Update: The Conversation Continues. Help Us Reach 3,100 Signatures for Transparency and Member Voice
TL;DR: On August 18, ACS held a member briefing about the 2026 brand evolution and the replacement of the historic ACS logo. The briefing was an important opportunity for ACS leadership to address concerns raised by members since the announcement. Board Chair Wayne Jones engaged respectfully, acknowledged that the petition raised legitimate questions, recognized that some issues should have been addressed earlier, thanked those involved, and encouraged continued discussion with members at ACS Fall and beyond.
The briefing also showed why this petition remains open. ACS repeatedly emphasized the number of people involved in the research process, including approximately 3,100 participants in the 2024 phase. However, members still lack access to the information needed to understand what those numbers actually represent. The underlying questions, participant breakdowns, detailed results, and evidence showing how many current ACS members specifically supported replacing the historic identity have not been released.
The meeting itself also highlighted transparency concerns. ACS stated that nearly 200 questions were submitted, but attendees could not see the full set of questions or understand how questions were selected for response. Members heard answers from leadership, but they could not see the complete discussion taking place among the community.
ACS also clarified that the historic insignia is not disappearing. That is welcome, but it does not resolve the concern many members have raised. The issue has never been whether the phoenix and Liebig bulb will physically continue to exist. The concern is that the symbol that has represented ACS for generations has been moved away from its everyday role, while the new logo becomes the Society's primary identity.
The discussion should continue at ACS Fall 2026 in Chicago and beyond. This petition will remain open because questions about transparency, governance, evidence, and member involvement deserve continued discussion.
ACS has repeatedly cited approximately 3,100 participants when describing the scale of its research. We are not claiming that a petition and a research study are the same thing. They are not. They answer different questions. However, ACS has not shown that the 3,100 participants were current members who specifically supported replacing the historic identity. Every signature represents an individual who encountered this decision and chose to ask ACS to reconsider. Our next symbolic milestone is 3,100 verified signatures.
Full update: On August 18, ACS held a member briefing on the new brand identity and the decision to replace the historic ACS logo. Many members attended to understand how a decision affecting the Society’s public identity was made and how member feedback shaped the outcome.
The briefing was a meaningful step, and it is important to acknowledge that ACS leadership did engage directly with criticism. Wayne Jones approached the discussion respectfully and recognized that the concerns raised by this petition were not simply about a graphic design preference. He acknowledged that some questions should have been addressed earlier, described the petition as well written, thanked those who created it, and invited continued discussion with members. That type of engagement is important for a scientific society that depends on the trust and participation of its community.
At the same time, the briefing did not resolve the central questions that led many members to sign this petition.
Throughout the meeting, ACS emphasized the amount of research and engagement involved in the process. The Society referenced approximately 3,100 participants in the 2024 research phase and additional thousands involved in later stages. The effort involved in gathering feedback from thousands of people should be recognized, but the number alone does not allow members to evaluate what that feedback actually represented.
Members still do not know how many of those participants were current ACS members, how many were nonmembers, what questions were asked, how different groups responded, whether current members viewed the options differently, or how many people specifically supported replacing the historic ACS identity.
That distinction is extremely important because the question facing ACS was not simply whether the Society should evolve. Almost everyone agrees that ACS must evolve. The question was whether replacing the historic phoenix-and-Liebig-bulb identity was the right path to achieve that evolution.
Those are different questions.
A member can support ACS becoming more innovative, inclusive, accessible, and prepared for the future while also believing that the Society could have modernized its identity without removing the symbol that connected generations of chemists. Preserving history and embracing change are not opposing ideas.
The briefing also raised questions about how member input was handled during the meeting itself. ACS stated that more than 100 questions were submitted before the briefing and that many more arrived during the event, bringing the total close to 200. However, attendees could not see the full list of submitted questions or understand which issues were being raised most frequently. We could not see whether certain concerns dominated the discussion, which questions were not addressed, or why particular questions were selected.
