Footnotes in Chemistry

"…the British chemist John Dalton (1766-1844) provided the basic theory: all matter–whether element, compound or mixture–is composed of small particles called atoms."

– Ebbing and Gammon. General Chemistry, 8th ed. (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2008), 42.

If the quoted text above were on Wikipedia, rather than in a traditionally published textbook, it would be tagged citation needed. Instead it has no reference at all: nothing inline, no footnotes, no endnotes. Nothing. And from a brief survey of chemistry textbooks (the handful sitting on my shelves), this is common.

Articles on super-resolution microscopy often start by describing the diffraction limit. It would be unthinkable not to cite Ernst Abbe's work on the subject. If I were writing for a textbook, though, it appears I could say:

"Ernst Abbe (1840-1905) discovered that the resolution of a microscope is wavelength-dependent"

and leave it at that.

It seems so unscientific to me to provide such conclusions without their accompanying evidence. The exciting questions in science, I believe, come out of why, how and how do you know? and I think a textbook should answer those questions, even if it's just a reference to details elsewhere.

So that's what I'm going to do: find the missing references to the details of major discoveries covered in general chemistry textbooks like Ebbing & Gammon.

Others, particularly Dr. Carmen Giunta at Le Moyne College and the folks behind ChemTeam, have collected some of the classic works online. Dr. William Jensen, of the University of Cincinnati, had a delightful "Ask the historian" column in the Journal of Chemical Education, as well. My hope is that my list will be more searchable and (eventually) comprehensive.

Citation needed

Why don't chemistry textbooks cite their sources? High schoolers are taught to use references for specific details, but my college-level textbooks state many such details without an ounce of support. How do we entrust our students' learning to books that make unsupported claims?! It's unscientific. How can I be sure that one textbook is not simply misstating another, or propagating another's errors?

Miscellaneous thoughts on science and science education

I think the scientific disciplines are not so much territories in the landscape of science as viewpoints from which one can look out over that landscape. The boundaries we erect between physics and chemistry, chemistry and biology, and so on, are less like fences separating fields and more like well-worn paths from one place to another.

Let there (still) be stoning!

Key points for presenters from Lehr's "Let there be stoning!" Ground Water (1985). Emphasis mine. [1]

The problem

• "Let there be an end to incredibly boring speakers! They are not sophisticated, erudite scientists speaking above our intellectual capability; they are arrogant, thoughtless individuals who insult our very presence by their lack of concern for our desire to benefit from a meeting which we chose to attend."
• "Failure to spend [your audience's time] wisely and well, failure to educate, entertain, elucidate, enlighten, and most important of all, failure to maintain attention and interest should be punishable by stoning. There is no excuse for such tedium, so why not exact the ultimate penalty?"

His advice

• "Never subject your audience to poor slides just because they serve as an outline for your talk."
• "If you need a pointer to indicate an important concept or location on a slide, it is probably too crowded or difficult to comprehend."
• "If you can't read the print on a slide clearly with the naked eye (reading glasses are permitted) when holding it in your hand, it is inadequate for viewing with a slide projector in any size room with an adequately sized screen."
• "Never, but never…show a slide and then apologize for it. Don't show it."
• "Don't be afraid to use no slides."
• "If you want to use slides, make them good ones."
• "Don't stay on one slide too long; put blanks between slides if you have a lot to say before the next slide. The old slide is distracting."
• "When you are giving a paper, you are an actor on a stage…You're an entertainer, an educator; put on a happy face and kick ass—or get off that stage."
• "Think of the time the audience is collectively giving you. One hundred people times 20 minutes is 33 hours. Don't you owe them a few hours of effort in return?"
• "Don't get up and do what comes naturally if what comes naturally is a dull, witless, monotonous presentation of unexciting facts. If your work is in fact dull and unexciting, don't burden any audience anywhere with a conference presentation."
• "I studied astronomy under a dullard and thought it was a dead science. Carl Sagan taught me differently. … Make your subject—no matter how esoteric—live for your audience if only for 20 minutes."

[1]: via Presentation Zen