Comments on American Chemical Society Position Statements

Open Email to American Chemical Society Management and Chemical and Engineering News Editorial and News Staff:

Dear Editorial and News Staff,
Your March 10 article In C&EN by Linda Wang, is entitled, "ACS Amends Policy Positions". The article asks readers to contribute their thoughts.
Most of the Position Statements are relatively innocuous and generally consistent with good science, but a few tip the ACS management's hand in its efforts to exert political control. This is further accentuated in many of the subsequent articles published in each issue of C&EN.
For example, the ACS Position Statement on Energy says, "Urges policymakers to lead in formulating a comprehensive forward thinking and sustainable energy policy that addresses the needs of the four US energy sectors by weighing national security, economic and environmental impacts." I can agree with that, but C&EN issue after issue continues to pound that the use of fossil fuels is bad because of supposed disastrous climate change effects, when there is no significant scientific basis for a connection between carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and climate change. Instead, issue after issue continues to promote expensive green energy, which I agree will have its place in certain instances, but cannot be considered in the same context that C&EN continues to promote it.
With Respect to US Business Climate, the Position Statement says, "Supports policies that will make US firms more entrepreneurial and internationally competitive." That also is well said but in subsequent interpretation in various C&EN issues, you continually promote government involvement using taxpayer money on programs which in many cases are disadvantageous to the entrepreneurial development of American industry, if it had been left to do the job without government interference.
On Health Care, the Position Statement says, "Supports access to affordable quality healthcare for all Americans and sets out broad principles intended to guide policy on current healthcare options". The Position Statement itself tends to lean toward a socialistic operation, which is political, and should not be involved in a semi-scientific magazine.
On Teaching of Evolution, the position statement says, "Supports teaching of evolution; opposes alternative nonscientific theories and urges states and localities to support high-quality science standards and curricula." At least the first part of the statement involves philosophical opinions which basically are unanswerable by science. It is clearly implied that the ACS opposes "alternative nonscientific theories", by which it is obvious that it means Biblical reference. It seems to me that this has no basis for consideration by a chemical society organization. However I do agree with the last part of the statement, which involves supporting high-quality science standards and curricula. It is obviously advantageous to the American public to know more about the science of chemistry, providing it is not tainted by political innuendo.
There are many others in the list, which would fall into the same category as those mentioned above. However, to be fair there are a few, such as Endocrine Disruption, which "Endorses expanded education and research as well as the development of more effective methods to reduce the release of endocrine disruptor's into the environment and to limit human exposure."
In total, I encourage the American Chemical Society Management to stick with the science and business of chemistry in C&EN and refrain from political involvement, such as promoting federal grants on the theory that it helps the science of chemistry and the fact that the additional money is helpful to many American Society members.