Is it "a" or "an?"

Understanding Quantum Theory of Electrons in Atoms The goal of this section is to understand the electron orbitals (location of electrons in atoms), their different energies, and other properties. The use of quantum theory provides the best understanding to these topics. This knowledge is a precursor to chemical bonding. As was described previously, electrons in atoms can exist only on discrete energy levels but not between them. It is said that the energy of an electron in an atom is quantized, that is, it can be equal only to certain specific values and can jump from one energy level to another but not transition smoothly or stay between these levels. The energy levels are labeled with an n value, where n = 1, 2, 3, …. Generally speaking, the energy of an electron in an atom is greater for greater values of n. This number, n, is referred to as the principal quantum number. The principal quantum number defines the location of the energy level. It is essentially the same concept as the n in the Bohr atom description. Another name for the principal quantum number is the shell number. The shells of an atom can be thought of concentric circles radiating out from the nucleus. The electrons that belong to a specific shell are most likely to be found within the corresponding circular area. The further we proceed from the nucleus, the higher the shell number, and so the higher the energy level (Figure 9.4.1). The positively charged protons in the nucleus stabilize the electronic orbitals by electrostatic attraction between the positive charges of the protons and the negative charges of the electrons. So the further away the electron is from the nucleus, the greater the energy it has. This quantum mechanical model for where electrons reside in an atom can be used to look at electronic transitions, the events when an electron moves from one energy level to another. If the transition is to a higher energy level, energy is absorbed, and the energy change has a positive value. To obtain the amount of energy necessary for the transition to a higher energy level, a photon is absorbed by the atom. A transition to a lower energy level involves a release of energy, and the energy change is negative. This process is accompanied by emission of a photon by the atom. The following equation summarizes these relationships and is based on the hydrogen atom: The values nf and ni are the final and initial energy states of the electron. The principal quantum number is one of three quantum numbers used to characterize an orbital. An atomic orbital, which is distinct from an orbit, is a general region in an atom within which an electron is most probable to reside. The quantum mechanical model specifies the probability of finding an electron in the three-dimensional space around the nucleus and is based on solutions of the Schrödinger equation. In addition, the principal quantum number defines the energy of an electron in a hydrogen or hydrogen-like atom or an ion (an atom or an ion with only one electron) and the general region in which discrete energy levels of electrons in a multi-electron atoms and ions are located. Another quantum number is l, the angular momentum quantum number. It is an integer that defines the shape of the orbital, and takes on the values, l = 0, 1, 2, …, n – 1. This means that an orbital with n = 1 can have only one value of l, l = 0, whereas n = 2 permits l = 0 and l = 1, and so on. The principal quantum number defines the general size and energy of the orbital. The l value specifies the shape of the orbital. Orbitals with the same value of l form a subshell. In addition, the greater the angular momentum quantum number, the greater is the angular momentum of an electron at this orbital. Orbitals with l = 0 are called s orbitals (or the s subshells). The value l = 1 corresponds to the p orbitals. For a given n, p orbitals constitute a p subshell (e.g., 3p if n = 3). The orbitals with l = 2 are called the d orbitals, followed by the f-, g-, and h-orbitals for l = 3, 4, 5, and there are higher values we will not consider. There are certain distances from the nucleus at which the probability density of finding an electron located at a particular orbital is zero. In other words, the value of the wavefunction ψ is zero at this distance for this orbital. Such a value of radius r is called a radial node. The number of radial nodes in an orbital is n – l – 1. Consider the examples in Figure 9.4.2. The orbitals depicted are of the s type, thus l = 0 for all of them. It can be seen from the graphs of the probability densities that there are 1 – 0 – 1 = 0 places where the density is zero (nodes) for 1s (n = 1), 2 – 0 – 1 = 1 node for 2s, and 3 – 0 – 1 = 2 nodes for the 3s orbitals. The s subshell electron density distribution is spherical and the p subshell has a dumbbell shape. The d and f orbitals are more complex. These