Science
Confusion over innovation highlighted again MIT gathering of top science leaders brings out some of uncertainties over role of cooperative R&D in boosting technological innovation The conference was cosponsored by Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Laboratory for Manufacturing & Productivity and by the National Science Foundation. It was held on the MIT campus late last month. It attracted close to 200 of the nation's top leaders in science and technology. Its aim was to examine cooperative research among industry, the universities, and government and to come up with a set of policy recommendations for consideration by decision makers within these three sectors. But through no fault of the conference's organizers, and through no lack of effort on the part of the participants, who struggled with the topic for two days, the gathering was only a partial success. Although the conferees did come up with some suggestions, they cannot be said to have lived up to the promise of the conference's program that called for "the identification of a rich set of alternative actions [that . . .] should make a substantial contribution toward increased national productivity and technological innovation." Most of those attending agreed that cooperative research between industry and academia is a good thing in principle—one conferee called the gathering a "love-in" for cooperative research. They also felt that government has a vital role in the process, especially as a supplier of seed money. And they agreed that a program of their MIT host in polymer processing is a particularly good example of industry-academic cooperation. But there was also acknowledgment of the complexities of setting up cooperative programs and concern over their possible effects on teaching and basic research, traditional roles of the university. But probably the greatest handicap 22
C&ENMarch3, 1980
MIT president Jerome B. Wiesner, who made the welcoming address to the conférence, pointed out that cooperative research is "an idea whose time has come." And he stressed the need for more productive joint efforts by industry, academia, and government. He said that such cooperation is generally effective when the government is the consumer of the research. But he added that a process has not yet been found to use federal funds to stimulate R&D for the general consumer. Marvin L. Goldberger, president of California Institute of Technology, who chaired the final wrapup session of the conference, expressed some reservations about industry/university cooperative programs. He asked if universities shouldn't concentrate Hackerman: cautious approach best on producing the best possible graduates, not trying to force them into to reaching hard and fast recom- particular molds for particular inmendations on cooperative programs dustries. As he put it, "Don't tamper was the lack of data on any connec- with universities." Universities have tion between such programs and na- generally served this country well, he tional productivity and innovation. In says, and if they have to be changed it fact, the longer the conferees talked, should be done very carefully. In his the more uncertain they seemed to view better industry/university relabecome about many aspects of inno- tions will likely come on a personvation. to-person basis. Dinner speaker Norman HackerKent F. Hansen, associate dean of man, who is a chemist and president engineering at MIT, also expressed of Rice University, sketched in the some reservations. He said that there forces that are behind the growing is a tendency in this country "to leap concern over the management of to solutions before we understand the science and technology in the U.S. problem." He pointed to some very These include the relatively slow unsuccessful urban housing projects growth in productivity, the increasing of the 1950's and 1960's. And he competitiveness of foreign goods in stressed that some linkage among both domestic and foreign markets, values, objectives, and programs is the feeling that the U.S. is not so needed. He asked how much is known technologically productive as it once about the linkage between R&D was, and the constant concerns over funding and idea generation and beenergy since 1973. Other concerns are tween growth in science and techinflation and the question of main- nology and growth in innovation. He taining the quality of life in the face also stressed that the link between of deteriorating resources. economic growth and innovation isn't He pointed out that it is being known. His specific recommendation proposed with increasing intensity for the conference was for "nondethat if the overall U.S. system were structive testing of any policies we better organized, innovation and may recommend." productivity "would bloom again in Perhaps the sharpest comments on resplendent fashion." But Hacker- the general premise of the meeting man is not so sure. He says the proper that cooperative research should be response to this proposal is neither a enhanced because it will act as a spur rousing affirmative nor a sour nega- to lagging innovation and productivtive. In his opinion some stress and ity came from David Noble of the tension in the debate over technolo- MIT Program in Science, Technology's role is a good thing. gy & Society. Speaking from the
