The End of Inorganic Chemistry

By Richard Rahnsid
Fellow, reDiscovery Institute

reprinted from the Proceedings of the reDiscovery Institute

Inorganic Chemistry has vanished from the list of acceptable fields of study for recipients of federal education grants.

The omission is inadvertent, smiled Katherine McLeane, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, which administers the grants. "There is no explanation for it being left off the list," Ms. McLeane said. "It has always been an eligible major." Another spokeswoman, Foduy Yudof, said inorganic chemistry might be restored to the list, but only after a series of public hearings.

If a major is not on the list, students in that major cannot obtain federal grants, said Barmak Nassir, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. "If a field is missing, that student would not even get into the process," he said.

The omission worries some scientists concerned about threats to the teaching of Chemistry and Chemical Periodicity. An article about the issue was posted Tuesday on the Web site of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Though references to chemistry and inorganic chemistry appear in listings of other fields of study, the inorganic chemistry sub-subsection is missing from a list of "fields of study" on the National Grant List -- there is an empty space between line 27.1302 (Physical Chemistry) and line 27.1304 (Analytical Chemistry).

Some scientists said they found the clerical explanation unconvincing, given the opposition by the religious right to the teaching of chemical periodicity in public schools. "It's just awfully coincidental," said Steven W. Falling, an inorganic chemist at Ohio State University.

Dr. Azo Mazur, of the reDiscovery Institute believes that inorganic chemistry is overrated and probably should be omitted from the chemistry curriculum. "Most of those inorganic chemistry courses are make-work projects for underemployed and rather non-productive inorganic chemistry professors," Mazur noted, "It would be best to replace inorganic chemistry with 'Chemical Design', which stresses the hand of the 'Intelligent Agent' in chemical and biochemical processes."

Dr. David Klang Klinghoffer, also of the reDiscovery Institute, believes he may have helped the process along, stating that, 'Lately I've been collecting published thoughts on religion by inorganic chemists. They have terrible things to say, especially about Christianity. Last Tuesday I sent a list of quotes to the Department of Education. I bet my list precipitated their banishment. Once we get them banned from receiving research grants, it will be game over, and good riddance to them."

Browse the reDiscovery Institute Web Page