shapes represent the three-dimensional regions within which the electron is likely to be found. Principal quantum number (n) & Orbital angular momentum (l): The Orbital Subshell: https://youtu.be/ms7WR149fAY If an electron has an angular momentum (l ≠ 0), then this vector can point in different directions. In addition, the z component of the angular momentum can have more than one value. This means that if a magnetic field is applied in the z direction, orbitals with different values of the z component of the angular momentum will have different energies resulting from interacting with the field. The magnetic quantum number, called ml, specifies the z component of the angular momentum for a particular orbital. For example, for an s orbital, l = 0, and the only value of ml is zero. For p orbitals, l = 1, and ml can be equal to –1, 0, or +1. Generally speaking, ml can be equal to –l, –(l – 1), …, –1, 0, +1, …, (l – 1), l. The total number of possible orbitals with the same value of l (a subshell) is 2l + 1. Thus, there is one s-orbital for ml = 0, there are three p-orbitals for ml = 1, five d-orbitals for ml = 2, seven f-orbitals for ml = 3, and so forth. The principal quantum number defines the general value of the electronic energy. The angular momentum quantum number determines the shape of the orbital. And the magnetic quantum number specifies orientation of the orbital in space, as can be seen in Figure 9.4.3. Figure 9.4.4 illustrates the energy levels for various orbitals. The number before the orbital name (such as 2s, 3p, and so forth) stands for the principal quantum number, n. The letter in the orbital name defines the subshell with a specific angular momentum quantum number l = 0 for s orbitals, 1 for p orbitals, 2 for d orbitals. Finally, there are more than one possible orbitals for l ≥ 1, each corresponding to a specific value of ml. In the case of a hydrogen atom or a one-electron ion (such as He+, Li2+, and so on), energies of all the orbitals with the same n are the same. This is called a degeneracy, and the energy levels for the same principal quantum number, n, are called degenerate energy levels. However, in atoms with more than one electron, this degeneracy is eliminated by the electron–electron interactions, and orbitals that belong to different subshells have different energies. Orbitals within the same subshell (for example ns, np, nd, nf, such as 2p, 3s) are still degenerate and have the same energy. While the three quantum numbers discussed in the previous paragraphs work well for describing electron orbitals, some experiments showed that they were not sufficient to explain all observed results. It was demonstrated in the 1920s that when hydrogen-line spectra are examined at extremely high resolution, some lines are actually not single peaks but, rather, pairs of closely spaced lines. This is the so-called fine structure of the spectrum, and it implies that there are additional small differences in energies of electrons even when they are located in the same orbital. These observations led Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck to propose that electrons have a fourth quantum number. They called this the spin quantum number, or ms. The other three quantum numbers, n, l, and ml, are properties of specific atomic orbitals that also define in what part of the space an electron is most likely to be located. Orbitals are a result of solving the Schrödinger equation for electrons in atoms. The electron spin is a different kind of property. It is a completely quantum phenomenon with no analogues in the classical realm. In addition, it cannot be derived from solving the Schrödinger equation and is not related to the normal spatial coordinates (such as the Cartesian x, y, and z). Electron spin describes an intrinsic electron “rotation” or “spinning.” Each electron acts as a tiny magnet or a tiny rotating object with an angular momentum, even though this rotation cannot be observed in terms of the spatial coordinates. The magnitude of the overall electron spin can only have one value, and an electron can only “spin” in one of two quantized states. One is termed the α state, with the z component of the spin being in the positive direction of the z axis. This corresponds to the spin quantum number ms=12. The other is called the β state, with the z component of the spin being negative and ms=−12. Any electron, regardless of the atomic orbital it is located in, can only have one of those two values of the spin quantum number. The energies of electrons having ms=−12 and ms=12 are different if an external magnetic field is applied. Figure 9.4.5 illustrates this phenomenon. An electron acts like a tiny magnet. Its moment is directed up (in the positive direction of the z axis) for the 12 spin quantum number and down (in the negative z direction) for the spin quantum number of −12. A magnet has a lower