Out of curiosity, as I read through this issue I made note of how many of the articles refer to the interconnectedness of chemistry. There are a lot of references--to literature and poetry, physics, chemical sciences, physical science, pharmaceutics and technology, interdisciplinary courses, biochemistry, and biology and medicine. In contrast, Francisco et al. reported that students may emote "I don't think anything is supposed to connect in chemistry"--well, at least they didn't say "to" chemistry. As far back as 1830, the cross-contamination of pure disciplines (for instance mathematics with chemistry) was considered an aberration (1). Yet today, bumper stickers read "What in the world isn't chemistry?" and most chemists think of themselves as a part of the central science. What does this say about the study of chemistry? Are we losing our identity without realizing it? In a recent editorial in Chemical and Engineering News, Rudy Baum, the managing editor, commented on an article in Time magazine that honored 18 individuals, many of them scientists, but only one of whom was a chemist (2). In his synopsis of the Time article, he wraps up with "Science = Biology".

What can we do to make our subject more attractive? Are we so rigid in our approach to teaching chemistry that deviation from the tried and true is impossible? Montes and Rockley compared the pros and cons of traditional verification experiments and more inquiry-based methods. Their study of teachers' initial inclinations regarding the selection of experiments for their students' laboratory experience and how those teachers' views changed should motivate us to reconsider how we approach laboratory instruction. Compare what you think now with what you think after you have read pp 244-247.

How does the number of applied chemistry courses (and I dare say, courses with intriguing names) affect the preparation of our next generation of chemistry teachers? Chemistry departments still offer traditional courses: general chemistry, organic chemistry, physical chemistry, inorganic chemistry, and analytical chemistry. However, one might ask, what content is taught in such courses as molecular biology, neuroscience, endocrinology, neuroendocrinology, forensic science, immunology, virology, pharmacology, neuropsycho-pharmacophysiology, medical and behavioral disorders, physiological psychology, biofeedback methods, and intermediary metabolism, to name just a few? Even though none of these courses contain the word chemistry, I hazard a guess that much of their content is chemistry. Like mathematics, chemistry is considered by many to be a service course. Many degree plans outside of chemistry departments require one or more courses in chemistry. Curriculum planners know that without the background the study of chemistry affords, application courses (mainly in the biological sciences) would be unable to provide students who seek degrees in these areas with the essential building blocks they need to succeed.

We are in desperate need of qualified chemistry teachers. Are the teachers who have biology, physics, or some psychology degrees qualified to teach chemistry? Have they taken enough chemistry to be prepared to teach outside their degree field? If remediation is necessary, what courses should be required? Attracting pre-service science teachers to the study of pure chemistry is not an easy task when more attractive course offerings are available. Maybe we should concentrate on cross-training in-service teachers by providing appropriate graduate courses to encourage them and bring them into the family. Many teachers with degrees outside the traditional discipline of chemistry have adequate backgrounds in the applications of chemistry. Requiring hours of undergraduate education before they enter the hallowed halls of the chemistry building as graduate students only serves to discourage a large segment of in-service teachers who wish to broaden their perspective. The National Science Education Standards make a compelling argument for connecting and integrating science courses for practicing teachers (3). We are at the crossroads. At a time when we so desperately need qualified chemistry teachers, shouldn't we be more open in our graduate teaching programs, inviting those with degrees in other disciplines to start on a graduate degree without insisting on undergraduate or survey coursework first? Many potential chemical education graduate students have a background in chemistry--it is just known by another name.

Literature Cited

1. Comte, A. Cours de Philosophie Positive; 1830.
2. Baum, R. M. Chem. Eng. News 2001, 79(36), 5.
3. National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996.