial. Rudy highlights Senior Correspondent Ann Thayer’s cover package on the manufacturing of highly potent compounds for pharmaceuticals and on conjugates of potent drugs and biological molecules. Rudy also highlights “C&ENtral Science,” though if you’re reading this post, you’re already aware of our humble blog. So feel free to focus on the highly potent compounds part.
Defending Science
Jun
9
9
Posted by Rachel Pepling on June 9, 2008 in The Editor's Blog
From the June 9 editorial:
“An ACS member recently wrote me to complain about the lead News of the Week story on CO2 and climate change in C&EN’s April 7 issue (page 9). In his letter, the member wrote that regulating CO2 “would change the national economy and decrease our standard of living” and, as such, “it is critical to know whether or not increased CO2 emissions would be a significant danger to the public.”
I chose not to publish the letter for reasons that will become clear in the remainder of this editorial. My correspondent does not think that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere contribute to climate change. To support that position, he cited a paper by Arthur B. Robinson and coworkers at the Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine (OISM) published in the Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons (2007, 12, 79).
Huh? The Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons (JAPS)? What has a journal with that name got to do with climate change? With all due apologies to my correspondent, the answer is: nothing.”
Read the rest of Rudy’s editorial.
A New Kind Of God
Jun
2
2
Posted by Rachel Pepling on June 2, 2008 in The Editor's Blog
Last week, Rudy opined about the environment. This week, Managing Editor Ivan Amato tackles religion:
Ever since I had even a rudimentary grasp of the biggest story of all—you know, the one that begins with a Big Bang out of which fundamental particles congealed and then coalesced into galaxies, planets, and a living kingdom that includes people capable of wondering where the whole shebang came from—I have revered the universe for its inherent creative power.
This is why a brilliant field of stars, a dragonfly executing aeronautical acrobatics, and an insight into how a protein’s structure elicits its biological function all can evoke in me a sense of awe. One of the greatest gifts the scientific enterprise offers, I have come to believe, is an ever-growing basis for revering the universe and experiencing awe.
Which is why I find Stuart A. Kauffman’s new book, “Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion” (Basic Books), so provocative, courageous, and potentially important.
Few are those scientists who passionately acknowledge the awe and even religious sensibility that contemplation on the evidence-based portrait of the universe can catalyze. And almost as rare as a Higgs boson sighting is an accomplished scientist who argues that the “relentless creativity of the universe” should be spoken of as God and that this new conception of God should supplant the thousands-year embrace by billions of human beings of a transcendent creator God.
Read the rest of Ivan’s editorial.
Bush And The Environment
May
27
27
Posted by Rachel Pepling on May 27, 2008 in Ripped From the Pages, The Editor's Blog
From this week’s editorial:
What’s with the Bush Administration and environmental regulation? What is it about President George W. Bush and his closest advisers that has led to an almost complete rejection of the 30-plus-year consensus in the U.S. that legislative and regulatory means are required to ensure a healthy environment for us and for future generations?
I’m not talking here about efforts to prevent global climate change. We now know that President Bush’s 2000 campaign promise to regulate greenhouse gases was as bogus as his claim to be a “uniter, not a divider.”
No, I’m talking about the more mundane, but still vitally important, control of mercury from coal-fired power plants, ozone in urban environments, air quality in national parks, and reporting toxic releases from industrial plants, to name just a few examples. In every one of these cases, and in many others, the Bush Administration has worked for seven years to undermine coherent regulation on these issues and the agencies, especially the Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for that regulation.
Read on, then share your thoughts here.
Life And Death
May
19
19
Posted by Rachel Pepling on May 19, 2008 in Ripped From the Pages, The Editor's Blog
There’s lots of discussion fodder in this week’s editorial. Rudy highlights several articles from this and last week’s issues:
- Jean-Francois Tremblay’s cover story, “Sourcing From China“
- A trio of heparin contamination stories in the May 12th issue
- William Schulz’s story on lethal injections (subscription required)
Mega Culpa
May
12
12
Posted by Rachel Pepling on May 12, 2008 in The Editor's Blog
From this week’s editorial from Rudy:
I often emphasize to C&EN’s staff that journalism is a profession that keeps you humble. When you are working at a breakneck pace and juggling several tasks at once, it is all too easy to make an embarrassing mistake. Or two.
Read on, dear readers. Read on.
One Hundred Years Ago …
May
5
5
Posted by Lisa Jarvis on May 5, 2008 in The Editor's Blog
This week, Rudy’s editorial digs into the causes of a major transition that occurred at ACS in 1908. It turns out, the ACS Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Division, the Organic, Physical, and Agricultural & Food Chemistry Divisions, and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers are all celebrating their 100th anniversaries this year. Rudy decided to investigate what exactly happened a century ago. He writes:
“So what was special about 1908? It turns out that there was a lot of ferment in the chemistry enterprise in the first decade of the 20th century, and it was reflected in the activities and structure of ACS. What I find interesting are the parallels between then and now.”
Tension between ACS members who were industrial chemists and those working in academe and government labs, worry that new journals would dilute the content of JACS, and a debate over the merits of creating more-specialized subdivisions within the organization topped members’ concerns. Sound familiar? Do these issues remain at the forefront 100 years later? Sound off in the comments!
Impressions Of China
Apr
28
28
Posted by Rachel Pepling on April 28, 2008 in The Editor's Blog
From Deputy Editor-In-Chief Maureen Rouhi’s editorial this week:
On my first visit to China two weeks ago, fascinating contrasts greeted my arrival. Traveling to the center of Shanghai from Pudong International Airport on a maglev train that reached a peak speed of 430 km per hour, I zoomed past a rural landscape of vegetable fields and simple houses along narrow streets traversed by people on foot or bicycle. Within the premises of the modern headquarters of a pharmaceutical chemical producer, I watched women tending a lawn by hand, removing the stray broadleaf weeds that were marring the uniformity of the tall, straight grass.
A bad experience, however, marked my departure. Air China canceled flight 933 to Beijing. The botched handling of the situation turned what should have been only an inconvenience into mob-behavior-inducing chaos, causing many passengers to resolve never again to fly with Air China. Reputation can be so easily damaged.
Read the rest of the editorial
Debate Science … Please
Apr
22
22
Posted by Rachel Pepling on April 22, 2008 in The Editor's Blog
Rudy makes an excellent point in this week’s editorial–none of the three primary presidential candidates has really addressed the science and technology issues facing the U.S. and the world. A second invitation to Science Debate 2008 for next month has been extended to the candidates. Should this invitation prove more successful than the first (consider urging your candidate of choice to participate), what are the issues you would like to see them tackle? Or feel free to debate the Debate itself–do you think it will force the candidates to really consider science and technology, or do you foresee an event of noncommittal rhetoric?
Recent Comments