energy if its magnetic moment is aligned with the external magnetic field (the left electron) and a higher energy for the magnetic moment being opposite to the applied field. This is why an electron with ms=12 has a slightly lower energy in an external field in the positive z direction, and an electron with ms=−12 has a slightly higher energy in the same field. This is true even for an electron occupying the same orbital in an atom. A spectral line corresponding to a transition for electrons from the same orbital but with different spin quantum numbers has two possible values of energy; thus, the line in the spectrum will show a fine structure splitting. The Pauli Exclusion Principle An electron in an atom is completely described by four quantum numbers: n, l, ml, and ms. The first three quantum numbers define the orbital and the fourth quantum number describes the intrinsic electron property called spin. An Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli formulated a general principle that gives the last piece of information that we need to understand the general behavior of electrons in atoms. The Pauli exclusion principle can be formulated as follows: No two electrons in the same atom can have exactly the same set of all the four quantum numbers. What this means is that electrons can share the same orbital (the same set of the quantum numbers n, l, and ml), but only if their spin quantum numbers ms have different values. Since the spin quantum number can only have two values (±12), no more than two electrons can occupy the same orbital (and if two electrons are located in the same orbital, they must have opposite spins). Therefore, any atomic orbital can be populated by only zero, one, or two electrons. The properties and meaning of the quantum numbers of electrons in atoms are briefly

A. The continental plate remains above, while the oceanic plate subducts. The older and denser oceanic plate subducts beneath the younger plate. A subduction is the process by which an oceanic plate slide under a less dense plate, can be a continental or another oceanic plate. In this process, the plates involved are oceanic plate and continental plate. Oceanic Plate is thinner plate, Dense,generally, slides under into the mantle; and especially when it is older than the other oceanic plate. They may slide over given that it is the younger oceanic plate in the oceanic-oceanic subduction. In case of oceanic-continental subduction, even younger oceanic plate can never slide over it. Continental Plate is thicker plate, less dense and slides over and experiences compression and volcanic activity. Another concept is about buoyancy. Consider the Earth’s mantle as a giant swimming pool. Floating on top of it are the Earth's tectonic plates—some thin and dense, like the oceanic crust, and others thick and less dense, like the continental crust. Imagine the thin oceanic plate and the thick continental crusts are like tennis ball and soccer ball, respectively. When placed in water, the tennis ball sinks at the bottom and easily subducted as it is smaller and denser. Contrary, the soccer ball is larger and more buoyant, thus, resists subduction and tends to stay afloat. Therefore, during subduction, the thin and dense oceanic crust or an older oceanic crust slide under another plate due to its low buoyancy. Consequently, the thick and denser continental plate or younger oceanic plate slides over because of its high buoyancy. In the subduction zone, there are two landforms that are formed in the process, namely, trench and volcanic arcs. Trenches are deep valleys formed at the edges of the colliding plates, where an oceanic plate bends downward and starts to subduct another plate. It looks like a long, narrow depression where marks the zone where subduction begins. The other landform is the volcanic arc, a chain of volcanoes that formed on the overriding plates where water and sediments from the sinking slab cause the mantle wedge above it to melt, making the magma rise to the surface and forming the volcanoes. a. The formation of trench When these two plates collide, the oceanic plate is subducted and pulled into the mantle. The edges of the plates create a deep valley which we call trench. b. Formation of volcanic arcs When a denser oceanic plate collides with a less dense continental plate, oceanic plate is subducted and pulled into the mantle. As it reaches the mantle, the plate is subjected to extremely high pressure and temperature. This causes the trapped water and air in the plate to be released. The plate eventually melted back as magma. The formed magma rises to the surface. This gives rise to the formation of volcanic arcs. The same is true between the collision of two oceanic crusts as the older crust is subducted over the younger crust. However, the collision of two continental crusts will not result in the formation of trenches.

