Parsing the Code-Part I: To the Public who just read Silent Spring

**Update below


Okay, fasten your seat belts (how is it that that isn't a compound word by now?)--let's examine the body of the 3 versions of the creed/code. We start with a "pledge" to the "Public". First, that's quite an expansive term all on its own, but simple enough to define--that means a community as a "whole"...all of us. Now, as there is more to the creed/code than just this statement of responsibility to all of us there must be "competing interests" and "competing motivations" that our ethical chemist must deal with. We shall see.

Let's first speculate that the Chemist's Creed of 1965 is possibly a public avowal of the "trust us" variety in response to the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. I mean, if there's any science to be suspicious of it's the one that makes the things that kill off species as a matter of course (and motivation).

But, I think we'll see that this is a creed for the arrogant (well, I think they all are, right--an oath to your chosen "gang" means you believe (belief!) your gang is best and true and right!).

1965--Creed

As a Chemist, I Have a Responsibility:
to the public
to propagate a true understanding of chemical science, avoiding premature, false, or exaggerated statements, to discourage enterprises or practices inimical to the public interest or welfare, and to share with other citizens a responsibility for the right and beneficent use of scientific discoveries.

The Creed! I have to admit to feeling predisposed to liking this version--it's a statement of belief! This is something that stakes a claim for a way of being in this world. That's powerful. (this creed is full-on.) But oh, man...that first phrase is rough right off the bat. "Propagate"! Only the public of 1965 can understand that word. What's striking to me is that this comes more readily out of the mouth of biologists as it basically means "breed". I will "breed" "true understanding". Cripes, that's a mouthful. I guess in the context of the code that means...well, I don't know. But it really can be seen as the very basis of the Scientific relationship with the "common" understanding. If we see this as a response to Carson's Silent Spring then it really is a kind of attack on those who would pronounce on the actions and effects of chemistry from "outside" of chemistry. Carson was a biologist after all, attacking the chemical industry on the misuse of pesticides. "I, the chemist, only can "propagate" the true understanding of chemistry to the unwashed public." So, the chemist will avoid, "false or exaggerated" claims (made by others? It doesn't say, "I will not make any false or exaggerated claims") and discourage enterprises or practices inimical to the public interest or welfare. Again, to be clear, it does not say "I will not". The only positive statement here is that the chemist will propagate true understanding.

The close of this first proposition "to the public" is oddly phrased. Not only does it become positive again (in the sense of "share" vs "discourage"), though not very "active", it repeats "responsibility". I have a responsibility to "share a responsibility with other citizens". Huh? Well, I think this can (should) be read to mean the chemist will share his/her very "true-ness" with us. In essence, the chemist will proclaim by propagation of true understanding, will discourage premature, exaggerated, and false statements (by Rachel Carson!) as well as inimical enterprises and practices (attacking the indiscriminate use of pesticides as bad in The New Yorker!)--all this by "sharing" that he is a responsible actor for the "right and beneficent use of scientific discoveries". "Right" cannot really be defended here as this requires a "defining against" but I laud their sneaky use of "beneficent use". This is a word closely linked to "charitable". But it simply means "we" will use our discoveries the way we see fit and we will share with you that use and you will trust our understanding and our beneficence. (The way one trusts the church to be "good" in the face of apparent and evident bad acts.)


Phew, I was going to go ahead and compare the others, but I'm tired. I have talked myself into being even more cynical though! Awesome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson

**Update:

I thought I would have similar rubbish to work with on the rest of this Creed, however, I don't. I can dismiss all of the rest of this as simply a toady's oath to industry. Highlights include: to my Employer--serve him undividedly and zealously; to my clients--be a faithful and incorruptible agent. So, briefer 1965 Chemist's Creed: I, the chemist, as a member of the most perfect branch of modern science, am right. I will denigrate and denounce all other proclamations against chemistry (rather the chemical industry). My masters are always right, too!

