TECHNOLOGY
Catalysis Chemistry Researchers Anticipate Difficult Problems Ahead U.S. still holds the lead in catalysis, but an increased commitment by government and industry will be needed to maintain that preeminence Joseph Haggln, C&EN Chicago
Catalytic chemistry in the U.S. may be facing a period of decline after dominating the world scene for several decades. This perception of trouble is not confined to academic research laboratories. Industrial chemists have voiced similar concerns, especially in light of recent fiscal retrenchment by many petroleum and chemical companies. A variety of perspectives on these troublesome changes within catalytic chemistry were raised at the 22nd Annual State-of-the-Art Symposium of the American Chemical Society's Division of Industrial & Engineering Chemistry. Held recently at the University of California, Berkeley, the symposium was cochaired by Madan M. Bhasin, senior scientist at Union Carbide Technical Center, South Charleston, W.Va., and Gabor A. Somorjai, professor of chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley. Following the symposium, one attendee quipped that catalysis may become a spectator science for U.S. chemists. Although extreme, that view underlines the concern that has developed suddenly over the present state of catalytic chemistry in this country. Not all the attendees at the Berkeley symposium were pessimistic, however. Some suggested that there is a needless overreaction to the problems and that what is happening is one of those periodic "mid18
August 31, 1987 C&EN
course corrections" that eventually will be accommodated. But such attitudes are clearly in the minority. The great majority believe that catalytic chemistry in the U.S. is facing some serious problems, and, even worse, that little is being done about them. California's Somorjai is one of the more outspoken leaders of U.S. catalytic chemistry and surface science. He suggests that U.S. catalytic science is in decline and may continue to be so unless aid is forthcoming. The U.S. has dominated catalysis since World War II, he points out. A scientific infrastructure was established; science and technology were closely allied, with some common goals; and a cadre of first-class journals was developed. Most of this was financed by industry, with considerable help from the government. Somorjai believes that significant changes in the funding of science now threaten the very existence of U.S. catalytic science. In response to declining oil prices, R&D in
Bhasin: symposium organizer
chemical technology has been scaled back drastically, or even eliminated by some companies. A number of industrial labs have been closed. Some companies have discharged up to 40% of their personnel. Mergers and takeovers also have had a negative effect. Management in some companies no longer has the requisite scientific or technical background to appreciate the necessity of R&D. Reorganization has emphasized rapid response to business cycles rather than the longterm approach required for research. Somorjai also suggests that the technical community has been weakened by a decline in professional job security in that the retirement policies of many companies have deprived the community of highly qualified catalytic chemists who will be sorely missed in the future. The government, Somorjai says, has contributed to the problem by closing down Synthetic Fuels Corp., a government corporation that had been established in 1980 to fund demonstration synthetic fuel projects. Admittedly a creature of the panic that followed the Arab oil embargo of 1973, SFC did provide a focus that already is missed. Somorjai notes ironically that while U.S. industry is engaged in takeover battles that are sometimes lethal to R&D, the same is not happening abroad, particularly in Europe and Japan. Just back from a sabbatical in Europe, Somorjai observes that research expenditures in Europe and Japan are rising, longrange research is booming, and industry-academic interfaces are strong and developing rapidly. He perceives a developing trend of international competitors buying U.S. companies and thereby acquiring catalytic expertise. Heinz Heinemann, staff senior sci-
Somorjai: R&D has been scaled back entist at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, observes that between a quarter and a third of the U.S. gross national product now requires catalytic manufacturing processes. Much of this was developed in the longgone era of cheap oil. He says that the U.S. must recognize that international competitors can sometimes still avail themselves of cheap oil, whereas the U.S. cannot. Using established catalytic technology, these competitors can expand the manufacture of large-scale commodity chemicals for export, thereby exacerbating U.S. balance-of-trade problems. Catalytic chemistry often is regarded as a mature science and therefore not deserving of the high level of support necessary for a younger, developing science. However, industry too is to blame for some of its problems. Heinemann says that U.S. industrial R&D expenditures declined about 11% in 1986, and some companies cut their expenditures as much as 25%. The chemical industry has done better as a whole, but funding for catalytic R&D is definitely down. The glaring exception is R&D funding for drugs. Some drug companies invest as much as 50% of their pretax profits on R&D, but that level of spending is rare. A recurring topic at the Berkeley symposium was the status and stature of the report, "Opportunities in Chemistry," prepared by a blue-ribbon group chaired by University of
California, Berkeley, chemistry professor George C. Pimentel for the National Research Council. Since the report was issued in 1985, it has come to be regarded as something of a guidebook for the future development of chemistry in the U.S. However, a number of its recommendations have clearly been ignored. The American Institute of Chemical Engineers is about to issue its counterpart to the Pimentel Report, and several other scientific groups already have prepared reports in other areas of science and technology. They all provide a similar message—namely, that fundamental science and technology will require renewed support to maintain national competitiveness. A consensus view was that although the Pimentel Report is generally regarded as an admirable
