The Analytical Scientist has for many years shone a light on the so-called “perception problem” in analytical science.
In 2023, Gert Desment surmised the notion: “What we do is extremely spectacular [...] but we are not selling it well enough. Some of our fellow chemists consider us a service technology, but our measurements and the progress this field has made are crucial.” Desmet suggested that the field ought to consider sailing under a new flag: “chemical measurement science,” which prompted our 2024 cover feature – “What’s in a Name?” – featuring perspectives from Jonathan Sweedler, Chris Enke, Richard Zare, Victoria Samanidou, and Desmet himself.
This idea that analytical science is unfairly considered a “service” came up again in a recent discussion focused on practical ways to help funders, journals, and fellow scientists understand – and invest in – analytical science.
“For many years, we have been considered a service,” said Coral Barbas. “And not only that – there’s a perception that anyone can make a measurement, so what is an analytical chemist even for?”
Michael Witting concurred: “Coral is absolutely right: we’re often seen as a service because analytical chemistry is literally down in the basement, in the ‘shady’ part of the building where the big machines run and people send samples. But we need to get to the front page.”
Should analytical scientists be offended by the notion that they provide a service? Peter Kissinger – Emeritus Professor, Purdue University, USA; Cofounder, Inotiv, Prosolia, and Phlebotics – thinks the field can sometimes be a little too negative.
“Lawyers, clinicians, musicians, painters, writers, carpenters, plumbers, poets, organic chemists, actors, pilots, veterinarians, police and firemen, sea captains, accountants, instrument designers, athletes, educators, and investment bankers, among others, don't seem to obsess over providing value to others,” he says. “They celebrate it!”
Kissinger’s point is that in all professions there is a wide range of performance – which isn’t a problem. “We have our Beethovens, we have our performers of Beethoven, and we have those who can only play Beethoven recorded by others.”
“Good data facilitates good conclusions. Analytical scientists are important and are appreciated. It's not healthy to feel paranoid.”
Kissinger’s position can be contrasted with Samanidou’s argument from our earlier feature. There, she argued that the work analytical scientists do is quite separate from the work of “chemical analysts.”
“Routine chemical analysis of similar samples using standard protocols usually developed by others or made mandatory by regulatory agencies is certainly a valuable service for many fields, but it is not the same thing as developing or improving techniques and tools to solve new problems, which requires deep fundamental understanding,” she said.
Perhaps the key question is whether conflating these different groups has tangibly harmful consequences for the field. Many have suggested that the field struggles to attract talent, for example. And in Out of the Basement and Into the Light, Georgios Theodoridis argued that one consequence of the field’s prestige problem is a lack of investment.
“I agree that we’re perceived as service providers,” he said. “And you can see that in how major prizes or large grants, like ERC grants or Nobel Prizes, rarely go to analytical chemistry.”
Kissinger isn’t so sure. “Who else gets the money?” He asks. “Human genome sequencing was and remains a huge bioanalytical chemistry project. We continue to spend billions on it, including the automation and IT to interpret the data.”
“There are no pharmaceutical developments that don't incorporate innovative analytical chemistry,” he adds. “The current excitement over GLP-1 drugs is an excellent example, made possible by more than 40 years of advances in peptide measurements.”
As it happens, we recently interviewed Sarah O’Keeffe, Group Vice President of Product Research and Development (PRD) at Eli Lilly. O’Keeffe, an organic chemist by training, leads a team of 1,500 scientists and engineers working on formulation, drug delivery systems, and manufacturing innovation. Her team played an important role in the development of the recently-approved oral GLP-1 drug orforglipron (brand name Foundayo).
Commenting on the role that analytical scientists play in her group, she said: “An analytical scientist isn't just running assays in service of someone else's project, they're shaping development strategy, flagging risks early, and accelerating decisions.
“We invest a lot in helping people see the connection between their work and the patient. When someone understands that their analysis is what gives us confidence to advance a medicine into clinical trials, it deepens their understanding of their role in medicine development and their impact on people's lives. It also makes us more attractive to top talent because the best scientists don't just want to run instruments; they want to solve problems that matter, work across modalities they can't access anywhere else, and see their work make a real difference.”
The debate will undoubtedly continue. Of course, the “extremely spectacular” work done by analytical scientists should be shouted to the rooftops; indeed, that is one of the reasons The Analytical Scientist exists! But it is at least reassuring to see leaders in the pharmaceutical industry taking to the analytical conference stage (O’Keeffe delivered a keynote presentation at HPLC 2026), and praising the problem-solving and discussion-shaping work done by the analytical scientists in her team.
Newsletters
Receive the latest analytical science news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.
