RESEARCH
COMPUTER CENTER. IBM 650 and 704 computers in Texas A&M's data processing center serve half the departments on
the campus. Here, Dr. Thomas C. Cartwright discusses his data with Robert L. Smith, Jr. (left), head of the center
COOPERATION - Is It the Answer to the Shortage of University Research Instruments? One of the most pressing problems in university research today: the scarcity of high cost instruments. It's a shortage that many schools describe as anywhere from'"rather serious" to "extremely serious." And it's likely to get worse. George Washington University chemists say their work on the structure of ferrocene derivatives is handicapped by lack of an infrared spectrophotometer ($15,000). At Reed College, study of the structure of carbonyl compounds is being deferred because the school has no x-ray diffraction 36
C&EN
AUG.
8,
1960
equipment ($45,000). Fundamental research at Johns Hopkins on the porphyrins and higher boron hydrides is being held up by lack of a mass spectrometer ($65,000). The story is repeated across the country. Faced with this dilemma, what can colleges and universities do to get the expensive research instruments they need? Many methods are being used, or at least talked about. One that is receiving an increasing amount of attention: the cooperative approach. If the chemistry department can't
afford some expensive instrument and if the physics, biology, or engineering department also needs it, perhaps two or more of them can buy it jointly. if this isn't possible, perhaps two or moiv colleges in the area can purchase it cooperatively. Although almost all schools use the cooperative approach in purchasing and using extremely costly equipment, many also favor this approach in buying moderately expensive equipment ($10,000 to $100,000). Of the 30 colleges and universities recently polled by C&EN. 12 were in favor of
buying equipment in this price range cooperatively. On the other hand, 13 were generally opposed to the idea, and five had no comment. The cooperative method is very widely—almost universally—used by the schools in leasing or purchasing computer equipment (minimum rental for an IBM 650: $4000 a month; for an IBM 704: as much as $50,000). The IBM 650 computer at the University of Washington is being shared by at least 10 departments on the campus. The IBM 650 and 704 at the Texas A&M data processing center are used jointly by some 25 departments—or about half the departments on the campus. Dozens of other schools throughout the U.S. have similar setups. Shared Synchrotrons. Cooperation is also standard practice with such Costly equipment as synchrotrons, atomic piles, and electron accelerators. The $11.5 million AEC-sponsored Cambridge electron accelerator, to be completed at Harvard early next year, will be shared by Harvard, MIT, and other schools in the area. At the University of Chicago, the cyclotron, costing over $2 million, is used jointly by the physics and chemistry departments, as well as other local schools. Scientists from 15 midwestern universities, joined together as the Midwestern Universities Research Association, are cooperatively building an electron synchrotron, soon to be completed near Madison, Wis. This AECsponsored facility, involving about $2 million in equipment and development cost, is being built as a model for a proposed proton synchrotron costing anywhere from $75 to $100 million (C&EN, April 25, page 4 9 ) . Schools also have formal programs for cooperatively using equipment costing less than $1 million. The University of Illinois graduate college, for example, operates an electron microscope laboratory, a radiocarbon laboratory, and a physical environment unit on an all-university basis. Worcester Polytechnic Institute has a regular interdepartmental program for using its nuclear training reactor. The electron microscope at the University of Arkansas is shared by the botanists, bacteriologists, chemists, and others; the university's positive ion accelerator is used cooperatively by the physicists and chemists. Preference for Informality. With equipment costing from $10,000 to
SHARED REACTOR. This nuclear reactor at the University of Michigan cost $1 million. It is used by graduate students and faculty members in physics, chemistry, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, botany, and bacteriology. The materials irradiated here are as widely different as are the departments using the facility AUG.
8, 1960
C&EN
37
Dr. Charles W. Gehrke and Dr. Thomas D. Luckey of the University of Missouri and Dr. Robert E. McDermott of Pennsylvania State University are urging that schools adopt an Interdisciplinary Research Equipment Plan. They are recommending that schools set up "libraries" of jointly used equipment. Cooperative instrument buying, they feel, can be an important step forward in reducing the shortage of costly laboratory equipment. Advantages of cooperative buying and use, they say, are: • A school will have access to equipment that would otherwise be unavailable. • An individual department will save money in getting the equipment it needs. • Apparatus that otherwise might stand idle much of the time will be used more fully. • Progress in research—particularly basic research—will be stimulated.