Significant changes in federal and industrial R&D funding threaten the very existence of U.S. catalytic science guide for chemistry in the U.S. it doesn't seem to be having the desired effect outside the chemical community. Michel Boudart, professor of chemical e n g i n e e r i n g at Stanford University, reminded the symposium that the Pimentel Report contained no less than five research frontiers that can be considered "catalytic" in character. "Frontier B" is, in fact, chemical catalysis specifically, and there can be no doubt of the important role that catalysis plays in the present and future development of chemistry. Boudart suggests that high-quality research at universities requires stability—that is, enough money must be available to ensure that funds need not be juggled between s h o r t - t e r m projects to maintain longer term work. He refers to such long-term funding as "high-quality money." He points out that the Japanese already have begun a major long-term program in catalysis R&D with high-quality money. In 10 or 15 years, the results of that pro-
gram probably will be seen and the competitive pinch felt. The Japanese seem willing to make this investment, he notes, but the U.S. doesn't. If universities need high-quality money for R&D, Boudart believes that industry needs a long-term commitment, something that appears to be less popular than it once was. Then there is the matter, he notes, of academic-industry interfaces. These interfaces are discussed often but seldom developed effectively. Boudart believes that academic researchers might be encouraged with mid-career awards of an unrestricted kind, made to qualified people at age 45 or so. Industry might provide corresponding people with matching R&D gifts. There is also the idea of pairing off, say, 10 academic and 10 industrial researchers and letting them work together on mutually interesting projects. In view of the recommendations of the Pimentel Report, Boudart suggests that the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the national laboratories do not provide adequate support to academic catalysis research. Similarly, despite growing global competition, industry does not support catalysis at the level it did between 1945 and 1975, when the U.S. gained its supremacy in catalytic research. However, it is not really clear what levels of support are adequate. Boudart suggests that several panels should
Heinemann: industrial R&D declining August 31, 1987 C&EN
19
Technology be formed by the National Research Council to find answers to the question of funding levels. The panels should be staffed so as to preclude any suspicion of self-serving conclusions by industry, academia, or government. Another roundtable commentator at the Berkeley symposium was W. Keith Hall, professor of chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh. He thinks the present research climate is characterized by high overhead and an unfriendly tax code. These have induced industry to become very selective in choices of research projects. The problem has been further compounded by the notion that anyone can manage R&D. The inevitable result, he says, is a sharp curtailment of long-range research of all kinds. Even though industry must feed on a continual input of new ideas and discoveries, companies are often unwilling or unable to pay for it. With respect to university research, Hall notes that it is largely government-funded and believes that probably too much money is spent on fads and not enough on creative projects that might spin off new chemistry. It is difficult to predict the future effects of research. But one element that is often missing, he says, is the consideration of future societal needs. Hall believes that this must figure more strongly
Catalytic chemists must make greater efforts to get their cause appreciated both by scientists and the public in research funding. On the question of academicindustrial interfaces, Hall believes that they are, in general, very weak. There are obvious ways that the government might strengthen the ties. One is sabbatical internships for industrial researchers, an idea that has had much success in Japan. Another is sponsorship of long-term programs of mutual interest to academic and industrial research personnel. Hall suggests that in the future 20
August 31, 1987 C&EN
the long-range objectives for catalysis research obviously will have to concentrate on energy and materials. The production of synthetic fuels remains pressing despite temporary easing of oil-import problems and a lull in the natural-gas wars. Another area of great current interest is direct conversion of methane to chemicals. This will require catalytic technology of the highest order. It also will be necessary to find the means to generate very large quantities of hydrogen, possibly from nonhydrocarbon sources. To accomplish these things, Hall says, it will be necessary to exploit the benefits of materials science and find new catalytic materials. For example, new zeolitic materials should be synthesized and substitutes for platinum should be found. It is not often appreciated that catalysts are necessary to produce materials that are thought of as nonchemical. Structural polymers, for example, as well as some of the newer electronic materials, require catalysis in their manufacture. Catalysis itself probably will change greatly. Hall expects that photo-assisted catalysis will be a fruitful new area of R&D, particularly for conversion of light into storable energy and for some of the new selective paraffin oxidations. Conventional catalysts also may find a new life if they can be made more resistant to sulfur and nitrogen, Hall says. Likewise, fuel cell development may find renewed life with development of more rugged catalysts. In environmental catalysis, it's likely that catalysis not only will find greater use in preventing pollution, but will find new applications in water and air restoration and in the detection of pollution. Speaking for the chemical industry at a symposium roundtable, James F. Roth, corporate chief scientist for Air Products & Chemicals, voiced his concern over the problems of catalytic chemistry. Amid dire suggestions of the demise of industrial catalytic chemistry, he notes, are repeated calls for more and better catalytic science. These apparent contradictions must be resolved. The Pimentel Report identifies catalysis as a key intellectual frontier and recommends it as