Revealing personal data can lead to threats like identity theft, fraud, bullying, and blackmail. 1.Identity Theft Definition: Identity theft occurs when someone steals your personal information and uses it without your permission. This can include your name, Social Security number, or bank details. Example: If someone gets your Social Security number, they could open a credit card in your name and run up bills that you would have to pay. 2.Fraud Definition: Fraud is when someone deceives another person to gain something of value, like money or personal information. This is often done through lies or tricks. Example: A person might call you pretending to be from your bank and tell you that you need to confirm your account details. If you give them your information, they may steal your money. 3. Bullying Definition: Bullying is when someone repeatedly hurts, threatens, or picks on another person. This can happen in person or online (cyberbullying). Example: If someone sends hurtful messages or spreads rumors about you on social media, that’s a form of bullying. 4. Blackmail Definition: Blackmail is when someone threatens to reveal harmful or embarrassing information about you unless you give them something they want, usually money or favors. Example: If someone takes a private photo of you and threatens to share it unless you pay them, that’s blackmail. Summary Identity Theft: Stealing personal information for illegal use. Fraud: Deceiving someone for personal gain. Bullying: Repeatedly hurting or threatening someone. Blackmail: Threatening to expose information unless demands are met. Understanding these terms helps you recognize and protect yourself from potential dangers in both real life and online. If you see any signs of these actions happening, it’s important to talk to a trusted adult or authority figure. There are several guidelines for you to be aware of to keep your personal data confidential: •Have strong passwords set on any account that holds personal data. Stronger passwords include characters, numbers and symbols and are not a recognisable word. •Encrypt (scramble text so that it cannot be read without a decryption key) any personal data that you store on your computer. •Have a firewall present, scanning incoming and outgoing data from your computer system. firewall : a security measure that can be implemented to monitor traffic into and out of a computer and prevent external users gaining unauthorised access to a computer system. A firewall is a security measure that helps protect a computer system by monitoring and controlling the traffic that comes into and goes out of the system. Think of it as a barrier between your computer and the outside world. It prevents unauthorized users from accessing your computer while allowing authorized traffic to pass through. •Regularly scan your computer with preventative software, such as an anti-virus package, that is used to identify a virus on a computer and remove it. Anti-virus: software that is used to identify a virus on a computer and remove it •Make use of any biometric devices (devices that measures a person's biological data, such as thumbprints), that are built into technology. biometric devices: Unique physical characteristic of a person that can be used by a computer for identification purposes. https://www.aratek.co/news/biometric-devices-definition-and-examples Biometric devices are tools that use unique physical characteristics of a person for identification purposes. This means they can recognize who you are based on features that are unique to you. Here are some examples of biometric characteristics: Fingerprint Recognition, Facial Recognition, Voice Recognition •Only visit and provide data to websites that are a trusted source. •Do not open any email attachments from a sender you do not recognise. •Check the URL attached to any link requesting data to see if it is genuine. •Be cautious about any pictures or opinions that you post or send to people. •Remove data about your location that is normally attached to your photos and videos that you may post, such as geotags. Geotag: an electronic tag that assigns a geographical location A geotag is an electronic tag that assigns a specific geographical location to a piece of information, like a photo or a video. Geotags can help people understand where a photo was taken or where an event occurred, making it easier to organize and find information based on location. •Do not become friends on social networking sites with people you do not know. •Set all the privacy controls to the most secure setting that are available on social media accounts. •Report and block any suspicious user. •Use a nickname or pseudonym when using the internet for entertainment, for example, playing games. •If it is possible, use a virtual private network (VPN), an encrypted connection that can be used to send data more securely across a network. Virtual private network (VPN) : an encrypted connection that can be used to send data more securely across a network A Virtual Private Network (VPN) is a special way to connect to the internet that keeps your information safe. Imagine you are sending a secret message to a friend. You want to make sure no one else can read it while it travels. A VPN helps you do just that! It creates an encrypted connection, which means it turns your message into a code that only your friend can understand Example: Public Wi-Fi Safety: When you use public Wi-Fi, like in a café, your data can be easily accessed by hackers. If you connect to a VPN while using that public Wi-Fi, your data is encrypted, making it much harder for anyone to steal your information.

