398 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vor,. XXVIII. No. 717 



conditions prevail or prevail to a large 

 extent. Think for a moment of the iron 

 industry and other metallurgical branches, 

 of the glass and particularly the pottery 

 industry, and of other lines, and it is not 

 difficult to see that the chemist has already 

 much work laid out for him. The tradi- 

 tional empirical knowledge of chemical 

 manufacture has always proved a rich 

 field for the chemical investigator and it is 

 as broad and rich and fruitful to-day as 

 ever. 



It is the chemist's prominent connection 

 with the industrial life which characterizes 

 our civilization, which gives him the pre- 

 eminence which he enjoys in our own 

 times. Along with the engineer he is the 

 creator for good or bad of whatever origin- 

 ality there is in our modern life. Contrast 

 his position in the community with that of 

 other scientific men, the zoologist, the geol- 

 ogist, the botanist, and you are impressed 

 with his somewhat closer connection with 

 modern afl'airs and tendencies than theirs. 



As I have stated there is no more impor- 

 tant member of the community to-day than 

 the chemist, and I think there is none who 

 feels his importance less. Up to a certain 

 point modesty is a pleasing attribute and 

 desirable, but modesty which through inac- 

 tion fails to obtain its just reward in posi- 

 tion and emolument is scarcely so com- 

 mendable. 



We have heard the broader education of 

 the chemist and the chemical engineer 

 treated of with the fulness and the insight 

 which the subject deserves, by members of 

 the profession who spoke with authority. 

 I want to speak for the broader life of the 

 chemist. The broader life in the sense of 

 his coming more in contact with men and 

 affairs and tendencies of the times, of 

 coming to play the important part he 

 should play in the modern world. If I can 

 indicate some of the points of contact, some 



of the opportunities in America, I shall be 

 satisfied. And first I desire to consider the 

 work of the analyst. The analyst is a 

 chemist who, by various devices called 

 methods of analysis, endeavors to ascertain 

 the composition of substances. The chem- 

 ical work of all manufacturing plants is 

 mainly analytical and the analyst has come 

 to be a great and important factor in the 

 industrial world. 



When one analyst meets another, he 

 usually asks him the question "What 

 method do you use?" and the reply is 

 "I have a method of my own." 



I trust that in my remarks I shall not in 

 any way discourage originality among an- 

 alysts, but I want to direct your attention 

 to some of the consequences of individual- 

 ism in matters of chemical analysis and 

 suggest a remedy for them. 



It will occcur to anybody at once that if 

 a person has a chemical method which is 

 worth applying, he ought convince others 

 of its excellence. Much adverse criticism 

 has been aimed at chemists and chemistry 

 through their failure to deliver agreeing 

 analytical results. A part of the trouble 

 is due to incompetent analysts and a part 

 to unsatisfactory methods and methods 

 which are not uniform. The incompetent 

 man is apparently a necessary evil in every 

 line of work and is difficult to eliminate. 

 Possibly an institute of chemists with strict 

 qualifications would help in this matter. 

 But there is no good reason why we should 

 not have well-tried and uniform methods 

 of analysis. 



The reactions on which analytical meth- 

 ods are based are for the most part old and 

 well known. The working out of a method 

 is usually done by a chemist of inventive 

 ability, who is able by various means to 

 make a reaction complete and definite 

 enough so that it will yield quantitative 

 results. We may grant that such work 



