ChemBark

Tom 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 asked that I share this message with the readers of the blog:

In my ACS presidential year of 2014 I’m considering hosting a symposium on fracking with, of course, emphasis on the involvement of chemicals.  I would appreciate hearing from anyone suggestions for particular areas for inclusion, and potential speakers.  I seek a balanced set of presentations from experts in the various aspects, and would certainly be interested in any germane research.  I myself am not an expert in this arena, but I am trying to get smart in it.  In advance, I appreciate your assistance.

Feel free to weigh in using the comments. I will leave the first…

A little-publicized vote at this week’s National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in New Orleans could have serious implications for the nature of the office of ACS President. Amendments to the ACS’s Constitution and Bylaws are formally called “petitions,” and on Wednesday, the Council will vote on a petition to alter the method by which candidates for the ACS presidency are selected.

The recent blurb on the subject in C&EN does not touch upon the underlying implications of the petition and the major behind-the-scenes contention regarding the vote, so let’s examine the subject more closely…

Under the current system, the Committee on Nominations and Elections (N&E) recruits four nominees for ACS President-Elect and presents them to the Council. Each Councilor then votes for two of the nominees, and the top two finishers advance as the candidates for that year’s national election (in which all ACS members can participate, but only 15% bother). In addition to the top two nominees, other candidates may be selected by petition of the wider ACS membership (0.5% of all ACS members must sign the petition).

The amendment to be considered in New Orleans eliminates the power of the Council to narrow the field of nominees. Instead of selecting four nominees to face the Council, in the new system, N&E will select two candidates to automatically advance to the national election. The power of the Council to strike candidates is removed, though the Council may vote to place additional candidates on the ballot by petition of the Councilors (50 votes required). The ability of the wider ACS membership to add candidates by petition will be retained.

Why would N&E want to bypass the Council? Because some heavy-hitters in chemistry were getting dissed. The most recent high-profile loss by an N&E recruit was Barry Trost in 2013 (to Tom Barton and Luis Echegoyen). In 2010, N&E could only recruit three candidates. Many successful/famous/proud chemists turn down N&E’s calls to become nominees because they don’t fancy getting embarrassed by the Council, even though they’d be prohibitive favorites in the national election.

Dennis Chamot, a former member of the ACS Board of Directors, summarized his support of the petition in an e-mail obtained by ChemBark that is circulating behind-the-scenes among Councilors:

Briefly, here are the major problems, and what the petition calls for to solve them.  First, N&E must spend several months identifying four people who would accept nomination.  They receive many turn-downs.  Then the four go before Council and two are eliminated – in the past Council rejected a Nobel prize winner, and another person who later went on to be awarded the Priestly medal, the Society’s highest honor.  Time and again I have seen very impressive people, especially from industry, who are routinely rejected by Council.  In every one of these cases, the people I refer to were rejected primarily because councilors did not know them; they had not been active in ACS governance.  But president is a special position.  Activity in governance, getting tickets punched, is not a requirement for eligibility.

Another problem, and one that is getting more serious, is the extreme length of time of ACS elections.  This is driven by the requirement to announce nominees before the spring Council meeting and to run the election after the fall meeting.  Busy people with jobs have more to do than be in a constant state of running for office.

ChemBark hears that the idea for this petition may have originated with Chamot, a long-time power-player in Society governance, but he did not respond to ChemBark‘s request for comment (sent last week). His circulating e-mail went on to state, “this is not a power grab by N&E”, which is exactly where the criticism of the petition is focused. By allowing the approval of nominees to bypass the full Council, many councilors fear that candidates who lack important qualifications such as familiarity with ACS governance will advance to the national election. Recall, the President is attached to significant political power, as she gets to vote with the Board of Directors, the body that has ultimate control of the Society.

Attila Pavlath, a past President of the Society, has also penned e-mails to councilors in advance of the vote. Pavlath tells ChemBark that he is “conducting an information campaign among the councilors to show why the petition is faulty.” The following excerpts come from a document Pavlath authored titled “The fallacies of the petition to diminish the Council’s power”:

The ACS President should not be a figurehead. It is not an honorary position given as recognition for scientific accomplishments or industrial leadership. The Presidents should be able and willing to give considerable time to the activities of the Society not just in Washington and Board meetings but to meet the members nationwide in Local Sections.

