I recently received this attached to an email sent to me via a list: "Research is to teaching as sin is to confession--if you don't participate in one you don't have anything to say at the other." I have seen this sentiment expressed often lately, and I fear it denigrates a large number of excellent undergraduate teachers who are not active researchers.

Some of the hallmarks of good chemistry teachers are a love of their subject and a thorough awareness of their field and of science in general. Doing research may enhance such attributes, but they are also obtainable by reading current literature, going to scientific meetings, and other effective methods.

Yes, doing research does add to a teacher's effectiveness, and undergraduate research mentors are important in many bachelor degree programs. But I have seen many excellent teachers, non-researchers, who conduct exciting classes--who are knowledgeable about the forefront of their field and use this information to interest and motivate their students. These teachers can be found in four-year and two-year colleges and in the high schools.

Doing research is great; I try to do as much as I can--but where is the proof that it is necessary for good teaching?