From Creed to Code

So, in 1965 the American Chemical Society created and adopted a "creed" for its members they dubbed "The Chemist's Creed". In 1994 this was updated and it became a "Code of Conduct" and then in 2007 it became a code of conduct for specifically "chemical professionals" (the chemist would like to make this a joke of course by saying, after stifling a guffaw, that all of us are "chemical" professionals--ie, folks made of chemicals--this akin to their jokes about "organic" products and "carbon-free" production values).

In this space let us simply examine those words and those changes as if they were all we had access to in terms of knowledge about the creed/code and chemistry as a science or professional pursuit (a vocation? a career? a job?).

First, definitions of Creed and Code--and we'll use Webster's (Third New International) as opposed to the OED because this the American Chemical Society and not the Royal Society of Chemistry (they have their own code after all!).

A "creed" is primarily a statement of belief and Webster's links this pretty directly to Christianity (Nicene Creed) and notes that this statement is intended to "exclude" as much as include certain beliefs. Definition #3c is likely what the ACS had in mind: "a formulation or epitome of principles, rules, opinions and precepts formally expressed and seriously adhered to and maintained." They list as a synonym "Religion" and near to this is the form "creedalism" which means "undue insistence upon traditional statements of belief." (Yikes!)

Man, it's really not surprising they moved away from that term now is it?

A "code" is in its primary sense, a "law" or broadly, "Law". However, as this code is not a legal document administered and enforced by a "state" with the ultimate power to incarcerate or kill we'll assume the ACS uses code to mean, as noted in #2b: "a set of rules for or standards or professional practices or behavior set up by an organized group (as an association of manufacturers) and usu. reinforced by certain police and punitive powers of the group against nonconforming members." They decidedly do not intend it to be defined as it is in #2c: "a set of rules of procedures and standards or materials designed to secure uniformity and protect the public interest...established by a public agency and commonly having the force of law in a particular jurisdiction..." No thank you!

And finally, just for good measure and to be clear as to what side the ACS has its bread buttered they changed this to "Chemical Professional's Code of Conduct" and really put some distance between creed and even "chemist" but perhaps broadens the reach of the Code to include professional conduct of all "agents" in the field of chemistry (academic, governmental and industrial). After all, pay your dues and you can belong to ACS and have it "govern" your conduct regardless of your actual work in chemistry.

Note that definition 2b does declare that these are rules for professional practice and perhaps the inclusion of "professional" in the 2007 code is redundant.

So, the code is one of conduct and not a belief system now. "Conduct" we should note for thoroughness likely is intended to mean "a mode or standard of personal behavior esp. as based on moral principles."

Okay, belief in something (a way of ...) has moved to the practice of professional behavior. What may have been gained in this broadening has likely led to loss of depth in commitment to the practice and tenets of the creed/code.

We'll examine the actual body of these declarations in subsequent posts.

To Dream Differently...Awake!

I intend to parse the three versions of the "code" presented in the first post but I also wanted to make clear my intention to point out instances, and these will be legion, where this code has not been honored. This will actually show that it is rarely if ever honored.

Chemistry is but a subset of the larger problem that is likely intrinsic to human intellection. The human wants desperately to master the natural world. Likely this is a simple impulse to not die. However, it is a monstrously destructive impulse that forgets it is in and of nature and cannot "manipulate" nature in order to move outside of it. Praying to Techne matters not a bit as this god is deaf to our pleas and moves about in the guise of any other god it chooses...one day it is Nemesis, one day it is Zeus, one day it is Aphrodite, but is is also, Alchemy and Science and Progress. If we are the Alpha of History, it is our Omega unleashed by our own minds to wreak havoc upon us.

This is not a novel insight, of course I am a Chicken Little convinced that we will bring about our own end. I am simply hoping that it's much, much later than I suspect.

In the interim, in a hope to alter that course, I will try to reawaken your sense of evil in the world. It walks about and among us in the guise of the inevitable necessity of mechanical. I hope to dream a different dream.

Three versions of the ACS "Code of Conduct" for Chemists

Update--I appear to have used a truncated "code" for 1994. The correct version is here.



9/14/65
The Chemist's Creed


6/3/94
The Chemist's Code of Conduct


3/27/07
The Chemical Professional's Code of Conduct