Reactions

Abstract

ACS NEWS Reactions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InRedditEmail C&EN, 2023, 101 (10), p 3March 27, 2023Cite this:C&EN 101, 10, 3Letters to the editorAll about C&ENI have noticed how C&EN has been changing in recent years: for example, fewer science articles and less reader response. The Feb. 13, 2023, issue had no letters to the editor, no chemical reactions, and only one structure (ceramide, page 8). The role of C&EN has never been to “follow the literature,” but it used to regularly highlight outstanding, cutting-edge, novel, or especially interesting chemistry. Not anymore, and I miss it!Howard DeutschAtlantaCongratulations on the forthright explanation of the difficulties with C&EN (Feb. 20/27, 2023, page 2). I have been a reader for almost 70 years and have noticed a troubling trend in recent years that seems to correlate with the changes you have discussed.I’ll state up front that I cannot wait each week to receive C&EN. I find it extremely instructive on worldwide technology, engineering, and business developments in the science I have enjoyed so much.However, in recent years I have been perplexed by the tone and at times context of many issues. This has left me with the feeling that your coverage has been more of a declaration of social trends than technology developments and the people who do them.Please bring us back to balanced coverage of scientific and engineering news important to our industry.Alexander MacLachlanWilmington, DelawareThank you for providing us some information on what happened to the magazine. I have enjoyed C&EN for many years, and it is one of the best news/technical magazines anywhere.I am sad that the fine personnel left but hope you can keep it going.Also, I read the letter from Gordon W. Gribble (Feb. 20/27, 2023, page 3). I wish I could listen to his lectures—what a great method to learn organic chemistry.I hope he writes a textbook.William R. TaskerFort Mill, South CarolinaRe: Turning carbon dioxide into a valuable resourceIn the late 1960s, Monsanto commercialized a breakthrough technology to make acetic acid. The process reacted methanol with carbon monoxide to make high-purity acetic acid in high yield. The first production plant was built at the Monsanto site in Texas City, Texas. The plant generated synthesis gas (carbon monoxide and hydrogen) from methane and steam and made methanol using well-known technology. Then the methanol was reacted with more CO to make acetic acid using the new technology. But the reactions are unbalanced: CH4 + H2O yields CO + 3H2. What one needs is 2CO + 2H2 to make acetic acid. I don’t know how it happened, but some clever person(s) learned that a nearby refinery generated a high-purity stream of carbon dioxide that was just wasted. A short pipeline was built, and that CO2 became the CO (H2 + CO2 = CO + H2O) that balanced the reaction.Louis E. DuPree Jr.Magnolia, TexasIs chemistry magic?It’s great to see American Chemical Society sections doing outreach for National Chemistry Week (C&EN, Feb. 20/27, 2023, page 32). It would be even better if we didn’t do chemistry “magic” shows. Demonstrations are great—keep doing these—but don’t call them magic. We should not be giving kids the idea, even if it’s just “good fun,” that chemistry is magic. It’s not. We are scientists, not wizards or magicians. Let’s do better. Words matter.Bob GotwalsDurham, North Carolina CorrectionsMarch 6, 2023, page 32: The preliminary program for the American Chemical Society Spring 2023 meeting incorrectly implies that the photograph of race cars is from an Indianapolis 500 race. It is from a NASCAR race. Also, the theme of the meeting is “Crossroads of Chemistry,” not “Crossroad of Chemistry.”March 13, 2023, page 15: The feature story about biomanufacturing in the US misstates the university working with Cargill to develop a publicly funded production site. It is Iowa State University, not the University of Iowa.March 13, 2023, page 37: The obituary of Frank H. Clarke has incorrect credits for the obituary remembrance and photo. They are both by Moses K. Kaloustian, not Bernadette Taylor. Also, the degrees earned have the wrong concentration. The BS and MS were in chemistry, not medicinal research.