Arthur F. ScotI
Reed College Portland, Oregon 97202
Chemical
The text of my remarlis this morning stems from a "Conference on Undergraduate Research in Chemistry" which was called by Dr. Kirner in May, 1954. The Conferencewas held at Washington and Lee University over a period of three days; the participants were from about 30 undergraduate institutions. The conclusions of this Washington and Lee Conference were summarized in the form of five "beliefs" which I shall quote in full: (1) Undergraduate research in chemistry occupies a unique position in its capacity to develop intellectid maturity in the .+nrlnn+ ""*X"..~,.
(2) A research-minded staff is necessary fur successful conduct of undergraduate research. I n the planning of staff loads and budnets. allowance should be made for the time and eauiw ment needed.
- .
..
and expansion of contracts and grants to liberal arts colleges. I t is recognized that proposals from chemistry departments new to research may not carry a presumption of froitfnlness as strong as those from established investigators, but it is hoped that the National Science Foundation can adopt a broad policy with respect to "risk" money in the hope that untapped resources may thereby be developed. The existing policy of the Research Corp. in this respect has proved exceedingly vduable. (4) The present policy of providing a stipend for summer work in research grants and contracts is rommendablo, and its continuance is urged. Without this support many college teachers cannot afford to devote swnmer time to research. The impetus given to the research pwgram by summer work multiplies the teacher's effectiveness manyfold. Furthermore, if the invest,igator is working during the summer he is usually in the position to employ one or m o r e students, thereby increasing the value of their training. (5) If research sopport is not available for the liberal arts college we feel that there is grave danger of losing the promising young teachers whose continuance in academic life is essential if the liberal arts college is to maintain the outstanding position it now holds in the development of science and scientists.
I believe that these conclusions are still valid today. Today's meeting is an appropriate occasion for me to review the status of undergraduate research in those institutions which are orimarilv undereraduatte--to see how the chemistry staffs and tGeir und&graduates have fared during the past 12 years, a period of exciting development in chemistry. As a reference base for the figures I will give later, the following data from the Washingt,on and Lee Conference are of interest: Only eight of the departments represented at the Conference reported having received a total of $117,500 specifically for undergraduate research within the previous five Paper read a t the Symposium on Sponsored Research i n Chemistru at Colleoes and Universitzes in Honor of Dr. Walter R. kine^. ~ k s i o oi"Chemica1 n Education, 152nd hia anal Meeting, ~ m e r i l can Chemical Society, New York City, Sept. 14, 1966
and the Small College
years-that is, less than $3000 per department annually. The other schools reported no support of this kind, although other types of support had been obtained. Altogether there are about 740 institutions, public and private, in this country that are primarily undergraduate; that is to say, institutions that award a degree no higher than a master's. This group of institutions is far from homogeneous, rangiug from the small traditional liberal arts college to the large state or city college. I have found it helpful to classify these schools into three subgroups, on the basis of certain characteristics important from the standpoint of chemical edueation. This classificationscheme is as follows: A-Group-Those chemistly departments which are on the a p proved list of the ACS Committee on Professional Training. These (170) departments have a t least four men on the chemistry staff find have, also, reasonably good libraries and facilities. B-Group-Those chemist,ry departments which have a. record of sending students to graduate school hut which, for one reason or another, have not qualified for approval by the ACS Committee. CGroup-About 200 chemistry departments which have not prcduced s chemistry major who has attained the Ph.D. degree during the past 9 years.
At the present time support for undergraduate research comes from the following three major sources: NSF, Petroleum Research Fund (ACS), and Research Corp. National Science Foundation Programs
The NSF Undergraduate Research Participation Program (URP) is by far the most extensive. This program provides support for student research during the summer and the academic year. "Support" in this case means a stipend for the student, a stipend for the supervisor, and funds for supplies. The program became operative in the summer of 1958. For the nine years the program has been in operation, which includes summer, 1966, and the present academic year, chemistry departments requested a total of $23.3 million and have received grants amounting to $9.8 million. The yield of 44% is just about par for the course. $4.2 million, or less than half of support granted, went to the undergraduate institutions. I find it a little surprising and quite disappointing that only 273-r 377'&0f the 740 undergraduate institutions even sought NSF support for undergraduate research during the nine-year period this program has been in operation. The attitude of these schools toward undergraduate research can best be described in terms of the A, B, and C sul;group classifications: A-group depadmenln. Aboot tw-thirds of these departments applied for support, and they received Volume
44,
Number 5, Moy 1967
/
267
altogether only half of what was r e quested. B-gmup departments. About onethird of these departments a p plied for support, and they received a l b gether ahout onefourth of what was r e quested. C-gwup departments. Less than onefifth of these departments applied for support, and they received altogether only onefifth of what was requested.
