Sir

The Opinion article “A discipline buried by success” (Nature 411, 399; 2001) and News Feature “What's in a name?” (Nature 411, 408–409; 2001) in the 24 May issue are correct in their analysis of the lack of recognition of chemistry, in and outside the international scientific community. Scientists, policy-makers and the general public should take note of these timely messages.

I would like to add that the lack of recognition for the breadth of modern chemistry in China is hurting chemistry and related fields.

On 12 May 2001, the Nobel laureate Harry Kroto delivered a lecture titled “Science: a round peg in a square world”, at the Great Hall of the People at Beijing, in which he passionately called for both better understanding of the role of basic research and better public understanding of scientific ideas. I was delighted to serve as Professor Kroto's translator, and accompanied him to a discussion with 50 high-school students at No. 4 High School in Beijing, one of China's few élite schools.

One student asked why, with biology in the ascendant, she should study chemistry. Part of Kroto's answer was that understanding and controlling chemistry at the molecular level is the key to the success of molecular biology and molecular electronics. This information was new to these bright young students, who will soon be choosing their careers.

In China, the lack of recognition of the breadth of chemistry is alarming. Biochemistry, for example, has never been a discipline within chemistry. The Chinese Chemical Society (CCS) does not have a biochemistry division, and the chemistry division of the National Natural Science Foundation does not support biochemistry research. The recent hype about state projects on the human genome sequence and related fields (Nature 410, 10–12; 2001) excludes the involvement of chemists. The president of the American Chemical Society told me in Beijing that more than 50% of the society's members are industrial chemists: in contrast, there is not even a Chinese word for 'industrial chemists'. China does have 'chemical engineers', but they are not covered by CCS membership.

Modern chemistry is about much more than beakers and flasks. The discoveries of buckminsterfullerene (C60) and carbon nanotubes have reminded us that chemical synthesis can be done with sophisticated machines. The widely used technique of electrospray mass spectrometry in medical screening and biological analysis was developed and perfected in physical chemistry laboratories.

Yet the Chinese science community and China's educational administrators have failed to recognize many of these facts — which is largely why the country's undergraduate and graduate chemistry programmes are outdated.

One of the direct consequences is that my laboratory cannot find students with decent training in modern physical chemistry.

Graduate students and postdocs from China have become a sizeable part of the research force in many US and European research institutions, so China's lack of modern chemistry skills is also a loss to the world at large.