Up for Discussion Hed The Hudlicky case—A reflection on the current state of affairs by Leiv K. Sydnes In June 2020, an earthquake hit the global chemical community. The epicenter was a paper published by Dr. Thomas Hudlicky, Professor of chemistry at Brock University, Canada, who discussed factors influencing the progress of organic synthesis in the last 25 years in a manner many found offensive. What followed was an avalanche of accusations, attacks, condemnations, criticism, protests, resignations, suspensions, and threats, but also statements of support and defense of the author. To witness the event evolving was strange because so many guidelines governing academic discourse were neglected. This merits a closer look at what happened so that an exchange of views can take place in a dignified manner in the future even when positions are far apart. For those that have not followed the case, a summary of some the key events is pertinent. The havoc started on 4 June when the paper, an essay entitled “’Organic Synthesis – Where now?’ is thirty years old. A reflection on the currents state of affairs,” was posted as an accepted manuscript on the website of Angewandte Chemie [1]. It drew immediate attention, and within hours, condemnations of the article for its contents, of Dr. Hudlicky for writing it, and of the journal for publishing it appeared in abundance [2]. In addition, members of the International Advisory Board (IAB) of the journal started quickly to withdraw [3]. The following day statements from Brock University [4] and the Editor-in-Chief of Angewandte Chemie [5] appeared, and 6 June, the paper, which had been reviewed and accepted, was withdrawn and disappeared completely from the journal’s domain and its DOI [1]. At the same time, websites of individuals, institutions, and organizations as well as columns in newspapers and magazines started to focus on the case, and opinions criticizing or supporting the parties involved were published speedily [2, 6-8]. The author was most harshly criticized. Not only was the language characterized as offensive and inflammatory [9]; the essay contained statements that were called hurtful and alienating [4]. These statements were integrated in the discussion of eight factors that Hudlicky argued had contributed, positively or negatively, to the development of organic synthesis over the last three decades. The paragraph discussing the impact of the Diversity of work force (see Box [1]) was most forcefully attacked, but some, like then Editor-in-Chief Neville Compton, have denounced the
42
Chemistry International
January-March 2021
whole publication because “[t]he opinions expressed in this essay do not reflect our values” [5]. The journal, on the other hand, has received a lot of criticism for its review process that made the publication of such an “abhorrent” and “egregious” paper possible [3]. Indeed a thorough disapproval of one of the most prestigious chemical journals around, but the judgement has obviously been accepted by Angewandte Chemie and its publisher Wiley-VCH, as evidenced in their open letter to the chemical community where it is stated that the fact “[t]hat this article was published at all has demonstrated a breakdown in editorial decision-making.” Therefore, profound measures are being implemented so that the journal can recover and earn back its trust among chemists [9]. Diversity of work force. In the last two decades many groups and/or individuals have been designated with “preferential status”. This in spite of the fact that the percentage of women and minorities in academia and pharmaceutical industry has greatly increased. It follows that, in a social equilibrium, preferential treatment of one group leads to disadvantages for another. New ideologies have appeared and influenced hiring practices, promotion, funding, and recognition of certain groups. Each candidate should have an equal opportunity to secure a position, regardless of personal identification/categorization. The rise and emphasis on hiring practices that suggest or even mandate equality in terms of absolute numbers of people in specific subgroups is counter-productive if it results in discrimination against the most meritorious candidates. Such practice affects the format of interviews and has led to the emergence of mandatory “training workshops” on gender equity, inclusion, diversity, and discrimination [Note 2]. (quoted from Ref. 1) As for me, Angewandte Chemie has not much trust to regain because the flaw under consideration is not pertaining to its scientific papers, but to a non-scientific essay expressing one author’s personal opinions. Chemists read every issue of Angewandte primarily for its excellent scientific contents, not for the essay. That does not mean that reading Angewandte essays has been a waste of time over the years; many of the contributions have been stimulating discussions of interesting topics, but some have also been annoying. An example of the latter is “Chemical Safety in a Vulnerable World - A Manifesto” from 2004, written by Carl Djerassi, who argued for formation of a Chemical Social Service Corps that