A President with scientific or industrial excellence might create more publicity in newspapers but in legislative circles their influence is not much more than a President with lesser such credentials. Realistically, the Presidents of the autoworkers or teamsters union have much more effect. The greatest influence of an ACS President can be on Local Sections, Divisions and individual members to inspire them to create and support activities benefiting the members, the profession and thus fortifying the Society.

Councilors are elected by the members to represent them. The Council created N&E for the purpose of searching for nominees to various positions on the ACS Board. The job of N&E is to provide adequate and meaningful information about the nominees so that the Council can evaluate their fitness for the position and make its choice. While nothing is perfect, certainly 400+ councilors’ decision is statistically more valuable than that of 15 persons on N&E.

The nominees and candidates should be willing to face the electorate at various ways and places showing their capabilities for the position and reveal their plans if elected. If someone is not willing or unable to find time for this, how will that person have time to carry out the arduous duty of the President.

So, the vote on this petition transcends the esoteric selection rules it is designed to change. Perhaps the real question that should be asked is, “what do we want in an ACS President?” Supporters of the petition would seem to favor star-power by recruiting candidates for President who are superior chemists known for high achievement in academia/industry/policy/law, even if it comes at the expense of those who are familiar with ACS governance. Opponents of the petition would argue that it is very important for the candidates to be known to the Council and involved in Society governance, as the office is not a figurehead position—the winner will serve on the Board for three years. Ultimately, one wonders if this question is one to be posed to the full membership of the Society rather than just the Council. Also, one can easily think of possible alternatives/compromises, such as removing the Presidential succession (Elect/Current/Past) from the Board, or having the full Council give each nominee an individual up-or-down vote to advance to candidacy.

Two-thirds of the Councilors present in New Orleans on Wednesday must vote in favor of the petition for it to pass, and there is already significant opposition rallying behind the scenes. It would seem that the smart money would bet against the success of this petition.

Edited 10 April 2013 to add a response received by Dennis Chamot by e-mail this morning:

You have somewhat distorted the intent of the petition.  When I noted that this was not a power grab by N&E, I meant just that.  I have never been a member of N&E, and I believe that several members of N&E in fact do not support the petition.  I am also not in favor of the ACS presidency being simply an honorific position, nor am I overawed by “stars” – I run into quite a few in my day job.  Rather, I want to EXPAND the possibilities for bringing good people into ACS leadership.  Time and again over the years I have seen intelligent, thoughtful, articulate people – not generally known stars by any means – routinely knocked off the ballot simply because they were not involved in governance and not well known to a lot of Councilors.  So the current process offers the membership LESS choice than what the petition would permit.

For example, a couple of years ago, three of the four nominees were sitting board members and the fourth had rotated off the board only the year before; this was not by design, but rather a result of the inability of N&E to get anyone else to accept nomination.  This year, three of the nominees have been very active insiders, and the fourth has also had committee service.  All are good people and have served well, but the board has 15 voting members, only three from the presidential succession.  12 are usually people with significant governance experience in any case.  Nowhere in the constitution and bylaws does it say that a qualification for president is required governance service, but it appears that few without extensive governance experience, especially in the alternate non-academic years, care to put their names forward within the current system.  I think this is a loss for the Society.

(By the way, I might note that N&E is an elected body – all of its members are councilors and they are elected to the committee by the members of the Council.  While there were abuses in the past, times have changed quite a bit, and I have full confidence in the integrity of the members and staff of N&E, even if we may have some differences of opinion).

Edited to add: The petition was defeated in Council on 10 April 2013.

The annual ScienceOnline 2013 conference is taking place in North Carolina, and chembloggers Carmen Drahl and Dr. Rubidium are running a session tomorrow on chemophobia. You can follow updates on Twitter labeled with the hashtag #chemophobia.

Personally, I think the greatest failure of our field over the past three decades has been the steady decline of the public image of chemistry. Our “brand” has steadily deteriorated from an apex of “better living through chemistry” in the 1970s to the ever-worsening current climate where “chemicals are bad” and products are nonsensically advertized as “chemical-free”.

