The author replies to Morton and Sacks.

When the earth was formed there was much interaction between Lewis acids and bases to form rocks. Living organisms used DNA long before there were humans who could suspect its existence. That was chemistry and did not depend on laboratories and does not require us to duplicate the reactions in student laboratories. The principles and facts involved are not subject to revision. It is our obligation to pass our understanding of them to our students. That understanding is subject to revision, as Dr. Sacks irrelevantly points out.

The training of a nurse involves sufficient use of a syringe that he or she appreciates what one mL is, even if he or she did not acquire that perception in high school. There may perhaps be examples where chemistry lab experience improves the work of a non-chemist but even if they exist, this is not one of them.

Interpreting experimental results shown on a computer screen does not require consideration of whether the experiments were competently executed. This is an advantage over a lab course. Critical thinking skills and application of concepts to new situations are exercised by either computer-simulated or hands-on approaches. Computers can simulate many more situations than a student can execute, including experiments that students could not be trusted to carry out safely. Simulation could lead to writing a cogent lab report on the experiments shown and the conclusions drawn from them as Sacks suggests. Whether the teaching of chemistry to people who will never practice it should include interpretation of chemical experiments lies with the philosophy of the teacher. As does the question whether the objectives of such an exercise are met by the simple experiments that can be executed by beginning students.

A chemistry major needs to learn manipulative laboratory skills. It would perhaps be useful to explore just what manipulative skills he or she needs to learn, how we teach them, and whether they could be taught better or more easily. But we need to consider carefully how much of a non-major’s time we expend learning those skills. This is especially important when so many departments require their students to take the chemistry major’s course only because it is perceived to be a “better” course.

See also a third letter.