A transparent discussion requires more than providing answers. Members should also be able to understand the concerns that those answers address.
Publishing the full recording, transcript, and a de-identified list of submitted questions would provide that transparency and allow the community to evaluate the conversation for itself.
One of the most important discussions during the briefing involved the historic insignia. ACS leadership emphasized that the insignia is not disappearing, and that clarification is appreciated. However, the concern raised by many members has never been that every instance of the historic symbol would be erased.
The concern is the change in role.
The ACS insignia has represented the Society in everyday life for generations of chemists. It has appeared on publications, communications, conferences, and materials that members associate with ACS. Moving that identity primarily into awards, ceremonial uses, and legacy contexts is fundamentally different from preserving it as the Society's everyday face.
Keeping the insignia somewhere is not the same as keeping its role.
The discussion about governance also provided important information. Wayne Jones explained that the Board did not formally vote on the final logo. Still, it reviewed the process, provided feedback, influenced aspects of the work, and ultimately endorsed the final direction.
That clarification helps members better understand the process, but it also raises reasonable questions. When an organization changes the primary identity of a 150-year-old scientific society, members should be able to understand the formal pathway by which the decision moved from research and design concepts to adoption.
Transparency about that process is not an attack on leadership. It is part of good governance.
The financial discussion followed a similar pattern. ACS explained the percentage of the marketing budget allocated to brand evolution, but members still do not know the total dollar amount spent. Understanding the actual cost, including research, consulting, design, implementation, digital changes, and the replacement of existing materials, is necessary for members to evaluate the decision fully.
A scientific organization should be built around evidence. Members should have access to the evidence behind major decisions.
There is also an opportunity for ACS to demonstrate the member involvement it has emphasized throughout this process. A more participatory approach to future identity decisions could include chemists, students, Local Sections, Divisions, committees, and the broader ACS community while still relying on professional designers to create the final execution.
A member-driven process would not replace expertise. It would combine the creativity and perspective of the chemistry community with professional design capabilities.
That approach would reflect the values ACS promotes: collaboration, inclusion, and engagement.
The next important opportunity for this discussion is ACS Fall 2026 in Chicago.
Thousands of chemists, students, volunteers, Councilors, committee members, leaders, and ACS staff will be together. This is where the conversation should continue. Members should ask questions, engage with leadership, and discuss the evidence behind the decisions that shape the future of their Society.
Scientists should not be afraid to ask difficult questions. Requesting data, methodology, and transparency is not opposition to progress. It is part of the scientific process.
This conversation should continue beyond ACS Fall as well. Not every member will be in Chicago, and the future identity of ACS belongs to the entire community. Council, Local Sections, Divisions, committees, and individual members all have a role in continuing this discussion.
That is why this petition remains open.
This petition has never been about opposing change. It is about ensuring that change happens through a process that members can understand, evaluate, and participate in.
The goal of 3,100 verified signatures is symbolic. ACS has repeatedly cited approximately 3,100 participants when describing the scale of its research process. A petition and a research study are not equivalent, and we are not claiming they are.
A research study gathers responses under a defined methodology. A petition records individuals who voluntarily choose to support a specific request.
But ACS has not demonstrated that those 3,100 participants were 3,100 current members who specifically supported replacing the historic ACS identity.
Every signature represents someone who saw this decision, considered it, and chose to make their voice heard.
If we reach 3,100 verified signatures, it will not be a scientific poll. It will represent thousands of people asking ACS to continue the conversation and reconsider whether the process reflected the level of member involvement expected from a scientific society.
If you have signed, please continue sharing the petition with colleagues, students, mentors, and others in the chemistry community. If you are comfortable sharing why you signed, those comments are valuable because they show the many different reasons members care about this issue.
ACS has started answering questions. That is a positive step.
Now the conversation should continue with transparency, evidence, and meaningful member involvement.
The petition remains open. Our next milestone is 3,100 verified signatures.