Politicizing science funding undermines public trust in science, academic freedom, and the unbiased generation of knowledge

This commentary documents how federal funding agencies are changing the criteria by which they distribute taxpayer money intended for scientific research. Increasingly, STEMM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine) funding agencies are requiring applicants for funding to include a plan to advance DEI ("Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion") in their proposals and to dedicate a part of the research budget to its implementation. These mandates undermine the academic freedom of researchers and the unbiased generation of knowledge needed for a well-functioning democracy. Maintaining excellence in science is fundamental to the continuation of the U.S. as a global economic leader. Science provides a basis for solving important global challenges such as security, energy, climate, and health. Diverting funding from science into activities unrelated to the production of knowledge undermines science's ability to serve humankind. When funding agencies politicize science by using their power to further a particular ideological agenda, they contribute to public mistrust in science. Hijacking science funding to promote DEI is thus a threat to our society.

Why Woodward and Hoffmann? And Why 1965?

Previous publications in this series on the history of the development of the Woodward-Hoffmann rules revealed why Woodward and Hoffmann were prime candidates to solve the pericyclic no-mechanism problem. This publication explains why it was the collaborative team of R. B. Woodward and Roald Hoffmann who did solve this mechanistic problem in a series of five communications in the Journal of the American Chemical Society in 1965. That is, the reasons why Woodward and Hoffmann were the perfect team, and why their individual capabilities, experiences, and qualities provided the perfect synergy are described. In part, this was the right time and the right place for them both, but the synergies were fundamental, intrinsic and idiosyncratic as a collaborative pair. Their orbital symmetry rules provided the mechanism of all concerted pericyclic reactions including electrocyclizations, cycloadditions, and sigmatropic rearrangements. Why it was 1965 and not earlier is also discussed.

The Many Chemists Who Could Have Proposed the Woodward-Hoffmann Rules (Including Roald Hoffmann) But Didn't: The Theoretical and Physical Chemists†

It is a reasonable question to ask, why, as of 1965 when the five Woodward-Hoffmann communication appeared, did no other physical chemist or chemical physicist or theoretical chemist discover the orbital symmetry rules for all pericyclic reactions? Two theoretical chemists - Luitzen Oosterhoff (in 1961) and Kenichi Fukui (in 1964) had discovered portions of the orbital symmetry rules; their stories appear in the papers immediately preceding this paper which is Paper 5 in a 27-paper series on the history of Woodward-Hoffmann rules. Concise yet telling stories of 19 other chemists who could have, might have, perhaps even should have discovered the Woodward-Hoffmann rules are presented with explanations as to why they did not do so. Social, political, and scientific explanations will summarize the analyses.