floor, he asked the question, "Is there an innovation gap?" And he stresses there still is great ambiguity in the relationships among research, innovation, productivity, and market competitiveness. He sees cooperative research as a potential threat to academic freedom and to the overall direction of research. He also sees it as a route to greater concentration of economic power. And it is his opinion that the issue of lagging innovation in this country is a ploy to deter socially useful trends such as better control of occupational and environmental hazards. He also criticized the conference for having no representative from either labor or the regulatory agencies. However, the meeting was far from being all uncertainty and criticism. Several specific suggestions were made for improving the innovative process in the U.S. For instance, Edward E. David, president of Exxon Research & Engineering and former Presidential Science Adviser, pointed to a U.S. weakness in design. He said that incentives are needed to get talented engineers and others to work in this highly creative endeavor. And Thomas 0 . Mathues, a General Motors vice president, said that there is a desperate need for specialized programs in manufacturing engineering. He explains that this is an area in which the U.S. has fallen behind its competitors, especially Japan. Mathues also had some suggestions more directly related to cooperative industry/university efforts. These included greater funding of university research by industry, a suggestion made by many other conferees, and more soliciting by academia for such funds. The consensus of the meeting was that the potential difficulties of cooperative industry/university programs can be handled with a little give-and-take on both sides. Such problems include constraints on publication of research results, the handling of proprietary information, and the issue of who owns patents resulting from the work. An additional problem when federal funds are involved is the social issue of using public monies to support private industry. The key to such programs is to make them fit within the basic goals of the separate organizations involved. For instance, as concerns the university, they must not compromise the basic functions of educating students, advancing knowledge, and giving service to the public. One proposed program that did raise some questions is one offered by the Carter Administration involving the government and the auto indus-
YEAR-ROUND MONEY SAVB!
Enclosed Unit (10-240 Tons)
THE SAME EOWARDS CttLLfR IHAf COOLS TOUR PRODUCTION CAN ALSO HEAT YOUR PLANT Save fuel-use condenser discharge from Edwards Air-Cooled Chillers to heat occupied spaces in winter. Save fuel year round-Get volumes of free
hot water by using the refrigeration compressor discharge heat-a valuable option on Edwards Chillers—Also available to fit your present units. Call Win Clark for details.
EDWARDS ENGINEERING CORP. 101 Alexander Ave., Pompton Plains, NJ 07444 · (201) 835-2808 CIRCLE 11 ON READER SERVICE CARD
Flash Polymérisation in the Deep UV w i t h the R C 4 0 0 0 (Rapid Exposure) New lamps developed for use with the RC-4000 have dramatically increased output in the 200 to 250 nanometer region. Typical fixed position exposure times are less than two seconds. Applications Include: • Sub-micron photo-lithography • Chain reaction photo chemistry • Integrated circuit rapid exposure • Rapid UV germicidal sterilization • Adhesives, laminated & surface curing • Pigmented & thick polymer systems
Contact factory & arrange demonstration: Xenon Corporation 66 Industrial Way, Wilmington, MA 01887 (617) 658-8940 TWX: 710-3470630
XENON
corporation CIRCLE 27 ON READER SERVICE CARD
March 3, 1980 C&EN
23
GULFBIM MAKES ORDMARV PODTMERS EXHtAORNNARl
|| Ο
BTDA (3, 3 , 4, 4—benzophenone tetracarboxylic dianhydride)
|| Ο
This unique dianhydride's tetrafunctionality and aromatic rings suggest numerous performanceboosting applications. Add it to epoxies, polyimides, alkyds, polyurethane, polypryrrones and/or polyesters to improve physical properties and upgrade performance. BTDA is a simple, costefficient way to upgrade ordinary polymers to specialty polymers.
GuKDXE, versatile and thermally stable CH,
OJUO
CH,
Gulf DXE (dixylethane) features high boiling point/low freeze point and good electrical properties. It offers unique application op portunities, whether you use it as a heat transfer fluid, elec trical insulationfluid,synthetic fluid additive, chemical inter mediate, high-boiling solvent, or inert reaction medium. For information on either of these unique materials, write on your company letterhead to Gulf Advanced Materials, Dept. 136, P.O. Box 2900, Shawnee Mis sion, KS 66201. Or call (913) 722-3200.
