Answers from Prof. Tom Barton, Candidate for ACS President-Elect

October 5th, 2012

Earlier this week, I sent a questionnaire to the two current candidates for ACS President-Elect. The first candidate to respond is Tom Barton, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at Iowa State University. I have posted his responses below, in full.

Thank you, Professor Barton, for responding and engaging the online community of chemists on these matters of great importance to the society!


Response of Prof. Tom Barton, Candidate for ACS President-Elect

Hi Paul,

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to take a shot at these important questions.  You will see in my responses that I don’t have the complete picture on any of them.  If elected I would plan on spending a significant portion of the first year getting that picture and probing membership on their views on these and other concerns.


1. What are your thoughts on the ACS vs. Leadscope case?  Do you believe that society records pertaining to the lawsuit—including legal fees—should be made public?

For those who are not up to date on this case, as I wasn’t when first asked about it, there is an excellent summary by Marianna Bettman, an Ohio law professor to be found at  I found it to be an excellent discussion.  As only a candidate, I do not know the intimate details of how and why ACS got into this, nor of the situation that they face at the moment.   Thus, I must reply with the general statement that I have always believed and always have acted on the principle that openness is the best policy.  In my lifetime, the most dramatic examples of the dangers of secretiveness were perhaps in the behavior of the Atomic Energy Commission, who wrongly believed and operated under the premise of “the public doesn’t need to know”, when in fact the public had a desperate need to know.  There are many more examples where secretive behavior by parts of government ultimately created situations far worse than complete openness would have produced.  Thus, as ACS president I would want to see all the history and strive to make all that was pertinent and not legally encumbered available to the entire ACS membership.  Yes, that includes legal fees.

2. What is your stance on the ACS’s executive compensation packages?

I have received a number of enquiries as to my views in this arena, and conclude that a lot of people feel rather strongly about this issue.   In tracking down the actual numbers I found different ones in different sources but they are all awe-inspiring.  It is important to remember that executive compensation operates within a market.  If your compensation is not competitive, there is real risk that you can lose the type of talent that you need for the organization to succeed.  That said, the membership of ACS has every right to request and get an explanation for the magnitude of these salaries.  There is an annual process by which the salaries are set and thus, the ACS can provide the rationale(s) involved and report to membership (via C&EN) why the salaries are what they are.  Said report should provide examples from similar societies, keeping in mind that ACS is not only the world’s largest scientific society, but certainly the most complex (and D.C. is hardly the least expensive place to live).  I would support a policy that in the future, salary histories of all employees making over some minimal level would be annually reported to the membership in C&EN.  Again, this is a simple matter of openness.  If one is not prepared to justify how one is spending someone else’s money, one should not spend it in that fashion.

I would add that where I have worked for the past 45 years, Iowa State University, all faculty and staff salaries are published annually in the newspaper (now on paper’s website).  The only time this has bothered me is when I was not included because my salary did not reach the minimum!

Lastly I would note that I do not see the logic in giving everyone a bonus every year.  The only reasonable justification for a bonus is that the employee exceeded your expectations.  If you are giving bonuses every year, you need to rethink your expectations.  Once again, if there are good reasons, all that is needed is to inform membership of them

3. What is your stance regarding the fees that ACS publications charges companies and universities to access journals?

I don’t have the data to take a reasoned stance on this at this time.  I’ll have to get it, however, as I have had a couple of interesting emails about this in the past few days, which have caused me to have some potential concerns.  It is hardly unreasonable for users to be concerned about the costs of necessary materials, and ACS needs to be sensitive to the real fiscal constraints in the budgets of their members/subscribers.  Using profits resulting from ACS publications to fund other parts of the operations, considered to be of significant value, up to a point seems reasonable to me.  I can see no reason not to inform membership of the details, specifics and magnitudes, and then try to get feedback via the local sections.  Once again it is a simple matter of openness.  If you are not proud to tell people what you are doing with the money, you need to rethink what you are doing with the money.  Actually I imagine that ACS has an admirable story to tell here.  As I said, I don’t have enough information to provide a detailed answer at this time, and that is largely because such information is difficult to obtain.  There clearly is considerable concern about pricing out there (e.g. and ) but “tiered pricing”, “value-based pricing” and confidential negotiations with individual institutions have made it difficult to see a clearly defined pricing picture.  One group truly stands out as having serious problems and that is small liberal-arts colleges with quite small chemistry departments, who have to pay what to them are very large sums of money to subscribe to the number of credible chemistry journals required for ACS accreditation.  With the fiscal situations of these institutions being often dire, it has become difficult if not impossible for them to comply.  I strongly believe that we need to work on a solution to this problem.  I also believe that there must be solutions, as our reason for existence is to serve our members.

