Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
Such rearguard action denotes lingering distrust of the powerful new
tools. It points to a kind of umbilical cord linking chemists with their dis-
tant past. One can date the rise of the elemental analysis, as the first step
in establishing the structure of an unknown, to Justus von Liebig's devis-
ing of the
Kaliapparat
in April 1830 (Usselman & Rocke 2005). For
one-and-a-half century, the elemental analysis had remained central to
the activity of the chemist. Quite suddenly, it was taken off its pedestal,
to be discarded on the junk heap of history.
NMR caused some unease in the profession for other reasons too.
Early on, a chemist, whether inorganic, organic, or physical, had to be-
come self-taught in the rudiments and intricacies of NMR. Given the
pace of change in NMR methodologies, that made for some insecurity.
Add to this the uncertainty about the true nature of the profession. Was
being a chemist simply a matter of isolating a compound, putting it in an
NMR tube, and publishing the results? Somehow, this seemed like cheat-
ing. Something was lacking. The NMR revolution brought a challenge to
one's self-image as a chemist. The profession was visibly changing. It
was taking a turn, but was it for the better?
There were many aspects of the interactions between chemistry and
NMR. I have commented so far on the impact of this new instru-
mentation upon the laboratory in its daily activity. One should add that
there were chemists who also contributed to the development of NMR
methodologies. Names which come to mind most forcefully are those
of Frank A. L. Anet, Axel A. Bothner-By (Bothner-By 1996), H. S.
Gutowsky (Gutowsky 1996), William D. Phillips, and John D. Roberts
(Roberts 1996).
9
In its spectral patterns NMR embodied a spectacular proof of the un-
derlying quantum physics, and of the uncanny accuracy of its predictions
of line frequencies and intensities. Thus, it brought with it, if not an un-
derstanding, at least an acceptance of quantum physics. Rank-and-file
chemists thus became somewhat informed about the key developments
of physics in the 1930s. They became inadvertent converts to quantum
ideas.
9
Roberts was made a convert in part by a scientist at DuPont (Ferguson 1996).
