Philip Marriott

Meet Philip Marriott

Let me commence by stating that each of the posed questions has an existential connotation for the position of analytical science. And if we believe in analytical science, then it is worth fighting for its recognition. In arguing for the purpose or the point of analytical science, in this “Voice,” it may be a little like preaching to the converted. We should all be able to point to cases where analytical science has “made a difference”; answering this question, though, does provide compelling reasons for inclusion of analytical science in courses, and representation at the highest levels of science and technology. Importantly, it provides the ammunition to equip analytical scientists with cogent arguments supporting this contention.

However, here, I’d like to discuss raising the prominence of analytical science. First of all, I think we have to challenge the perception of analytical science amongst even fellow science disciplines, such as at universities. A prominent analytical scientist once counseled to be cautious, as an academic analytical scientist, to be placed in charge of the “analytical platform” in a Chemistry School. Being in such a position you may very well be expected to develop and maintain the facility but often not included in academic pursuits such as publications, and this risked the potential to be labelled “a technician.” Thus, even amongst Chemistry, there can be a demarcation between the chemist as a synthetic researcher and the instrumental specialist / analytical method developer. This can be the first challenge, but strictly speaking the analytical platform and increasingly the specialist instrumentation it houses is becoming crucial to the practice of all areas of chemistry.

It is now important, in the eyes of all scientists, to elevate the analytical scientist to a central position as the enabler of research into quality instrumentation, methodology and associated procedures underpinning all measurement science, without which chemical research is compromised. Interestingly, the very case studies which highlight the “point of analytical science,” can also be used to support analytical scientists rising in prominence as the “keystone to good science.”

What is required to achieve this goal is the engagement of both analytical science and those who benefit from this very science in recognition of the importance that new analytical science innovations have delivered to their fields. It is integral to the role of the analytical scientist to research and discover new capabilities that extend the practice of chemical analysis. And this seems best to be within the chemical sciences. If not, then who will be tasked with making these discoveries that all science benefits from?

Electrospray ionisation in LC–MS was not developed by a biochemist who needed to have a new ionisation method to allow their complex biomolecules to be separated, identified and quantified. Flavourists have long valued the use of GC–MS but they did not and would not be expected to develop the technology of GC×GC that promises – and delivers – so much extra power to exquisitely profile flavours and fragrances. Environmental scientists did not develop the GC–MS/MS and LC–MS/MS techniques that are now fundamental to environmental analysis for pesticides and other chemical species in the environment.

But in the above cases, advanced technologies were placed in their hands, generating discoveries and new information. Analytical scientists – make some noise!