A question I have, and have not yet found an answer, is has there been an accounting of the actual costs of publication now versus the pre”technology-revolutionized” costs.  Surely the costs have been lowered by electronic publishing, and one might have expected that to be reflected in subscription costs.  Maybe it has been, or perhaps the loss of revenue from individual subscriptions has more than offset any savings.  I don’t know, and I’m sure many members would like to see a C&EN article addressing this situation.

4. What one specific item would you, as ACS President, make your first priority to improve the public perception of chemistry?

I would prepare a series of profound video vignettes of the great successes of chemistry which have benefitted the world (and the U.S. economy) to be shown via every possible media outlet, and to be used for workshops for Congressional legislative staffs.   The purpose is to help the general public, and quite importantly, lawmakers understand that support of chemistry is an investment with a long history of success.  This is of course not a new idea, but is the best one of which I know.  A key will be how to find affordable ways to get the message out.  Purchasing commercial broadcast time is very expensive, so leveraging new media like social media and the blogosphere would have to part of the answer.  While I don’t consider the public’s perception of chemistry to be quite the problem that once was the case, this effort to get the word out that ours is an enabling science will always be with us.

5. What one specific item would you, as ACS President, make your first priority to improve the employment situation for chemists?

I realize that it is comforting to hope that there is one silver bullet or some magic pill that will make everything alright again, but it just isn’t going to happen.  In recent months I have spoken and written about my belief that it is entrepreneurship which has the best chance of building a new employment base for chemistry in America.  However, for this narrowly focused question I would try to address the issues that have caused and are still causing our jobs to depart our country.  Although I am usually loath to address a problem with a meeting, I would propose a summit meeting of the industrial leaders of chemistry to develop a list of factors that make leaving America attractive; kiss off the ones we really can’t deal with (e.g. lower wages elsewhere) and get to work on the ones we can.  Understand that lower labor costs are not the only issues in this game.  As I discussed a bit on my website, there is no surer route to moving jobs out of America than to impose unreasonable regulations on American industry.  This may be an unpopular subject to raise, and I am sure will engender some cries of anguish, but if there is anything within the bounds of ethical behavior that can be done to produce and protect jobs for American chemists, we must do it.  The health of the American chemical industry is of utmost importance to us and we must not forget this.

6. What is your favorite element and why? 

Hey! I thought the softball question is supposed to come at the beginning of an interview.  That having been said, I’ll answer it.  Silicon.  Why?  Because it is so close to carbon, yet so far away in its behavior.  I am particularly enchanted by the richness of its thermochemistry as compared to that of carbon.  For example, the isomerization of the carbene analog, R2Si:, to a silene analog of an olefin, RHSi=C<, is essentially isothermal!  Or that SiH4 thermally decomposes to H2  +  :SiH2  in a single concerted step.  Compare these observations with the drastically different cases in organic chemistry.


Note: Any response provided by Prof. Barton’s opponent in this election, Prof. Luis Echegoyen, will be posted within a day of its receipt.

18 Responses to “Answers from Prof. Tom Barton, Candidate for ACS President-Elect”

  1. Chemjobber Says:

    I do not *love* Professor Barton’s #chemjobs answer, but I think it leans in the right direction, in that it’s devoted to attempting to solve the problem. I suppose one would enjoy Prof. Barton getting to hector captains of industry into hiring ACS chemists domestically, but I dunno.

    I am not sure there is a correct answer for it, but my answer, were I ACS President, would be that I would immediately advocate for a doubling or tripling of the budget for the ACS Department of Research and Member Insights, directed towards accurately measuring the #chemjobs problem (and getting new methodology, if need be.) If you think you’re in a hole, step 1 to get out of the hole is to find out how deep it is.

  2. Hedonism Bot Says:

    I wonder if ACS is going to revoke his candidacy for responding to your not-journalism/blogging.

  3. Anonymous Says:

    That’s cool he responded to your questionnaire. I find his answers to be pretty reasonable.

