L E T T E R S

Marketing of New Drugs

DEAR SIR: I would like to compliment you on

your very thorough and thought-pro­voking analysis of the drug industry (C&EN, Aug. 10, page 68; Aug. 17, page 114). It is the best report of this type I have seen for some time. I am glad to know that some of the figures I have compiled on new prod­uct introduction in recent years have been of use to you.

I agree with you that the drug in­dustry can be expected to do well. The savings that are accumulating through the nonmarketing of products which later turned out to be a loss are considerable and will continue to con­tribute to the profit of many manu­facturers.

But there was no doubt an excess of expenditure for promotional pur­poses in recent years and the industry is gradually reducing this because the sales department cannot ask for the marketing of as many new products has it did in the past. On the other hand, we see today large increases in research expenditures which may not always be justified and profitable, and I think here too the industry will have to learn, not with the aid of government regulations but through experience.

It is true that some of the smaller firms will find it more difficult to operate under the new drug law. This will concern, however, primarily their manufacturing and control meth­ods, which have to be modernized to meet the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration. This they are not always able to do either finan­cially or with the personnel they em­ploy.

In my annual "New Products Parade" for 1963 I analyzed the mar­keting of new products by the smaller firms. These firms have only rarely been able to get hold of a new single chemical which requires the detailed pharmacologic and clinical investiga­tion now demanded. They have pri­marily marketed combination products and are continuing to do so. I also do not think that the small firms will have to spend between $500,000 and $1 million to develop and sell a new product. Such figures apply primarily

to the larger firms, whose research and selling expenses are frequently waste­ful. PAUL DE HAEN New York, Ν.Ύ.

Colloid Refresher DEAR SIR:

We are grateful to Dr. R. D. Void (C&EN, Sept. 28, page 5) for point­ing out an error that cerpt into "Survey Shows Shortage of Colloid Chem­ists" (C&EN, Aug. 3, page 42) . In­deed, the course mentioned was offered at the University of Southern California and not at the University of California. However, the article says in no place that the participants were "students." On the contrary, it clearly states that the course was offered "in colloid chemistry for col­lege teachers."

It was never intended by the edu­cation committee to give the impres­sion that a short course in colloid chemistry would be sufficient to train people in this area of science. The whole purpose of the survey was to obtain enough information on actual needs for people trained in surface and colloid chemistry in order to sub­mit these results to chairmen of chem­istry departments. This was done in the hope that the conclusions of the survey will induce departments to introduce courses in colloid and sur­face chemistry where they are not offered, or to intensify the program where limited course offerings al­ready exist. This is what Dr. Void very justifiably would like to see ac­complished and is what the education committee is presently trying to do. It is quite obvious that the summer courses mentioned in the article are intended for people who are out of school and require a better back­ground in colloid and surface chem­istry in their present occupations. Although such courses are in a sense a short-cut, they may, if carefully planned, assist many who have had no opportunity to study colloid chemistry in a regular academic curriculum.

EGON MATIJEVIC Chairman, Education Committee,

ACS Division of Colloid and Surface Chemistry

Clarkson College, Potsdam, N.Y.

Clear Technical and Scientific Writing DEAR SIR:

The Sanford and Bravo exchange of thoughts (C&EN, May 11, page 5; July 6, page 4; and Aug. 17, page 4) set off by Gillan (C&EN, April 6, page 4) delights me. I eagerly await Bravo's rebuttal. And now to brashly thrust in my oar after quoting John Locke (1632-1704).

Vague and insignificant forms of speech, and abuse of language, have so long passed for mysteries of sci­ence; and hard or misapplied words with little or no meaning have, by prescription, such a right to be mis­taken for deep learning and height of speculation, that it will not be easy to persuade either those who speak or those who hear them that they are but the covers of ignorance and hindrance of true knowledge.

Bravo holds that people who think clearly, write clearly. Ergo, provide more people who think clearly (or reject the writings of foggy thinkers?).

