ACIT: Motivation

<<< Back to main page

Precise the present situation, why we want to create this community, questions we want to address, who is cencerned

***** THIS PAGE NEEDS TO BE TOTALLY REWRITTEN LATER *****

• This point should be reformulate more positively Some interpretative methods and conceptual models are very much used in many areas (population analysis, qualitative MO theory, conceptual DFT, quantum chemical topology methods,...), some others much less so (VB, MPD,...). Why, what can we do ?

• We should know when a method is suited to some area. Is this a problem intrinsic to the field, to the ego of researchers, …, or just ill-defined?
  • comparison between methods : what can of "insight" can we get with the different methods, cannot do with the different methods

• Do all methods give the same answer?

• Andreas: From my perspective the (unattained) aim of the workshops in Xiamen and Aachen was just to discuss these issues. In a friendly way. Should a society not provide a frame for such discussions?

• We believe that developing, teaching and using (new) conceptual models and interpretative methods is necessary to:
  • organize and give sense to the ever-growing data accumulation
  • reach new stages of knowledge and deep understanding in chemistry.

• The sub-communities of researchers working on the development of different classes of interpretative methods and conceptual models (different types of VB, MO models, quantum chemical topology, other “real-space” interpretative methods…) are very small and scattered, with weak interactions between them.

• Need of interaction with “real chemists”, those who need our concepts.

• Question: what about the need of improving teaching chemistry in high schools? In other fields, e.g., biology? Can our concepts build bridges?