Why do pharmaceutical scientists think that "their" chemistry is unique and different from all others? I have found the solution to numerous chemical (analytical) problems in publication of polymer and surfactant companies, where Pharma people believe that it is "slumming" to go there. If I remember my chemical history, the synthesis of urea proved there was no mystic "life force" in chemicals produced by the body. By the same token, why do pharmaceutical analysts, on the whole, seem to think medicinal chemistry is separate from the world of organic and analytical chemistry, in general? I am tired of attending NIR sessions and having Pharma people walk out because the next talk is about food or petroleum products"¦as if that couldn't possibly apply to pharmaceutical analyses. Bull Pippy! If USDA analysts can use NIR and other methods to predict analyte levels in food and cereals, natural products, wouldn't it seem logical that the tool could be used for carefully regulated pharmaceutical products? I thought so in the 1980s but an awful lot of people looked at me like I had two heads. NOW, it is commonplace, but what about all the other methods we are shunning because they are being used by the "lesser" sciences? Hmmmm?