TRIPLE DUTY. Electron paramagnetic resonance spectrometer at Johns Hopkins handles determinations for not only the chemists, but also biologists and biochemists. Research assistant Olga Shaffer (shown here) operates the equipment most of the time
$100,000, sharing is usually done, if at all, quite informally. One department owns it, houses it, and operates it. Other departments occasionally send in samples or operate it themselves. The nuclear magnetic resonance -and electron paramagnetic resonance units in the Johns Hopkins chemistry department occasionally run samples for the biologists and biochemists. The ultracentrifuges in Harvard's physical chemistry laboratories are sometimes lent to the biologists. At Rice Institute, chemistry graduate students have access to the cryostat in the physics department. With this type of equipment, the extent of cooperative use varies greatly from school to school, from department to department, and from one scientist to the next. In most cases, equipment loans are handled strictly person-to-person. "It's got to be that way," one professor explains. "After all, this is a situation where individual personalities are involved—not just equipment." When it comes to relatively inexpensive instruments (less than $10,000), most science departments have their own. Cooperative purchas38
C&EN
AUG.
8, 196 0
ing and use are seldom necessary. But if special situations arise, research workers quite willingly lend their oscilloscopes, recording potentiometers, pH meters, Geiger counters, vacuum apparatus, and the like. This equipment, although it isn't exactly cheap, isn't the type that, if accidentally damaged, will create a major crisis. And it isn't the type that scientists generally get very possessive about. It's equipment that most departments, if they really need it, can buy themselves—so there usually isn't any great clamor for cooperative use.
Controversial Area.
It's in that
gray area—involving equipment .costing from about $10,000 to $100,000where the greatest controversy lies. Should schools encourage the interdepartmental or interuniversity buying and use of this equipment? Human nature and the demands of research being what they are, is such a program workable? Research men in more and more universities across the nation are saying yes. In fact, a few of these scientists are now actively promoting the cooperative idea in their own universities and elsewhere.
• Training of undergraduates and graduate students will be improved by giving them first-hand knowledge of modern precision instruments. Although in some parts of the country such programs, have already been organized on an interdepartmental or interuniversity basis, plans elsewhere are strictly embryonic. Associated Rocky Mountain Universities, representing 20 universities in eight states, is considering a plan to set up one or more instrument pools in the Rocky Mountain area. A committee headed by Dr. Latimer R. Evans of New Mexico State University is working out tentative details *for such a program, including the proposed types of instruments and their possible location. Initially, the equipment might include a mass spectrometer, a nuclear magnetic resonance unit, and infrared spectrophotometers. Still to be obtained, however, are the required funds. Other schools have also been thinking along cooperative lines. They classify such programs as "a useful stopgap," "a necessary expedient," or "a workable solution to an urgent problem." Says one department head, "In certain schools with certain types of research, this approach is definitely worth promoting." In general, these would be the relatively small schools with limited research programs in areas where the equipment would be used. In particular, these would
Have you analyzed the What They Think About Instrument Programs
Cooperative
93 You can't tell academic scientists how to work and you can't limit their use of equipment. Any such cooperative plan, if it is to function at all, must emphasize the importance of the individual and his work habits.
—Raymond J. Woodrow of Princeton University
33 Certainly, the over-all idea is good. However, there are a number of rather serious problems involved in organizing it so it will work effectively.
—Dr. Arthur F. Scott of Reed College
I believe that most instruments should be placed under the supervision of individuals who have taken or will take the time to become expert in their use. . . . It is wasteful, ineffective, and conducive to poor research to allow all research workers to have free access to all instruments.
—Dr. S. Z. Lewin of New York University
We run into trouble trying to hire good scientists for the faculty because of lack of equipment. Having instruments available on a cooperative basis would help.
—Dr. Malcolm M. Renfrew of University of Idaho
CHEMISTANALYST?
Interdisciplinary "libraries of instruments" would tremendously advance the science potential of the universities. Only if the colleges and universities maintain and strengthen their basic research programs will the United States be able to participate effectively in world competition and leadership in the new era of automation and science.
