Scott A. McLuckey

Meet Scott A. McLuckey

The progress of Science is fundamentally linked to progress in measurement science. While most attention is understandably directed to the new discoveries and new knowledge revealed by measurements, the science that underlies measurements is foundational. The question “What is the point of analytical science?”, therefore, cannot be distinguished at a high level from the question “What is the point of physical science?”. The approach to understanding the physical world that we now refer to as the scientific method has obviously been spectacularly successful and is fundamentally based on observation and measurement. The Nobel Prizes awarded for spectroscopy, electrochemistry, chromatography, mass spectrometry, NMR, etc. and the discoveries enabled by these techniques (e.g., isotopes, fullerenes, etc.) clearly reflect the recognition that “new tools beget new science.” Indeed, all good physical scientists are quantitative and understand the basic principles of measurement science specific to their fields.

Of course, measurements in physical science are not restricted to atoms and molecules. However, for the myriad of cases in which the information sought is manifest at the atomic/molecular level, highly trained and creative scientists are often needed, particularly when novel measurement approaches are required. At this level, the question “What is the point of analytical science?” can be addressed with more specificity. The point is to provide useful information, along with the levels of uncertainty, to enable informed decisions regarding issues that originate at the atomic/molecular level. The information sought may be qualitative (e.g., What is it?), quantitative (e.g., How much?), or both. Questions like “Where is it?”, “When is it?”, “How fast is it changing?”, etc. may also be of fundamental interest. As we cannot see atoms and molecules with the naked eye, we must resort to tools.

In order to address the “point of analytical science,” we must understand our tools, adapt them to novel scenarios, invent new tools as needed, and clearly communicate the information forthcoming from the measurements. As the measurement challenges are varied and evolving, we are challenged to find new and better ways to address them. While there is a common set of figures-of-merit associated with most measurements (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, dynamic range, etc.) and common statistical approaches to interpreting our data, the principles underlying our tools vary greatly (e.g., those of NMR versus those of mass spectrometry) as do the measurement challenges. Hence, as none of us can know or do it all, we need a community. As the community improves current approaches and invents new ones, old questions can be better addressed and new questions will be enabled. As this is a continuing process without a final destination, we are assured that analytical science will never be pointless.