There certainly are cases where specific chemists and chemicals have had horrific consequences for the public (e.g., thalidomide or the Bhopal disaster), but surely these cases are balanced by the numerous ways that chemistry has improved modern life: from countless new pharmaceuticals that improve health to a wide array of new materials that make modern technology possible. That’s all “chemistry” and “chemicals”, but the average person-on-the-street would probably not associate these advances with our science.

Of course, this is a blog for chemists, so there’s no sense wasting time here celebrating all of the benefits of chemicals and chemistry. Rather, why don’t we focus on how utterly stupid our field is with regard to communicating these benefits? Despite the manifestly dire state of the public image of chemistry, chemists continue to do nothing to correct the problem.

But, Paul…is it really a problem? Who cares if the public dislikes chemicals? So long as chemists know better, we will continue doing good science. Why should we be distracted by general ignorance?

The problem with that argument is that we live in a democracy. For a democracy—where the People govern by voting—to function efficiently, the electorate must be educated and informed. The steady decline of chemistry’s public image is a massive problem, because it erodes support for our field. Taxpayers fund our research, and if they are convinced that not only is chemistry not helping the world, it is hurting it, then what is going to stop politicians from cutting funding? This is already occurring. Look at how many Americans vilify scientists who support the highly (un)controversial theory of evolution. We also spend many, many times more money on the DoD than scientific research because the public is generally much more concerned about the threat of foreign dictators than the combined threats of insidious disease and the global energy crisis. Seem stupid? Well, turn on the news tonight. What are people talking about, the Middle East or cancer? And what’s worse than people not knowing anything about chemistry is when they “know” incorrect negative information about chemistry. That’s basically where we are.

Hey Paul, isn’t this something the ACS should handle?

Yes! Actually, it is something all of us should take responsibility for handling to some degree, but the ACS should be at the forefront. This brings me to the point: WHAT THE HELL HAS THE ACS BEEN DOING FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS? As far as I can tell, very little in the public-image battle, and the miserable status quo is all the evidence you need that our professional society has failed its mission in this regard.

OK, wise guy, what should the ACS be doing?

I can think of a number of things, but let me give you two: one from the executive level and one from the grass-roots level. First, the ACS needs to get a handle on misinformation in the media. When someone blurts “chemical-free” into a microphone or opines about the hazards of a compound with zero supporting evidence, the ACS should have someone step up and provide a rebuttal. We need a “war room” at ACS headquarters that monitors all major media outlets and contacts editors and producers when something is wrong. The war room should have experts trained in public communication who are camera-ready 24 hours a day and a TV studio on-site for satellite interviews. Reporters are getting lazier; we must adapt. At the grass-roots level, the ACS needs to do a better job organizing outreach efforts and coordinating volunteer chemists to run these programs. More on that below.

Whoa. Volunteer chemists and outreach programs? What are you talking about?

I think it is important that every chemist spend some time engaging the general public for the purposes of education and promoting the benefits of our field. Let me toss out a ball-park figure: 5% of your time allotted to chemistry.

You want me doing what, exactly?

Pretty much anything where you are bringing science/chemistry to a population not already intimately involved in the field. I am not talking about writing essays for Angewandte or leaving comments on In the Pipeline. I am talking about: (1) judging kids’ science fairs, (2) writing letters to the editors of newspapers to correct misinformation, (3) running or volunteering at a local science club, (4) explaining your research at a science cafe, (5) volunteering to talk to a middle-school science class, (6) developing a lab exercise for high schoolers based on your research, (7) making a science Web site for a general audience, (8) making YouTube videos pretending you are “Phil Nye the Chemistry Guy”, (9) editing Wikipedia, (10)…   need I go on? Anything. Anything! There are thousands of possibilities. If you don’t think you have a good idea, other people should have plenty of ideas in need of volunteers.

You think this will work?

Yes. I believe it will help. I think that education and outreach, or “E & O” in NASA parlance, is exactly what kept a largely overpriced set of shuttle missions in operation for so long. Spacemen realize that they need the public on their side, so they appeal to the public. I assume astronauts on space stations have more important scientific activities they could be doing than giving interviews to the yentas on The View, but NASA has the big picture in mind. If NASA could keep the space shuttles up so long, think about all of the additional funding we could bring to a field of science that is much more successful at improving people’s lives.

