ABSTRACT
For some time in QSAR coexisted “two cultures” that apparently had no visible interaction. One “culture” cherished the physicochemical modeling of the structureactivity relationship, following the footsteps of Corwin Hansch. The other “culture” cherished and advocated the use of “mathematical descriptors” for modeling of the structure-activity relationship. The latter made QSAR one of the topics of mathematical chemistry. Perhaps in contrast to the case of the “classical” two cultures of C. P. Snow [2], which was about lack of communication between the “arts” and the “sciences,” here we have two cultures in the same discipline. The roots of the division of the two cultures of C. P. Snow could be attributed to unfamiliarity of the people professing humanities with the problems relating to science and a lack of understanding of general scientific aims and accomplishments, including some basic ideas and notions of natural science, which, in a broad sense, incorporates medicine and mathematics. This is a half of the story; the other half is that the same appears to be with scientists when relating to humanities: unfamiliarity of most scientists about the issues and problems of humanities, which include languages (modern and ancient), literature, philosophy, religion, painting and sculpture, music, and theater, which then extends to social sciences, including history, anthropology, communication and semiotics, linguistics, cultural and political studies, law, and such. This is not that individual humanists have no interest in natural sciences and that individual scientists have no interest in humanities but that there are not enough bridge builders and even fewer bridge walkers!