The second NSF program which is available to chemistry instructors is Research Participation for College Teachers. This program provides opportunities for college teachers to utilize summer vacation periods for full-time research as associates of experienced investigators a t institutions that conduct major research programs. A few of the participants receive small grants to make it possible for them to continue their research a t their home institutions. Although this program has been in operation for a number of years I have data only for summer, 1966. It appears that altogether 599 teachers applied to 19 projects of interest to chemistry teachers and that only 149 (or 25% of them) were accepted as participants.' I have no information concerning the 450 unsuccessful applicants. Data concerning the 149 successful applicants can be summarized as follows: 40 of these applicants (ahout onefourth) are teachers st institutions that are not fully accredited, degreegranting institutions. Thev . are,. I .mesume, teachers at junior colleges. Of the remaining 116 teachers, 55% are from private colleges, 35% are from state supported undergraduate schools, and 10% are members of university staffs.
These data, I believe, show that many chemistry teachers a t undergraduate institutions feel the need for continuing research activity. Petroleum Research Fund
PRF, administered by ACS has three programs which provide some support for faculty and student research in undergraduate institutions. T y p e B Grants. These grants are termed "educational" in that they are intended to support "research designed to stimulate student interest in graduate study and to improve the qualifications of the grantee." The program has been in operation for six years, but I have data for only the three-year period, 1963-65. In this period grants were made to chemistry staffs at 109 undergraduate institutions. I surmise that the number of applications was more than double the number of grants. T y p e E Grants. These are grants to teachers in undergraduate departments designed to give them a year of advanced study away from their home base.
'
The number 599 counts applications. In all prohability, some teachers applied for more than one project. Hence t,he percentage of successful applieanls may be higher.
268
/
Journol of Chemicol Educofion
Over the three-year period 1963-65, P R F supported 12 chemistry teachers. All but one returned to his undergraduate college to resume his teaching duties after termination of the grant. T y p e G "Starter" Grants. These grants are designed to help those young faculty with the Ph.D. degree who have not been teaching more than 3 years and who have no other outside research support "to do research with their own hands." During the three year period, 1963-65, more than 140 new chemistry teachers applied for starter grants, but only 41 of these applications could be supported. Research Corporation
Since World War 11,Research Corp. has helped many young chemistry teachers. During the past five years, 1962-66, Research Corp. has received over 30 requests annually from chemistry teachers in undergraduate institutions and has given support to about 20, on the average. Conclusions
My facts and figures show that the status of chemical research in the undergraduate college has changed tremendously since the Washington and Lee Conference that Walt Kirner called 12 years ago. I wish I could give the exact figurefor thenumber of chemistry departments in undergraduate schools which today have research in progress that is intended to be of some benefit to the chemistry major. There is no point in summing the data from individual grants because there is certain to be considerable overlap. In my opinion the number of undergraduate schools with some form of undergraduate research falls short of 273, the number of schools which applied to NSF for URP grants. If my surmise is correct, it means that 1/3-1/2 (1750) of the college chemistry teachers have no longer any contact with research and that about the same fraction of our chemistry majors graduate without any acquaintance with chemical research. I believe my estimates are conservative. In concluding this talk I would like to make quickly these points: Can we expect young chemistry Ph.D.'s to find teaching in an undergraduate institution attractive if there is no opportunity for research? This is the same question which was raised in the Washington and Lee Conference. Eighty-two percent of the chemistry teachers in small colleges have their Ph.D. degrees, a degree which signifies training in research. I s it not wasting an important resource to let this training and talent fall into disuse? Chemistry, as we all know, is a live and dynamic discipline which owes its vitality to the inquiring chemist. How best to train these chemists? I can answer this question best by quoting Jerome Bruner: I have never seen anybody improve in the art and technique of inquiry by any means other than engaging in inquiry.