Covalent Molecules and Compounds Just as an atom is the simplest unit that has the fundamental chemical properties of an element, a molecule is the simplest unit that has the fundamental chemical properties of a covalent compound. Some pure elements exist as covalent molecules. Hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and the halogens occur naturally as the diatomic (“two atoms”) molecules H2, N2, O2, F2, Cl2, Br2, and I2 (part (a) in Figure 3.1.1). Similarly, a few pure elements exist as polyatomic (“many atoms”) molecules, such as elemental phosphorus and sulfur, which occur as P4 and S8 (part (b) in Figure 3.1.1). Each covalent compound is represented by a molecular formula, which gives the atomic symbol for each component element, in a prescribed order, accompanied by a subscript indicating the number of atoms of that element in the molecule. The subscript is written only if the number of atoms is greater than 1. For example, water, with two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom per molecule, is written as H2O. Similarly, carbon dioxide, which contains one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms in each molecule, is written as CO2. Covalent compounds that predominantly contain carbon and hydrogen are called organic compounds. The convention for representing the formulas of organic compounds is to write carbon first, followed by hydrogen and then any other elements in alphabetical order (e.g., CH4O is methyl alcohol, a fuel). Compounds that consist primarily of elements other than carbon and hydrogen are called inorganic compounds; they include both covalent and ionic compounds. In inorganic compounds, the component elements are listed beginning with the one farthest to the left in the periodic table, as in CO2 or SF6. Those in the same group are listed beginning with the lower element and working up, as in ClF. By convention, however, when an inorganic compound contains both hydrogen and an element from groups 13–15, hydrogen is usually listed last in the formula. Examples are ammonia (NH3) and silane (SiH4). Compounds such as water, whose compositions were established long before this convention was adopted, are always written with hydrogen first: Water is always written as H2O, not OH2. The conventions for inorganic acids, such as hydrochloric acid (HCl) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4), are described elswhere. Note! For organic compounds: write C first, then H, and then the other elements in alphabetical order. For molecular inorganic compounds: start with the element at far left in the periodic table; list elements in same group beginning with the lower element and working up. Write the molecular formula of each compound. a. The phosphorus-sulfur compound that is responsible for the ignition of so-called strike anywhere matches has 4 phosphorus atoms and 3 sulfur atoms per molecule. b. Ethyl alcohol, the alcohol of alcoholic beverages, has 1 oxygen atom, 2 carbon atoms, and 6 hydrogen atoms per molecule. c. Freon-11, once widely used in automobile air conditioners and implicated in damage to the ozone layer, has 1 carbon atom, 3 chlorine atoms, and 1 fluorine atom per molecule. Solution: a. • A The molecule has 4 phosphorus atoms and 3 sulfur atoms. Because the compound does not contain mostly carbon and hydrogen, it is inorganic. • B Phosphorus is in group 15, and sulfur is in group 16. Because phosphorus is to the left of sulfur, it is written first. • C Writing the number of each kind of atom as a right-hand subscript gives P4S3 as the molecular formula. b. • A Ethyl alcohol contains predominantly carbon and hydrogen, so it is an organic compound. • B The formula for an organic compound is written with the number of carbon atoms first, the number of hydrogen atoms next, and the other atoms in alphabetical order: CHO. • C Adding subscripts gives the molecular formula C2H6O. c. • A Freon-11 contains carbon, chlorine, and fluorine. It can be viewed as either an inorganic compound or an organic compound (in which fluorine has replaced hydrogen). The formula for Freon-11 can therefore be written using either of the two conventions. • B According to the convention for inorganic compounds, carbon is written first because it is farther left in the periodic table. Fluorine and chlorine are in the same group, so they are listed beginning with the lower element and working up: CClF. Adding subscripts gives the molecular formula CCl3F. • C We obtain the same formula for Freon-11 using the convention for organic compounds. The number of carbon atoms is written first, followed by the number of hydrogen atoms (zero) and then the other elements in alphabetical order, also giving CCl3F. Write the molecular formula for each compound. a. Nitrous oxide, also called “laughing gas,” has 2 nitrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom per molecule. Nitrous oxide is used as a mild anesthetic for minor surgery and as the propellant in cans of whipped cream. b. Sucrose, also known as cane sugar, has 12 carbon atoms, 11 oxygen atoms, and 22 hydrogen atoms. c. Sulfur hexafluoride, a gas used to pressurize “unpressurized” tennis balls and as a coolant in nuclear reactors, has 6 fluorine atoms and 1 sulfur atom per molecule. Answer: a. N2O b. C12H22O11 c. SF6. Ionic Compounds The substances described in the preceding discussion are composed of molecules that are electrically neutral; that is, the number of positively-charged protons in the nucleus is equal to the number of negatively-charged electrons. In contrast, ions are atoms or assemblies of atoms that have a net electrical charge. Ions that contain fewer electrons than protons have a net positive charge