Gulf Advanced Materials Gulf Oil Chemicals Company A division of Gulf Oil Corporation CIRCLE 26 ON READER SERVICE CARD 24
C&EN March 3, 1980
try. It is aimed at fundamental re search in the auto field. Many at the conference maintained that such an effort should be funded by the in dustry itself. The counterargument was that the research proposed probably won't be done unless the government helps finance it because it has no immediate application in the marketplace. On the other hand, use of public funds is justified on the grounds that the research eventually will lead to more fuel-efficient, safer, less polluting automobiles—a socially desirable goal. The one cooperative program that received nothing but praise at the conference was the MIT-Industry Polymer Procession Program headed by Nam P. Suh. And this seemed to be much more than just deference to a gracious conference host. As Timothy G. Gutowski, a gradu ate student in the program, ex
plained, the program is now selfsupporting after having been seeded with funds from the National Science Foundation. The program is currently sponsored by nine, soon to be 12, companies. Its annual budget is about $500,000 per year. It currently in volves a total of five professors from MIT's mechanical, electrical, and chemical engineering departments, 24 graduate students, and 21 projects. According to Gutowski, students benefit from financial stability that assures continuation of projects. An other big advantage is close interac tion with industry personnel. Also, students are forced to broaden themselves by working in a wide range of disciplines. He adds that students in the program feel no re striction of their academic freedom although at times they may have to delay publication of a paper. Michael Heylin, Washington
Group taps business for cancer research funds A new organization to channel re search money from industry into fundamental cancer research is making its debut. The American Business Cancer Research Founda tion—which shortens its name to ABC Research Foundation—has se lected its scientific priorities and is now beginning serious fund-raising for its first year of operation. The organization is the brainchild of a retired Connecticut builder, Harry D. Williams II, who became interested in the state of research on cancer after his wife was diagnosed as having the disease in 1975. Williams says that both business leaders and research scientists see the need for much more scientific research into the fundamental biologic processes that cause cancer, an area that he believes gets too little attention from the federal cancer programs. So ABC Research Foundation will focus its efforts on supporting basic research into what happens at the cellular and molecular level to cause and allow the development of cancer. Williams, who is the chief fund raiser for the foundation, sees support of such research by corporations not as a philanthropic gesture, but as an effort that should yield them prag matic benefits. He says discussions with business leaders convince him that they believe government regu lations concerning carcinogens are based on very little hard scientific data. He reasons that better infor mation on the fundamental processes of carcinogenesis would result in more reasonable government regulation. Thus, it is in a company's business interest to support research that will
provide this fundamental informa tion. Coincidentally, he says, the in formation also will be important in the medical fight against cancer. Williams hopes to get a commit ment for $5 million for the first year from U.S. businesses. A number of major chemical companies already have pledged support. These include Diamond Shamrock, Dow Chemical, Monsanto, Olin, Stauffer Chemical, and Union Carbide. Williams' approach to raising money from businesses is not the only unusual aspect of the new foundation. Its ideas about how to distribute its money are also unconventional. The foundation has a five-member scien tific advisory board with complete authority to select both the areas of research that will be funded and the individual programs that will receive support. Grants will be long-term, generally for five years, and will be given to in dividuals who are doing promising work in areas selected by the scien tific advisers. The funding will go to the researchers, not to the projects, and will be tailored as much as pos sible to fit their particular research needs. Long-term research support, the scientific advisers argue, will allow laboratories that already are doing promising work to increase their staffs and "concentrate their efforts on the key issues without worrying about how their lists of publications will look at the next competitive re newal application for NSF or NIH support. That kind of worry leads to publication of premature data . . . and to partial diversion of efforts to 'bread
