Ò36 Ways of Looking at One Enzyme.ÓBut perhaps scientists and artists ma-

nipulate these tools for diÝerent ends,countered John Hollander, a poet fromYale University. ÒModels are built in or-der that they may be discarded whenthere are new data. Metaphors neverget discarded,Ó he stated.

Indeed, chemist and poet Roald HoÝ-mann of Cornell UniversityÑwho rep-resents a convergence of science andartÑmaintained that diÝerences of lan-guage exist between the two worlds.One of those Òis the positive valuationof ambiguity in art. A word may havetwo meanings that conßict with eachother; it may mean the same and the op-posite of itself. ThatÕs what makes po-etry work, in part,Ó HoÝmann explained.ÒIn science we try, but we donÕt reallysucceed, to clean up the language and toget the concepts straight between us.ÓNevertheless, scientiÞc duality persists:a character in Hapgood draws on thetheory of lightÕs being both waves andparticles to justify how he can work as aspy for both the British and the Soviets.

Ackerman said she believes artistslike Òthe pure fun of using metaphorsand structures from science.Ó She gavethe example of Paul WestÕs novel Gala,

in which every paragraph begins with aletter of the genetic code: ÒFor him, itwas a form of organization and play. Ithink writers do that very often.Ó

Although the application of scientiÞcmetaphor is obviously not limited towriting, some of the speakers cited ex-amples from their favorite texts. Physi-cist Melissa Franklin of Harvard Univer-sity mentioned Thomas PynchonÕs bookV, in which he describes the electroniccircuitry of a stereo system. Accordingto Franklin, Pynchon Òunderstands it allperfectly, from the shuddering of thespeakers to the music going into his[characterÕs] head.Ó Furthermore, Frank-lin noted that Pynchon Òdescribes it asif heÕs describing a sunset. It is just oneof the most beautiful things IÕve seen.Ó

The panelists concluded that peopletend to feel intimidated by science butthat artistic treatments might help con-vince them that science is interestingand accessible. At the close of the dis-cussion, HoÝmann answered a questionabout how art and science can becomemore integrated into daily life. ÒI thinkwe must get away from that ÔhighÕthing,Ó he responded. ÒI think it is im-portant not to deÞne theater as hightheater. I think Bob Dylan writes poetry.And a lot of simple, everyday experienc-es are examples of physics, like cookingor watching a tire deßate,Ó he said. ÒIthink we can bring that to young people.I think to do that would be to accom-plish a great thing.Ó ÑSasha Nemecek

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN March 1995 21

The discovery of new elements canbe cause for celebration, but late-ly it has become cause for argu-

ment. Researchers at the Center forHeavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Ger-many, announced last November thatthey had created element 110. Then, inDecember, they presented 111. Choos-ing the right name for the new sub-stances may prove more challengingthan making them.

The Þndings come right on the heelsof an intense Þght over what to dub 101through 109. Although the elementsthemselves do not endureÑfor instance,110 lives for about two thousandths ofa secondÑsome of the researchers whomade them would like to. The discover-ers of 106 provisionally named it sea-borgium, after Glenn T. Seaborg, a lead-ing U.S. researcher. But the InternationalUnion of Pure and Applied Chemistrywill vote this August on whether thename should be rutherfordium instead,claiming that an element should not benamed after a living person. (Britishphysicist Ernest Rutherford died in1937.) Not only does this plan upset theparents of element 106, it makes nam-

ing other heavy elements more diÛ-cult: number 104 was previously knownas rutherfordium, except by some Rus-sian scientists who referred to it askurchatovium. Now the recommendedname is dubnium.

As for elements 110 and 111, they willhave to wait their turn. Albert Ghiorsoof Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory men-tions a rumor he heard that the Darm-stadt group might hold element 111hostage until the other names are set-tled. And Seaborg has Òno ideaÓ what ele-ment 110 might be christened: ÒThereÕstremendous confusion right now.Ó

Irrespective of the naming game, sci-entists continue to make these short-lived compounds to verify theoreticalcalculations and to satisfy basic curios-ity. ÒYou never know what will happenalong the way,Ó Ghiorso says. The justcreated elements promise to gratify re-searchers by demonstrating Òthat super-heavy elements are within our grasp,Óhe adds. Investigators are now aimingfor element 114, which calculations sug-gest will be particularly stable. But 112will probably be very diÛcult to makeÑas well as to name. ÑSasha Nemecek

Not Yet Elemental, My Dear SeaborgThe periodic table gains 110 and 111Ñbut no names

Copyright 1995 Scientific American, Inc.