Boudart: long-term effort required an area for priority funding, and the forthcoming Amundson Report on chemical engineering will presumably make a similar recommendation. The discrepancies between the recommendations of the Pimentel Report and the actions of industry are symptomatic of the problem, he says. Roth cites a recent Swiss study that conservatively estimates the world market for catalysts used in chemical, petroleum, and petrochemical manufacturing at about $2.2 billion. An equally conservative estimate of the value of catalysts as a percentage of the products they help produce places the figure at 0.2%. From these numbers Roth concludes that the world value of products from chemical catalytic technology is probably in excess of $1 trillion. That amount is greater than the gross national product of all but a few nations of the world. It clearly signifies the financial and technological importance of catalysis, and there is reason to believe that the societal needs served by catalytic technology will continue to grow. Industry's abandonment of catalytic research might be rationalized by assuming that the current products of catalytic technology, although great in volume, are also considered to be mature and hence probably will not need a continued
high infusion of research funding. A similar set of assumptions led to the decline in the technology and competitiveness of steel and other mature industries. Roth believes that many current catalytic technologies are vulnerable to displacement by radically new approaches or concepts. He predicts not the demise of catalytic technology, but rather its metamorphosis. Roth suggests, for instance, that chemical feedstocks for chemical production may change radically. Methane has always been an attractive feedstock for many compounds, he says. It is presently used in the production of ammonia, methanol, synthesis gas, and hydrogen, among other applications. A major unmet challenge for catalytic chemistry is the one-step oxidation of methane to methanol. If a catalyst were developed for that purpose, it might even lead to the production of synthesis gas by methanol dissociation rather than the reverse technology that is currently practiced. Methanol itself is an attractive feedstock for oxidative coupling to ethylene glycol, a subject that is being pursued in several labs. The impressive zeolitic conversion of methanol to gasoline has yet to excite great economic interest except in special circumstances. However, that would change quickly if direct production of methanol from methane were accomplished. Although butane clearly is emerging as the preferred feedstock for oxidation to maleic anhydride, Roth says, it's interesting that the best present catalyst only functions at high temperatures and affords only about 50% molar selectivity. This performance obviously requires improvement. Maleic anhydride itself is a potential feedstock of considerable interest in the potential production of tetrahydrofuran, 1,3-butanediol, and a number of engineering plastics. Roth believes that three types of catalysts have high potential in a new era of catalysis—homogeneous catalysts, molecular sieves, and membrane reactor catalysts. Homogeneous catalysts have long held the promise of high activity, high selectivity, and mild operating conditions. A number of new
homogeneous catalysts have been discovered and are now under development. Zeolites (molecular sieves) have come a long way from their initial success as cracking catalysts. The selective alkylation of toluene with ethylene is an important new application of zeolites. The product can be dehydrogenated to p-methyl styrène, a monomer that could be produced in large volume at very attractive costs. Roth says this development alone might pave the way to a new large-volume polymer. However, it would have to compete with firmly entrenched polystyrene, which is now being produced at the rate of about 1 billion lb per year. Membrane reactor catalysts have the potential of integrating membrane separations with catalysis. According to Roth, the Soviets may be well ahead of the rest of the world in this area. It appears that the Soviets are already at the early commercialization stage, while the U.S. is in the exploratory research stage. In looking into the future, Roth believes the catalysis research community will learn how to selectively oxidize alkanes, how to directly oxidize olefins with oxygen to epoxides, how to control aromatic substitution reactions to selectively obtain ortho or para derivatives, and how to perform catalysis at lower
Roth: societal needs will grow
temperatures. He expects many of these developments to appear in the next 10 or 15 years. However, Roth also believes that many of these developments will emerge outside the U.S., simply because there is limited academic and industrial research under way in the U.S. directed at the pursuit of such opportunities. U.S. interests, he says, are busily spending tens of billions of dollars pursuing opportunities in the virginal fields of ceramics, electronics, biotechnology, and the like, but nobody seems to be minding the trillion-dollar store for existing products from the chemical industry. One crucial factor that may not have been recognized, Roth says, is that the R&D environment has changed dramatically in the past five years. In earlier times, developments were of a more evolutionary character. Now it is time to make more revolutionary changes, as academia and industry enter an era marked by technological discontinuities. It is evident from the response of those attending the Berkeley symposium that the Pimentel Report has had a greater impact abroad than in the U.S. Although most chemists find that disturbing, some of the more outspoken attendees do not find it surprising. Like it or not, they say, industry is cutting back on its R&D expenditures, and the government is trying to fund more basic science with a fixed amount of money. This zero-sum game ensures that catalysis and other established research areas will suffer accordingly. The Berkeley symposium did not write an epitaph for catalytic chemistry in the U.S. On the contrary, it recognized that the U.S. is still the leader. But symposium attendees also seemed to agree that the chemical community in general, and catalytic chemists in particular, will have to make greater efforts to get their cause appreciated within the broader scientific arena and among the general public. One particularly well received suggestion was to enlist the greater aid of the Council for Chemical Research, whose members represent all three institutional elements in catalytic research— industry, universities, and government. D August 31, 1987 C&EN
21
