It isn’t unusual for someone to come up to me after one of my public presentations and sheepishly whisper in my ear that they had failed chemistry in high school. Or that they couldn’t cope with organic chemistry in university. I’m not sure why they feel the need to unburden their soul to me in this fashion, but I hope it has to do with having just heard a lecture about some application of chemistry that, perhaps to their surprise, they found interesting. Then they often go on to bemoan the fact that their chemical experience in school amounted to a struggle with formulas and equations with nary a mention of the point of the tussle. Had they seen some connection to real life, they tell me, they would likely have come away with a more positive view of the subject.
Frankly, it pains me to hear such grumblings. But I can relate to it. My own high school chemistry classes were about as exciting as watching hair grow on a bald head. Somehow, probably thanks to some outside reading, I managed to maintain my interest. Now, though, I look back on those lifeless classes with annoyance. Actually, that’s not right. It’s more than annoyance. It’s anger. Chemistry is so easy to make interesting that it is virtually a crime not to make the effort. Consider for a minute the basic definition of chemistry: the study of matter and the changes it undergoes. And since matter is anything that has mass and occupies space, essentially everything that we see, touch or feel in the world and beyond, falls into the realm of chemistry.
Whether it’s vitamin supplements, cholesterol, plastics, water filters, space travel, vaccines, smells, tastes, fabrics, cosmetics, cooking, air pollution, trans fats, sweeteners, medicines, genetically modified foods, climate change, the softness of toilet paper or the bouquet of a wine, we’re dealing with chemistry. Even our thoughts and feelings can be traced to chemical activity in the brain. While it is true that electromagnetic radiation doesn’t have mass and doesn’t occupy space, its effects have to do with the way the radiation interacts with matter. So that too is chemistry! Aging, falling in love, and the very process of living is a consequence of the myriad chemical reactions occurring in our body all the time.
If everything in our life somehow connects to chemistry, how can it be that student surveys about their impression of the discipline are peppered with words like “boring,” “dispassionate,” “tedious,” “alarming” and “irrelevant?” Ouch! “Irrelevant?” What class was that student in? Unfortunately it could have been any number of chemistry classes around the world taught by unimaginative teachers who fail to make the link between theory and practical applications. It’s sort of like finding a tribe in the jungle that has been isolated from civilization and teaching them all about tools without ever telling them what the tools are for.
Yes, of course students have to learn about molecular structure and balancing equations and solubilities. Admittedly, not that exciting unless they are made to realize that this is the kind of knowledge needed to evaluate the difference between a synthetic and a natural substance, or the risk of a chemical leaching out of a plastic water bottle, or the potential benefits of antioxidants, or the possibility of treating disease with a “colon cleanser” or a “Zero Point Energy Wand.”
And while there may be a dearth of discussions of the proper application of chemical principles to daily life, there is no shortage of websites, articles or books that demonize chemistry and equate the term “chemical” with “poison” or “toxin.” The number of recent books that deal with the supposed horrors of “chemicals” is astounding. “The Hundred Year Lie” is subtitled “How to Protect Yourself from the Chemicals That Are Destroying Your Health.” What chemicals? For example, the author claims that it is risky to wrap a sandwich in “Saran Wrap which contains vinyl chloride, a carcinogen known to cause liver, brain and lung cancers.” Saran Wrap does not contain vinyl chloride and never did. It is made of polyethylene. At one time it was made of polyvinylidene chloride, but even that did not contain vinyl chloride.
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised by such errors because the author has no chemical training. He is an “investigative journalist.” The “Body Toxic” is also written by a journalist with no scientific expertise and claims that “we are running a collective chemical fever that we cannot break.” And should we trust the writer of “The Toxic Sandbox” because she is a mother of four, a writer and a documentary filmmaker? The authors of the popular “Slow Death by Rubber Duck” don’t seem to realize that what they are actually talking about is a polyvinylchloride duck, to say nothing of the unfounded claim that this plastic is killing us. Then there’s the Manhattan chef who became enraged when he found that his staff was using truffle oil formulated with synthetic 2,4-dithiapentane and proceeded to smash the bottles with a battle cry of: “It’s full of chemicals!” Yes, like everything else in the world, it is. And in this case the chemical is exactly the same as that is found in natural truffles.
We are desperately in need of a reality check. And the United Nations General Assembly agrees. It has declared 2011 as the International Year of Chemistry, with goals of increasing the public appreciation of chemistry in meeting world needs, and of increasing the interest of young people in the subject. Hopefully educators will take on the challenge of discussing the role of chemistry in daily life. The idea isn’t to become uncritical cheerleaders for chemistry, but rather to impress upon students and the public the importance of understanding molecular behavior when making decisions about therapeutics, environmentalism and toxicity. Such decisions are too important to be swayed by people who lack an adequate scientific background or by those who harbour vested interests. The slogan of the International Year of Chemistry is “Chemistry-Our Life, Our Future.” That says it all in a mix of polyphenols, cellulose, hemicelluloses, lignin, tannins and anacardic acid. In other words, in a nutshell.