What’s in it for me?

Lots of things: (1) you’ll become better at communicating and teaching technical material, (2) you’ll feel good having taught someone something, (3) you’ll be giving back to society – was there a role-model or teacher when you were young that made you want to pursue a career in science?, (4) you are making the world less dumb, one person at a time, (5) in thinking about fundamental concepts and how to explain/teach them, you will invariably come up with new ideas. Sometimes it’s nice to think about areas of chemistry outside your focus of research, (6) you will help to improve the funding climate by persuading voters chemistry is valuable.

Bah. Those are worthless. I can’t list those on my CV!

Actually, you can list outreach activities on your CV. They may even make you seem human, you robotic hardass.

Seriously, my boss/advisor won’t care. Actually, I’ll get in trouble because he views them as a waste of time.

Public engagement should be a shared responsibility. Perhaps the reason almost nobody pitches in is because “why should I do it if the guy over there doesn’t?”  We need to find ways to incentivize desired behavior. Maybe a small outreach component for Ph.D. theses? Maybe make it part of tenure packages?

But Paul, I went through 11 years of university training to become a high-powered research machine. I am God’s gift to chemical research. I can think of nothing more inefficient than removing me from the bench to muck around with third-graders. Can’t we just hire professional outreach people so I can be left alone?

First, you are going to be able to bring things to the table that an education professional would not. Second, if you are truly “God’s gift to chemical research”, then you are a rock star. People love rock stars of any field. That is why we are willing to watch events like curling in the Olympics. You will be a great help! Also, get over yourself! Astronauts frequently give interviews while working in space. I assume there are probably some experiments they could be doing, but NASA recognizes the importance of education and interacting with the public.

Paul, I am too busy, go away.

What if everyone were too busy? Everyone is too busy! You can make a little time for this. C’mon.

Paul, I am still unconvinced this is actually worth my time.

Fine. You are a selfish jackass. I hope there are enough good chemists out there who can make up for your dereliction.

Folks, if we don’t start getting serious about addressing chemophobia, we are going to find ourselves in a bad, bad place as a profession, and the consequences for mankind won’t be pretty either.

In what I can only hope is a sign that the job market for scientists is improving, it appears that serial data fabricator Bengu Sezen has been hired by the Gebze Institute of Technology (in her native Turkey) as an assistant professor of bioengineering.

How on Earth can something like this happen? What, exactly, must one do to become disqualified from being hired for an academic job? You could easily get a position if your CV were limited to just the papers Sezen’s had retracted.

I’m all for second chances, but come on. I suppose Turkish universities have reputations on par with Turkish prisons?

(H/T to Wolfie for the info)

In today’s mailbag, an astute reader of the blog writes to bring our attention to a new post on the American Chemical Society’s Web site regarding some of the details of the ACS v. Leadscope case.

The 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 both asked and answered the questions found in the post, some of the questions match those posed in the presidential survey and in ChemBark‘s posts about the recent ACS v. Leadscope verdict and settlement.

First off, let me applaud the ACS for this giant leap forward in transparency. We, the members of the Society, need these details to help us function as an informed electorate. It is a pity that we’ve had to wait until the matter was almost completely resolved to get many of these basic facts.

So, what is new? Let’s start with the money. It seems that after losing the initial verdict, the ACS owed Leadscope $26.5M in damages plus another $7.9M in the defendant’s legal fees. By not immediately paying these sums as the Society pursued the appeals process, the ACS accrued another $11M in post-judgment interest. Thus, prior to the verdict in the Ohio Supreme Court, the ACS was on the hook for >$45M. After that verdict erased the defamation judgment but upheld the judgment of unfair competition, the ACS was still on the hook for >$26M. Leadscope and ACS soon settled for a $22.6M payment to end the litigation.