—Dr. Charles W. Gehrke of University of Missouri
We have found that each of our departments uses specialized instruments and equipment which are not generally used by other departments. Because of the nature of our research work, many of our instruments are in constant use and, therefore, not available on a loan basis.
—Dr. Edward R. Schatz of Carnegie Institute of Technology
33 A cooperative instrument program would give the Government and industry a means of supporting university research in a general way— instead of relying so strongly on the present project method, with its sometimes confining need for explicit plans and proposals. . . . A program of this type would have to be financed from some source outside the university. Research here seems geared to getting by without expensive equipment. —Dr. H. K. Reynolds of University of Houston
...published by J. T. Baker as a service to more than 40,000 technologists F i r s t . . . turn to the table of contents of any issue. Note the ready-to-use articles about new analytical methods and reagents and the time and work saving Lab Suggestions. Second . . . read those papers of interest to you. We believe that your analysis will confirm that the CHEMIST-ANALYST has earned its prestige as a fully professional and progressive journal in the field of applied chemical analysis. Third . . . note the informative features "What's New Under the Baker Label" and "What's New in J. T. Baker Bulk Chemicals." These features keep you upto-date about new Baker products and new uses for them. The CHEMIST-ANALYST has been published since 1911 by the manufacturer of *Baker Analyzed' Reagents, famous for the highest standards of quality and most informative labeling in the industry. The 'Baker Analyzed' label defines purity to the decimal with Actual Lot Analysis—not just maximum limits; and for more than 320 reagents also by Actual Lot Assay—not just range assay. NEW SUBSCRIPTIONS. J. T. Baker is pleased to offer the CHEMIST-ANALYST to an additional number of chemists and allied technologists. If you would like to receive this informative quarterly journal regularly and without charge, send us your name, title, and your company or institutional address.
/£==^\ J.T.Baker V^AJ Chemical Co. XtSS^
Phllllpiburg. New Jersey
AUG. 8, 1960 C&EN
39
To measure 1 s the elements in Allegheny Ludlum alloys...
\pectronic / Allegheny Ludlum takes no chances. An extensive quality control program keeps their tool steel to uniform high quality. One phase of this rigorous testing is colorimetric analysis, "because of its inherent, extreme accuracy." That's why they use the B&L Spectronic 20® Colorimeter, to check the percent concentration of each element in the alloy. This compact instrument combines operating ease with high spectral purity, for fast, dependable analysis. It gives you split-second readings, with double value as a colorimeter and a spectrophotometer. If spectrometric analysis can maintain or improve the quality of your product, add a B&L Spectronic 20 Colorimeter to your testing methods. Prices for this versatile testing unit start at only $255. BAUSCH & L O M B
BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED 74808 Bausch St., Rochester 2, Ν. Υ. Π Send me B&L Spectronic 20 Catalog D-266. Π I would like an obligation-free demonstration of the B&L Spectronic 20 Colorimeter at my convenience. Name Title Company Address City
40
C&EN
Zone
AUG.
