In Chemistry in Britain for September, Professor David Parker of Durham considers the disadvantages of dividing chemistry studies into vertical groupings such as theoretical, physical, analytical, organic and inorganic. This divided structure is characteristic of the 19th century, but looks increasingly dated. Parker queries its legitimacy and wisdom at a time when students are being taught about chemical synthesis, structure, reactivity and function, aspects which do not fit snugly into the time-honoured categories.
In many university departments, the divisions between different chemical disciplines are rigorously insisted upon and defended by specialists who are jealously defending the territories of the specialties. An expert on one aspect tends to declare of his colleagues in others that they cannot understand the problems that arise in his own field of endeavour. Unless we start to address problems in a non-traditional manner, Parker insists, chemistry will not maintain its standing as a core scientific discipline.
Some universities in the United States are devising joint departments of chemistry and biology, which is encouraging. In the United Kingdom, some teaching is being based on the need to understand biomolecular physico-chemistry and to develop synthetic methods, and the ability to relate structure and reactivity to overall functions in living things. Yet many chemists engrossed in their own specialist studies are blinded by the trees from seeing the wood, and resist efforts to integrate their science.
All chemists naturally have their preferences which demand close attention to detail, but at the end of the 20th century we should assess the relative importance of synthesis and structure with respect to the reactivity and function of chemical compounds.