Chemical & Engineering News 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Editor: Albert F. Plant Managing Editor: Michael Heylin Assistant Managing Editors: David M. Kiefer, James H. Krieger, Donald J. Soisson, Fred H. Zerkel Senior Editor: Earl V. Anderson (New York) Senior Associate Editor: Howard J. Sanders Associate Editor: Ernest L. Carpenter Assistant Editors: P. Christopher Murray, Richard J. Seltzer, Karen Joy Skinner Editorial Assistant: Theresa L. Rome Editing Services: Joyce A. Richards (Head) Editorial Reference: Barbara A. Gallagher (Head) Graphics and Production: Bacil Guiley (Head). Leroy Corcoran (Manager). Norman W. Favin (Art Director). John V. Sinnett (Designer). Linda McKnight, Gerald Quinn (Artists). NEWS BUREAUS: New York: William F. Fallwell (Head), Rebecca L. Rawls (Assistant Editor). Chicago: Ward Worthy (Head), Joseph Haggin (Staff Writer). Houston: Bruce F. Greek (Head). Washington: Fred H. Zerkel (Head), Ling-yee C. Gibney, Janice R. Long (Assistant Editors) FOREIGN BUREAUS: London: Dermot A. O'Sullivan (Head). Tokyo: Michael K. McAbee (Head) ADVISORY BOARD: Alfred E. Brown, Marcia Coleman, Arthur W. Galston, Derek P. Gregory, James D. Idol, Jr., Gerald D. Laubach, Paul F. Oreffice, Edward R. Thornton, Herbert L. Toor, M. Kent Wilson Published by AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY (202)-872-4600 Robert W. Cairns, Executive Director Division of Public, Professional, and International Communication Richard L. Kenyon, Director Arthur Poulos, Editorial Promotion Marion Gurfein, Circulation Development EDITORIAL BOARD: Mary L. Good (Chairman), Herman S. Bloch, Bryce Crawford, Jr., Robert W. Parry, B. R. Stanerson; PresidentElect: Glenn T. Seaborg; Representative, Council Publications Committee: Arthur Fry; PastPresident: Bernard S. Friedman © Copyright 1975, American Chemical Society Subscription Service: Send all new and renewal subscriptions with payment to: Office of the Controller, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. All correspondence and telephone calls regarding changes of address, claims for missing issues, subscription service, status of records and accounts should be directed to: Manager, Membership and Subscription Services, American Chemical Society, P.O. Box 3337, Columbus, Ohio 43210; telephone 614-421-7230. On changes of address, include both old and new addresses with ZIP code numbers, accompanied by mailing label from a recent issue. Allow four weeks for change to become effective. Claims for missing numbers will not be allowed if received more than 60 days from date of issue plus time normally required for postal delivery of journal and claim; if loss was due to failure of notice of change of address to be received before the date specified above; or if reason for claim is "issue missing from files." Subscription Rates 1975: nonmembers, U.S., 1 yr. $15, 3 yr. $32; Canada and Pan American Union $20.50, $48.50; other nations $21, $50. Air freight rates available on request. Single copies: Current $1.00. Rates for back issues and volumes are available from Special Issues Sales Dept., 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. An annual index is available for $20. Standing orders are accepted. Back and current issues are available on microfilm. For further information, contact Special Issues Sales, ACS, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Published by the American Chemical Society from 20th and Northampton Sts., Easton, Pa., weekly except the last week in December. Second class postage paid at Washington, D.C, and at additional mailing offices. The American Chemical Society assumes no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by the contributors to its publications. Views expressed in the editorials are those of the editors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the American Chemical Society. Advertising Management CENTCOM, LTD. (For list of offices see page 47)
4
C&ENSept. 8, 1975
Editorial
A more tangible R&D effort We have been laboring for a number of years in this country with the problem of poor productivity, and our success rate is less than overwhelming. Poor might describe it more accurately. The chemical industry, for example, recently made its first gain in productivity in the second quarter of this year—after three successive quarters of decline. The gain, 1.1%, hardly matches the earlier declines of 1.7%, 2.5%, and 1.0%. This is all the more disturbing when one considers that the chemical industry is normally one of the best performers in the productivity business. The industry posted gains ranging from 4 to 9% in the past 10 years. Part of the problem here, of course, lies in the matter of increasing unit labor costs. These have risen sharply of late, and played a major role in productivity declines. But that is only part of the problem. Earlier years saw large productivity increases even with increasing labor and materials costs. The difference came from the benefits of the major R&D efforts that were being carried out by the chemical industry. Efforts which produced a wide variety of new and improved products and processes that could be translated into chemical production. Recently in this column, we discussed research and development spending in 1975. It was noted that the ravages of inflation would wipe out completely the 7% increase in dollar spending and leave us with a net decline in R&D. It's impossible for me, or anyone for that matter, to define a "required" or "best" level for our R&D effort, but we do know that we cannot have productivity without research. The matter of priorities confounds the R&D funding problem still further, but the problem still needs to be addressed more profoundly than in the recent past. When industry has problems, research always seems to get the nod for first cuts in funding. It seems to be the easiest place to cut—and, unfortunately, one of the most difficult to reinstate. The National Science Foundation has been itself searching for some answers to this problem with its Experimental R&D Incentives program. An ad hoc panel-of the National Research Council has just concluded a three-year look at this program (see page 6). This panel found that the one program experiment in incentives for R&D investment was a valuable one and shows promise of providing data of significant value and should be "vigorously supported." Another experiment in stimulating technology transfer was less successful. This NSF program is a very important one and should not only be continued, but should be expanded. The NRC panel observed that many of the obstacles to innovation remain undisclosed. If we can define these, then we can eliminate them. If we can improve technology transfer, the value of much of our research expenditure is expanded significantly. And with all of this, the " r e a l " value of a research and development effort becomes more visible and its funding becomes a more tangible matter. Research and its impact on our national productivity is too important to be left so completely in the realm of "intangibles," and so immediately susceptible to the cyclic swings which are the heritage of this group. An R&D effort, like the R&D scientists and engineers who carry it out, is as valuable an asset as capital equipment. If we recognize this, we could solve not only much of our productivity problem, but a good many other problems besides. Albert F. Plant
C&EN EDITORIALS REPRESENT ONLY THE VIEWS OF THE AUTHOR AND AIM AT INITIATING INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION.
