Readers, could you take a moment to read his editorial? Then feel free to come on back.
There are three things that I really don't understand about this piece:
- Of the 4 fields he described, they are nearly all molecular biology-related fields. What role can chemists play in these, other than their traditional ones (i.e. detecting/measuring molecules, synthesizing molecules for use as therapeutics or tool compounds?) In what sense do chemists have something special to add?
- In what sense to chemical engineers have something to add to these fields? I am not saying that chemical engineers cannot do molecular biology -- I am asking, what tool in their unique skill set is relevant here? (i.e. their understanding of thermodynamics, mass transport and the like)
- How in the name of all that is holy can Dr. Lockledge claim that "At no time has it ever been better to be a chemist or a chemical engineer than today. Never." even as he stipulates "record high unemployment, the limited job opportunities for recent graduates, or the salaries lagging behind those of other professions"?