and are called cations. Conversely, ions that contain more electrons than protons have a net negative charge and are called anions. Ionic compounds contain both cations and anions in a ratio that results in no net electrical charge. Note! Ionic compounds contain both cations and anions in a ratio that results in zero electrical charge.An ionic compound that contains only two elements, one present as a cation and one as an anion, is called a binary ionic compound. One example is MgCl2, a coagulant used in the preparation of tofu from soybeans. For binary ionic compounds, the subscripts in the empirical formula can also be obtained by crossing charges: use the absolute value of the charge on one ion as the subscript for the other ion. This method is shown schematically as follows: Crossing charges. One method for obtaining subscripts in the empirical formula is by crossing charges. When crossing charges, it is sometimes necessary to reduce the subscripts to their simplest ratio to write the empirical formula. Consider, for example, the compound formed by Mg2+ and O2−. Using the absolute values of the charges on the ions as subscripts gives the formula Mg2O2:Polyatomic Ions Polyatomic ions are groups of atoms that bear net electrical charges, although the atoms in a polyatomic ion are held together by the same covalent bonds that hold atoms together in molecules. Just as there are many more kinds of molecules than simple elements, there are many more kinds of polyatomic ions than monatomic ions. Two examples of polyatomic cations are the ammonium (NH4+) and the methylammonium (CH3NH3+) ions. P. The method used to predict the empirical formulas for ionic compounds that contain monatomic ions can also be used for compounds that contain polyatomic ions. The overall charge on the cations must balance the overall charge on the anions in the formula unit. Thus, K+ and NO3− ions combine in a 1:1 ratio to form KNO3 (potassium nitrate or saltpeter), a major ingredient in black gunpowder. Similarly, Ca2+ and SO42− form CaSO4 (calcium sulfate), which combines with varying amounts of water to form gypsum and plaster of Paris. The polyatomic ions NH4+ and NO3− form NH4NO3 (ammonium nitrate), a widely used fertilizer and, in the wrong hands, an explosive. One example of a compound in which the ions have charges of different magnitudes is calcium phosphate, which is composed of Ca2+ and PO43− ions; it is a major component of bones. The compound is electrically neutral because the ions combine in a ratio of three Ca2+ ions [3(+2) = +6] for every two ions [2(−3) = −6], giving an empirical formula of Ca3(PO4)2; the parentheses around PO4 in the empirical formula indicate that it is a polyatomic ion. Writing the formula for calcium phosphate as Ca3P2O8 gives the correct number of each atom in the formula unit, but it obscures the fact that the compound contains readily identifiable PO43− ions.Summary • There are two fundamentally different kinds of chemical bonds (covalent and ionic) that cause substances to have very different properties. • The composition of a compound is represented by an empirical or molecular formula, each consisting of at least one formula unit.Contributors The atoms in chemical compounds are held together by attractive electrostatic interactions known as chemical bonds. Ionic compounds contain positively and negatively charged ions in a ratio that results in an overall charge of zero. The ions are held together in a regular spatial arrangement by electrostatic forces. Most covalent compounds consist of molecules, groups of atoms in which one or more pairs of electrons are shared by at least two atoms to form a covalent bond. The atoms in molecules are held together by the electrostatic attraction between the positively charged nuclei of the bonded atoms and the negatively charged electrons shared by the nuclei. The molecular formula of a covalent compound gives the types and numbers of atoms present. Compounds that contain predominantly carbon and hydrogen are called organic compounds, whereas compounds that consist primarily of elements other than carbon and hydrogen are inorganic compounds. Diatomic molecules contain two atoms, and polyatomic molecules contain more than two. A structural formula indicates the composition and approximate structure and shape of a molecule. Single bonds, double bonds, and triple bonds are covalent bonds in which one, two, and three pairs of electrons, respectively, are shared between two bonded atoms. Atoms or groups of atoms that possess a net electrical charge are called ions; they can have either a positive charge (cations) or a negative charge (anions). Ions can consist of one atom (monatomic ions) or several (polyatomic ions). The charges on monatomic ions of most main group elements can be predicted from the location of the element in the periodic table. Ionic compounds usually form hard crystalline solids with high melting points. Covalent molecular compounds, in contrast, consist of discrete molecules held together by weak intermolecular forces and can be gases, liquids, or solids at room temperature and pressure. An empirical formula gives the relative numbers of atoms of the elements in a compound, reduced to the lowest whole numbers. The formula unit is the absolute grouping represented by the empirical formula of a compound, either ionic or covalent. Empirical formulas are particularly useful for describing the composition of ionic compounds, which do not contain readily identifiable molecules. Some ionic compounds occur as hydrates, which contain specific ratios of loosely bound water molecules called waters of hydration.

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes