Chemical & Engineering
NEWS JULY 24, 1967
The Chemical World This Week Concentration of science should be encouraged The Senate Subcommittee on Government Research, trying to find ways of equalizing the geographical distribution of federal R&D funds, heard a heretical statement at hearings last week: The concentration of scientific facilities should be encouraged, not discouraged. The heretic was physical chemist John S. Burlew, director of the Connecticut Research Commission. His reason for not trying to spread the wealth is the lack of high-caliber scientists. According to Dr. Burlew, the number of truly creative scientists who can make the advances needed by future technology is so limited that they should have optimum conditions for productive careers. Usually, this means working in proximity to others
of equal stature so that a synergistic effect increases the output of the group. What's more, Dr. Burlew sees no need for all regions of the U.S. to become equal with respect to science and technology. A region can import the results of technology with relative ease, so technology itself does not have to be developed uniformly throughout the nation. And scientific information is a commodity that is readily distributed. "Therefore," he says, "it is in the national interest to generate scientific information at those places where it can be done most effectively—just as . . . automobiles . . . are produced in a relatively few plants." Sen. Fred R. Harris (D.-Okla.), chairman of the subcommittee, looked askance at this proposal. He is a strong advocate of the proposition that scientific have-not states, such as Oklahoma, should get a bigger share of federal spending for research and de-
velopment. He was outraged that Dr. Burlew did not endorse a policy of spreading scientific excellence around. Sen. Harris said that the nation would have to increase the number of centers of scientific excellence in order to encourage youth to become scientists and engineers. "How are we going to expose people in Arkansas and Oklahoma to the best teaching if we don't have scientific excellence?" he cried. "Are you going to say to us, 'You have to go somewhere else to get educated?' Do you want to penalize students where research is not now of the highest quality?" Dr. Burlew refused to give ground and said that the shortage of qualified people makes restrictions mandatory. He pointed out that grants outside the present centers of excellence stimulate research but do not create new centers of excellence. Sen. Harris thought Dr. Burlew's
Far West got most federal R&D dollars in fiscal 1965 Mountain _(7%)
West North Central (3%)
New England East North Central (6%)
N7%) I
œ
^Middle Atlantic (16%)
Pacific (34%)
South Atlantic (15%)
West South ^ Central (8%)
Source: National Science Foundation
[J^East South Central (4%) $4.6 billion
$25 to $100 million
$500 to $1,300 million
Under $25 million
$100 to $500 million
= Percent of total
JULY 24, 1967 C&EN
11
viewpoint was "narrowly restrictive." "I will accept for the time being what you say," he said dourly, "but you are going to have to change your mind." At the next day's hearings, Sen. Harris got little comfort from Dr. Leland Haworth, director of the National Science Foundation. Dr. Haworth pointed out that the disproportionate distribution of total federal R&D spending among the states (see map, page 11) is a combination of a number of factors, but the presence of a high degree of scientific competence in a state or region accounts for a high influx of federal dollars. NSF awards of grants and contracts to support the research of university scientists and engineers are based on the relative merits of the proposals. Other factors include the abilities of the scientists, the scientific promise of the proposal, and the like. In deciding between proposals of about equal merit, institutional and regional factors are given weight. This method assures that the nation as a whole will benefit from the most significant possible advances in scientific knowledge. "Hence," Dr. Haworth says, "in my opinion, it would be a grave mistake to reduce the support of the outstanding leaders found in our best institutions in order to spread support more thinly across the board. My position has not changed since I testified before this committee on July 25 last year." Dr. Haworth agrees that more high-caliber institutions need to be developed with federal help, especially in regions where centers of excellence are relatively scarce or where there are special needs as in some of the metropolitan areas. However, he says, this should be done through special programs devoted to this purpose rather than by "artificially altering the distribution of support in those programs directed at achieving specific ends of the highest possible quality." Dr. Haworth points out that there are a number of programs supported by NSF, the Office of Education, and other agencies that are aimed at increasing the number of centers of excellence. He agrees that more programs, better programs, and bigger programs are needed to achieve the general improvements that are sought. But he has this warning: "As the number of institutions capable of performing high-quality research increases we must find additional funds with which to support them in their continuing programs; otherwise, our institutional development efforts will have been in vain." Sen. Harris agrees that some more money might be desirable but he thinks present programs might be a lot more effective if they were better coordinated. 12 C&EN JULY 24, 1967
Strickman cigarette filter works chromatographically "Man, I didn't expect such a furor over this thing." So says cigarette-filter inventor Robert Louis Strickman. Still bewildered by the excitement surrounding Columbia University's announcement that he had given the university a controlling interest in his new polymeric filter material, Mr. Strickman tells C&EN he's worried. His chief concern is that contributions to Columbia's fund raising will fall off. "People are saying that Columbia is going to make millions out of this. But it's possible that nobody will buy it." The 56-year-old scientist is also disturbed by criticism aimed at Columbia for accepting the patent rights. Royalties from patents are a regular source of supplemental income at many universities and ought not to detract in any way from other forms of private donations, he feels. Mr. Strickman, president of Allied Testing & Research Laboratories in Hillsdale, N.J., regrets .that his invention could not have been presented as a scientific paper, rather than at what turned out to be a raucous press conference. He feels, however, that doing so would have jeopardized its potential financial value, since patents on the material have not yet issued. This is the reason he has not revealed scientific details. American Chemical Society member Strickman, who attended several colleges but who does not have a degree, tells C&EN that the new granular polymer acts chromatographically and physically traps or adsorbs elements of tobacco smoke. The novelty of the new polymer's action is that it takes out more tars and nicotine than conventional commercial filters do, without removing a proportionate amount of flavor. The new filter material, invented by Mr. Strickman in his River Vale, N.J., home laboratory, is about three times as effective as current commercial filters (cellulose acetate and activated charcoal) in removing tars and nicotine from tobacco smoke, according to figures released by Columbia University. The future of the Strickman filter depends upon acceptance by cigarette companies, and negotiations are now under way. This in turn will depend upon cigarette companies' evaluations of consumer acceptance. Perhaps just as important is the chance that the untallied millions of dollars going into filter research around the world will produce something better. The larger question of what good will come out of his development is obscured by controversy over the
Robert Louis Strickman Bewildered, disturbed
smoking-health relationship. While the evidence appears indisputable that smokers are less healthy than nonsmokers, there is still discussion over the relationship's being causative. The absolute benefit of reducing tars and nicotine in tobacco smoke is something which is not known, for which there is no quick test, and which only time in use can reveal. But many persons, including government officials, are firmly convinced that a person would be healthier if he didn't smoke. The day before the Columbia announcement, Health, Education, and Welfare Department Secretary John W. Gardner presented additional health-hazard data to Congress, data that have been accumulating since the Surgeon General's 1964 report on smoking and health. Besides asking for stronger warnings on cigarette packages and in all cigarette advertising, he called for tar and nicotine figures to be printed on cigarette packs. He said that the accumulated evidence strongly suggests that the lower the tar and nicotine content of cigarette smoke, the lower the harm. Meantime, The Public Health Service says it stands ready to cooperate in any way to help evaluate the extent the Strickman filter actually reduces tar and nicotine in cigarette smoke. PHS is convinced that the lower the tar and nicotine content the lower the general health danger. However, PHS says that tar and nicotine represent only the health risk from the solid particles in cigarette smoke. The gaseous content of the smoke also constitutes a significant danger. Therefore, PHS says, the reduction or total removal of tar and nicotine can never provide full protection.