Sanford holds that many (most?) scientists know little about writing; that because they think clearly (sci­entifically) they believe they write clearly-but they don't. (And, I add, that they don't know it and therein lies the kernel of this rationale. )

Those in the same discipline wade manfully through each other's jargon. Seemingly, the younger ape the older and "improve" on them. As this con­dition progresses, people in other dis­ciplines find scientific and technical writing more and more tedious to understand-to translate, if you will.

I quite agree with Sanford that education in clear writing is needed-definitely needed. I certainly uphold the appeal for (more) research on clear writing. I suggest, though, we pause to digest the research results now available and that we use them. Many fine books on clear writing exist. Are we unaware of these books or "feel" they do not apply to us? The English sentence is so capable of ex­pressing thoughts clearly when we use the active voice, active verbs, concrete nouns, one thought to a sentence, low fog index, and (dear me!) reasonably short sentences.

Blazon Bravo's premise—first have something worthwhile to write about. Then add: Collect and organize your thoughts; come to your point quickly and keep to it; be specific (the best English is plain English). Then read to discover if you did write what you

4 C & E N OCT. 12, 1964

intended to write. ("A word to the wise is not sufficient if it doesn't make sense". . . James Thurber.) The up­shot may be an excursion into a study in writing and of general semantics.

Bravo hypothesized that people who think clearly, write clearly. San-ford countered by exposing Nobel laureates. I also tried my hand at that and selected Nobel laureate Percy Bridgeman. . . . I would never presume to alter Bridgeman's teach­ings, but I find a challenge and some entertainment in trying to express his writing in another way. My rules of the game are simply: (1) use much the same words—or shorter words; (2) check with others to learn if: (a) the essential meaning is unchanged, (b) the rewrite is more quickly understood.

You might try your own rewrite of the following paragraph on operations from Bridgeman's "The Nature of Physical Theory." These 131 words have a fog index over 25. My "trans­lation" of 84 words has a fog index under 12.

It must not be understood that we are maintaining that as a necessity of thought we must always demand that physical concepts be defined in terms of physical operations; we are merely stating that if by convention we agree to use only those concepts in describ­ing physical situations to which we can give a meaning in terms of physi­cal operations, then we are sure that we shall not have to retract. Other sorts of concept may be applicable, but such always require justification, and we cannot be sure that the justi­fication will be forthcoming until we have made the experiment. The con­vention that the physical concepts be defined in terms of physical operations is such an obviously useful one that it is coming to be accepted by physicists and demanded tacitly. (131 words)

I do not say that thinking requires us to define a physical idea in terms of the physical operation that brought it about. I just say that if, where it ap­plies, we limit our definition to this operation we won't have to change it later on. We could use concepts other than operations to define a physical idea. The objection is they must all first be proved by a test. Physicists find this operational definition useful. They like it and even tacitly demand it. (84 words)

I cannot judge the value of such exercises. One finds them easier with the writings of others than with one's own writing. I suggest that such prac­tice can help us to organize and clarify our own outpourings.

SHERWOOD B. SEELEY

Jersey City, N.J.

A lot! It's one of our fleet of tank

trucks, the first ever designed and built especially to handle aluminum alkyls. Among its features—a special heating unit, further, it unloads from the top. More than that it car­ries a full load of service and experience from the company that first produced aluminum alkyls commercially.

This truck is just one exam­ple of the type of planning and service we provide our custom­ers. Many industries—among them rubber, plastics, synthet­

ics, defense and space —are using Ethyl's aluminum alkyls and related compounds. Per­haps these versatile chemicals can increase the efficiency of your processing, too.

We'll supply all you need— in whatever container you specify from cylinder to tank truck or tank car. And back them with engineering service and handling know-how to help you use them safely and most productively.

Interested? For more infor­mation, simply write or call.

CHICAGO .TULSA · HOUSTON « LOS ANGELES · ETHYL CORPORATION OF CANADA LIMITED, TORONTO

WHAT'S SO SPECIAL ABOUT THIS

SPECIAL ETHYLTANK

TRUCK?

OCT. 12, 196 4 C&EN 5

ETHYL CORPORATION 100 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017