Now, how much of this does the ACS have to pay? Not all of it. It turns out the ACS has insured itself to reduce its financial exposure in these and similar issues, but it is unclear what is covered. From the post:

The ACS has a comprehensive suite of insurance, including primary commercial general liability and umbrella general liability coverage. As a result of this insurance, ACS has been reimbursed for over a million dollars in attorney’s fees. In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, we are working with our legal counsel to determine the amount ACS will be responsible for paying and then we will work with our insurance providers to determine what portion, if any, may be covered by insurance.

Of course, the ACS’s legal fees far exceeded $1M…they are over $9M for the case, and the ACS does not say how much it pays for their insurance coverage.

The ACS still claims that shelling out $22.6M is not that big of a deal, which is incomprehensible to me for a non-profit of their size:

ACS paid the settlement using funds from the Society’s substantial cash reserves and investments. Nevertheless, ACS recognizes that paying $22.6 million to settle litigation begun over a decade ago is a very negative outcome to this litigation.

One of the reasons why large nonprofits strive to maintain financial reserves is to cover large, unexpected financial losses. Members and others should be assured that the settlement in this case will not result in higher ACS member dues or increased prices for ACS products, programs or services. The settlement in this case will neither restrict ACS staffing levels nor impair the ACS’s continued ability to achieve its mission.

In a bizarre twist, the ACS tries to make the argument that the cost of the settlement is not that big of a deal by comparing it to the much greater sum that the ACS finds itself shelling out for post-retirement benefits plans:

The decline in the Society’s unrestricted net assets from 2008 to the present has been largely driven by accounting charges related to the Society’s postretirement benefit plans.¹ The plans have become underfunded due to historically low interest rates, which have caused the discount rate to decline. The discount rate is used to calculate the postretirement benefit plan liabilities. The rate has declined from 6.5% at December 31, 2007, to 4.0% at November 30, 2012, and resulted in accounting charges of $153 million during this period. If, as most observers expect, interest rates eventually rebound to higher levels, the accounting charges related to these plans will reverse and the Society’s unrestricted net assets will increase accordingly. Other factors impacting unrestricted net assets include the Society’s net from operations, investment gains/losses and non-operating gains/losses.

How on Earth is the ACS spending this much money on benefits? This seems like yet another matter that deserves more study.

And finally…

11. This whole case seems like it was a very bad idea. If ACS had it to do all over again, would it still file suit? Will there be management changes as a result of this outcome?

In hindsight, it is very easy to second guess the 2002 recommendations made by the Society’s in-house and outside lawyers and the Governing Board for Publishing, as well as the 2002 Board’s decision to file suit.

However, given the information available to ACS management and governance at the time and the advice provided by legal counsel, ACS elected to file a suit in an effort it believed was necessary to protect valuable ACS intellectual property. ACS and its in-house and external counsel believed that its claims were valid and supported by evidence. Prior to and during the pendency of the Leadscope case, ACS management and governance engaged in a robust and thorough decision-making process. Moreover, the decision to pursue this case was not made by any one individual but rather was authorized after a careful and thoughtful analysis of the nature of the Society’s claims by internal and external legal counsel, ACS senior management, and the ACS Board of Directors.

There will be no management changes as a result of the Leadscope outcome.

This is why we have elections, my friends. The people in charge at ACS answer to nothing else. They are free to do whatever they want, however carelessly, as long as we (the electorate) allow it.

ChemBark has learned the results of the American Chemical Society’s 2012 national elections, which have yet to be reported by the Society or Chemical and Engineering News:

ACS President-Elect: Tom Barton def. Luis Echegoyen

Director, District I: Thomas Gilbert def. Neil Jespersen

Director, District V: John Adams def. Peter Dorhout

Directors at large: Ingrid Montes and Valerie Kuck def. Helen “Bonnie” Lawlor and Carol Duane

Dr. Barton triumphed by a margin of ~3:2 over Dr. Echegoyen in the contest for president-elect. ChemBark notes it never received a response from Dr. Echegoyen to its questionnaire for the presidential candidates. Dr. Barton did use this opportunity to engage the community on a variety of important issues, and his responses can be found here.

Note that in the elections for the district directors, both incumbents lost (Jespersen and Dorhout). In the election for the directors at large—in which only ACS councilors are allowed to vote—the only incumbent director seeking re-election won (Kuck). Is the wider electorate sending a message that it is displeased with the status quo of ACS leadership?