  4. ER Says:

    I think that a proposed meeting with industry leaders, both in the chemical and pharma industries, would be a good starting point to discuss chemist jobs. However, trying to address the movement of chemist jobs overseas because of government regulations is a tall task. If the ACS is prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next several years to lobby Congress to change currents laws and regulations, then maybe chemists might benefit. Maybe. Just ask the American Chemistry Council how much time and money it takes to accomplish any sort of change on Capitol Hill.

    Another approach to the number of chemjobs – how about discussing with industry leaders the changes in their hiring practices over the last 10 years? Specifically, the penchant for laying off chemists during even small economic downturns, and the new penchant of turning formerly permanent positions into contract positions, with significantly lower salaries and benefits, and with even more exposure to being laid off.

    I do want to add that I have voted for Barton, seeing as he at least is willing to discuss these issues.

  5. prunesmith Says:

    Awesome. So glad he replied. He certainly now has the edge over Echegoyen in my mind. Go blogosphere!

  6. Paul Says:

    I think it is great that Professor Barton responded. Choosing to engage members of the society (rather than slipping into the smoke-filled room, never to be seen again) is very commendable. Also, it is great to see that he was open to a dialogue and recognizes that these issues are important and touchy/controversial.

    While some people might be unhappy that Prof. Barton did not wholeheartedly pick up the open-access/down-with-exec-pay/complete-transparency flag, I think it is important to note that it would be almost suicidal to do so. He’s got to work with the people (the BoD) that are responsible for building the status quo. I don’t think a single person can walk into Dodge with guns blazing. To me, the set of answers taken together represents a significant step forward.

    I will also note that Prof. Echegoyen has expressed preliminary interest in responding, but said that his travel schedule is kind of busy at the moment. If/when I get his responses, I will post them to the blog within 24 hours.

  7. Tom Barton Says:

    ER, I like your ideas of discussing with industry leader current hiring (& firing) practices. Certainly that should be incorporated into the meeting I suggested. These are the kind of things I am looking for and would appreciate hearing from any and all.
    With regard to your “If the ACS is prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next several years to lobby Congress to change currents laws and regulations, then maybe chemists might benefit.”, my thoughts are that if the organization can forfeit $22++M without damage, then a couple of hundred thousand for something that actually might improve the plight of many chemists should be no problem.

  8. Chemjobber Says:

    “my thoughts are that if the organization can forfeit $22++M without damage, then a couple of hundred thousand for something that actually might improve the plight of many chemists should be no problem.”


  9. wolfie Says:

    ??? what gradute student had to answer this ??

  10. Howard Peters Says:

    I want to thank Dr. Barton for his responses to the questions posed.
    Much appreciated. Been there, done that.
    Have any responses appeared yet from Dr. Echegoyen?
    Will they?
    Do you want to guess who I will vote for?

  11. Tom Barton Says:

    Wolfie: I have not had graduate students for about 10 years, so I’ll have to take the blame/credit for the answers. If you don’t care for the answers, tell me why and let’s start a discussion. Few of my thoughts are cast in stone at this point.

  12. Paul Says:

    Hi Tom!

    I know you are relatively new to the ChemBark community, so I feel it’s important to let you know that Wolfie is an idiot. He is a “troll” who leaves disparaging comments on the blog in an attempt to incite discord and hurt other readers’ feelings. Over the last five years, it has been impossible to engage Wolfie in thoughtful discussion. My hope is that one day, he will answer this call, but I will not hold my breath. Unless you are prepared for the frustration, I suggest you ignore him.

  13. Tom Barton Says:

    Paul, thanks for the headsup.

  14. wolfie Says:

    Oh my feelings. I am a great scientist. And a great German. Although I know the Americans, I think, they are a little stupid.

    Cause my grandmum said : they could not even march in a row but won the war.

  15. wolfie Says:

    I’m planning to cancel my membership in the GDCh, ’cause they are as stupid and totalitarian as the Americans. Will they tell me it will be for free then ??

  16. wolfie Says:

    Thoughtful or not, I am still here.

    @Tom Barton : don’t take yourself too seriously, please

    president or what ?

  17. ACS Sheds More Light on Leadscope Case | ChemBark Says:

    […] post is written in a Q & A format that might be an homage to the “tough questions” survey that ChemBark recently sent to the candidates for ACS President. While it would appear that the ACS […]

  18. ACS President-Elect Tom Barton Seeks Input on Fracking | ChemBark Says:

    […] Barton won last year’s ACS national election for President (and was kind enough to answer our questionnaire about important issues facing the society). Yesterday, President-Elect Barton […]

Leave a Reply