8t
State
1960
ISOTOPE FACILITIES. The radioisotope storage room is a part of the radiochemical laboratory at the University of Michigan. Used mainly by chemists, the facilities are shared with physicists, nuclear engineers, and chemical engineers
include colleges with decidedly modest budgets for laboratory equipment. Views of the Opposition. Many other schools, however, seriously doubt whether buying expensive laboratory instruments cooperatively is the an swer. Sample comment from the negative camp: "Let's face it: It won't work. It will be altogether too difficult to manage." Another: "Who wants to travel 25 miles to the 'instru ment center' every time he needs to run a UV curve?" Another: "Every one will want the equipment now. There will be continual conflicts." Pointing to other difficulties, science professors emphasize that laboratory equipment often cannot be easily in terchanged. Although the chemistry and physics departments may both need the same basic unit, each may have to modify it extensively for its own use. Result: Switching it from one department's use to another's can
take a lot of time and work. And each change interferes with someone else. And, although the chemistry de partment may use the equipment only a fraction of the time at first, it may soon need it full time. A modern, efficient instrument has a way of at tracting graduate and faculty research to it. Result: Sharing it with other departments gets more difficult. Furthermore, the university will have to struggle with the problem of finding the large sums of money needed to buy this equipment. Funds for running it and keeping it in work ing order will probably also be sizable. Difficulties can also arise if, partly for administrative reasons, the job of operating this jointly-owned equip ment is turned over to an outside tech nician. Actually, as many scientists point out, the research worker in many cases must operate the equipment him self to benefit from it fully. Detecting
those minor experimental variations— often so critical—may require the ex pertly trained eye of the research man himself, not that of a remote technician. Touching on that area sometimes darkly referred to as "just plain human nature," one research man observes, "You would be surprised how many heads of chemistry departments would regard the presence of a $90,000 mass spectrometer in their departments as a personal badge of achievement—a status symbol. They wouldn't be caught dead lending this equipment to anyone else." Another problem revolves around the question: Where do you put the instruments? It can safely be assumed that most of this costly equipment is too huge to move around. Do you place it in a separate central labora tory? Do you install it in the depart ment that will use it most? Or what? Possibly the soundest approach would be to house it in the department needing it most. But this means that, for all the other departments, this setup, as one scientist points out, "is— well, to put it charitably—darn incon venient." One West Coast research worker who must regularly use co operative facilities some distance away grumbles, "I seem to be spending most of my time these days traveling." Chance of Damage. With coopera tively used equipment, there is always more than the usual possibility of its being mishandled and damaged. The scientist who has painstakingly ad justed and calibrated an instrument doesn't want to worry whether, the next time he uses it, he will find that someone has thrown it completely out of whack. Scientists enthusiastic about co operative programs say that many of these objections can often be elimi nated. One effective method, they say, is to give responsibility for sched uling, operating, and maintaining the equipment to one individual. Another person (usually a well trained tech nician) should run the equipment all or almost all the time. Others should be allowed to use it occasionally if necessary, but only if they are properly trained and supervised by the tech nician. Advocates of cooperative programs freely admit that, unless this sort of strong central control is maintained, a costly piece of equipment might quickly go to pot—and with it the fu ture of the cooperative venture.
Q £ j BETHLEHEM GLASSBLOWIMG KIT with MANUAL for Chemists, Physicists, Engineers and Others To Construct, Repair, Modify Apparatus Systems, Glass to Metal Seals
FROM YOUR DEALER
PRICE $246.00 Write for Bui. K-60
The Bethlehem Glassblowlng KIT Contains Asbestos Work Board Hot Glass Rest Sharp Flame Hand Torch Torch Stand Blowhose (2 extra mouthpieces) Spandle Carbon Flat
Twin Tubing (2 sizes) Didymium Goggles Vernier Calipers Tungsten Carbide Knife Carbon Hex (2 sizes) Rollers (dual purpose) Crayon (2)
Assorted Corks Asbestos Paper (2 sizes) Carbon Rods (2 sizes) Wire Screen (3 pieces) Tweezers (2 sizes) Ribbon Fire (gas-oxygen) Ruler
Brass Shaper Beeswax Tungsten Tool Sodium Nitrite Pluro Stopper Metal Kit Box Manual
BETHLEHEM APPARATUS COMPANY, I N C HELLERTOWN, PA.
EVANS
p-Aminophenylmercaptoacetic Acid
PROPERTIES Mol. Wt. 183.23 M.P· l B 6 - ! 3 7 ° < (decomp,)
Insoluble in: water, alcohol, benzene « i d chloroform
Dissoc constant 1.4 χ 10-5
Soluble In: aqueous acid or alkali
p-Aminophenylmercaptoacetic acid should be of interest as a synthetic intermediate, particularly for dyes and pharmaceuticals. Many new compounds may be prepared by reacting the amino group. These reactions include diazotization followed by coupling, amide formation, and reaction with aldehydes to give anils. Sample sent promptly upon request. (For additional sulfur compounds, see our ad in Chemical Materials Catalog.)
Please send me sample of Evans p-Aminophenylmercaptoacetic Acid.
Name ι Position L Company ^L Address
L ~A
Send for data sheet and somple—use coupon
Ε
25 Eas 43rd s,reel
I F M IklPG/^ ->i W
É £ E £ 1 I
& { j / m t ( m £
° '
%*.
AUG.
New York 17, Ν. Υ
8, 196 0 C&EN
41
