This is a very general but important question.

It is well-known that chemistry suffers from multiple problems of image. People does not know what is chemistry. Chemistry is not contamination or ecological disasters.

What is chemistry?

What is the difference with biology, geology, or physics?

In my experience as a chemistry tutor and supervisor I have found that people have an expectation that any chemistry topics they do will require much more effort that equivalent biology etc subjects. I would a dollar for every time someone has told me they don't like foundation chemistry (which all science students do) and won't need it because they are going do be a biologist, environmental scientist, geologist etc. What they fail to realise is that without at least a basic knowledge of chemistry they are going to find these other subjects very difficult.

Hi,

I agree with movies.

People think use chemical as a synonym of artificial or synthetic. One day, say to some “layman” that both DNA and water are chemistry. In general, they will look you with skepticism. Once, a TV program said that “ecological” agriculture did not use chemistry and then I saw to a man putting water. I said that was also chemistry, water is H2O!

However, the bad public image of chemistry is exclusive of 20th century. I cite from HYLE:

“Starting with the last part of the eighteenth century and continuing for all the nineteenth century, chemistry was, in the common opinion of educated people, ‘the Science’ par excellence. It was a paradigm for the other branches of science, a guide, the main guide indeed, to understand the essence of the material world as well as the main hope to improve the quality of life in industrialized countries.”

The main question is why the own chemists have favored the flourishing of this bad image. Now, young chemists as us are obliged to battle with a hostile environment. In fact, I am launching the canonical chemistry project, but due to rejecting, I am thinking in changing the name to canonical science simply by a question of public image!

What would I do? At one hand, I would see for my future, but at the other hand, I am very reticent to change my label of chemist because I did nothing!

I consider that chemistry is the study of matter in a general sense. Physics is more focused to energy and matter structure below atomic level and Biology is focused to living matter. However there are chemists working directly with living systems and chemists working with fundamental physics. For example, there are experiments with optical isomers for testing parity violation of the standard model. Martin Quack is a chemist what wrote a report about a new model for testing the standard model of physics with 10 times more precision that experiments proposed by physicists. He uses optical properties of isomers.

Other chemist is working in a general model (published in PNAS) that was applied to population genetics.

Etc.

My two principal aims are to see to chemistry to achieve credit from public and formulate a general theory of matter in the sense of alchemists.


I also agree with Tetrahedrite

Many people see chemistry as a computer. They want use chemistry as a tool, ignoring much of its “internal structure”. And if the button of “on” is the same that of “off” then are more happy people!

Of course, chemistry is hard, but it is unnecessary study chemistry for obtain a general idea of that chemistry is. Few people have studied relativity but they have an idea about Einstein’s theory and time travels. I think that there are many popular books about physics, and genetics but few books about chemistry for laypersons.

Of course chemistry is necessary for all, Chemistry is the central science. Many of the current revolution in biology would be impossible without the previous chemical researches. The other day I read about a novel revolutionary chemical method for predicting earthquakes.

I also agree with Mitch comments

These are some of the problems of chemistry.

How could we solve it?

Hi ssssss,

I agree with you, but let me do some comments.

I also think the chemistry is vast enough so there is difficult to find the differences. However, we are obliged to find them because if we do not then people will continue to rebrand chemical outcomes as being of physics or biology. For example, chemists working at IBM say that chemistry of materials is and how they make computer chips, but other people (laymen) ignore them and say that chemistry does not contribute to chips making. In fact, in a famous Spanish magazine I read the wrong idea of that chips are done without chemistry, just with light. Current chip technology is based in chemistry: silicon, dielectrics, kinetics, photochemistry, etc.

I agree with your 1st and 3rd points, but add to your 2nd the following.

At the classical level, not everything can be studied with classical mechanics, for example, thermodynamics laws are outside of mechanics. Also chemical kinetics is “classical” (macroscopic) and cannot be derived from mechanics.

Imagine that from the “quantum” version of canonical chemistry one can derive exactly the Hamiltonian equations of mechanics. Would then classical physics be considered a part of chemistry? Or perhaps we would say a sound “no” because “traditionally” classical physics was not a field of chemistry?

Taking the limit of a lot of these quantum mechanics laws will derive the Newtonian laws. The question is, is this a fair approximation to make? Can Quantum Mechanics that deals with atomic forces be applied to macroscale systems? The jury is still out on that one, I believe?

For quantum mechanics to be valid the limits must agree with the bulk propeties (classical mechanics).  I think that the methods of predicting bulk properties are covered by statistical mechanics, but I never understood that subject very well.

I think why the peaple are turning up from chemistry is that there are lot of exceptions in the subject.For an example if we see the organic chemistry,it is a totally messed up subject.We are using Resonance effect,Conjugation,Hyperconjugation,mesomeric effect...Whatever we find neccesary to explain the situation.This is not logical at all.And i think this is the point our Physists are ahead of.They work in more logical way.Our 1st step to chemistry is that to bring up a strong Foundation of the subject,rather that building tall stories on a weak base.