THE CHEMICAL WORLD THIS WEEK
strategic weapons . . . [which could] ultimately make the Soviet Union militarily dominant. ,, A noticeable block of former McCarthy backers are gradually swinging over to the Humphrey camp, as evidenced by Dr. George Kistiakowsky's endorsement. "So far, about 40 former McCarthy workers are included in the pro-Humphrey organization," Dr. Wiesner said. Dr. Kistiakowsky, science adviser to President Eisenhower and former McCarthy supporter, reluctantly declared for Humphrey last week. But he did not join the science committee. "I'm not a joiner by profession, unless I see very clearly a function for myself," he says. "I support Humphrey because of his leadership against the nuclear arms race and his enlightened domestic policies . . . because I certainly don't support him on his present Vietnam policy. But," Dr. Kistiakowsky noted, "we live in an imperfect world and we have to make compromises." Actually, none of the conferees had endorsed Humphrey until now. Dr. Wiesner previously worked on a committee to form McCarthy's science policy, while Dr. Bronk was a vigorous Rockefeller supporter. And Dr. Bethe gave money toward the McCarthy campaign. "I didn't want to endorse any of the three Democratic hopefuls because I felt they were all good," Dr. Bethe said. "It's just that I liked McCarthy's Vietnam stand and Humphrey's stand on nuclear weapons and the cities."
INDUSTRIAL R&D:
Budgeting for Aggression Industrial research and development budgets are largely defensive when they should be more aggressive. And even in cases of considerable planning for innovation, hard realism on use of personnel and far-flung consequences is necessary to avoid sterile performance and to interest an apathetic public in scientific research. With such harking to facts of life, R&D chiefs discussed the future of breakaway-type research at a conference sponsored by Industrial Research, Inc. (Beverly Shores, Ind.) in New York City. "Managements are often not aware that the lion's share of the R&D budget in the great majority of companies will be used defensively, just to keep them competitive in the technology of their present business," Dr. Lawrence W. Bass, consultant and formerly vice president of Arthur D. Little, Inc., a Cambridge, Mass., consulting firm, 20 C&EN OCT. 14, 1968
Dr. Lawrence W. Bass The lion's share is defensive
states. Although most R&D literature is concerned with spectacular, longrange projects, he points out that defensive product development projects, usually short-term, "normally account for at least 60% of the technical budget and often for almost all of it." Dr. Bass calls for more critical control on defensive R&D to allow more profitable effort in potential breakthrough areas or aggressive research. "Products quite closely related to the present line," he observes, "serve to broaden the existing market posture but in general have little special effect on overall profitability." The consultant also warns against overcommitment of R&D in technical service to companies' operating departments. "Expenditures of more than 5% of total R&D budget for manufacturing service or 10% for sales service should be carefully re-examined by many companies," he states. Making a longer-range basic research program work, once decided upon, takes thoroughly realistic personnel management, according to Dr. Alfred H. Nissan, vice president for corporate research of West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. "I am always amused when scientists and lay administrators of research talk as if it were a matter of simple choice for any man or group of men to indulge in prosecuting basic research." With a nod to George Bernard Shaw's assessment of actors doing Shaw, Dr. Nissan comments, "They may; but many of them probably can't." Basic research is the asking of basic questions—a rare event directly related to the rarity of highly creative scientists. These persons have a "low threshold to states of discomfort or problems" and have "the will and the ability to remove the sources of discomfort." Several such scientists—Dr. Nissan,
"to hazard a guess," says at least fiveshould usually be engaged in basic research. "In some cases, this means that the best place for a company to do its basic research is in a university," he concludes. A future cue for aggressive R&D planning comes from William F. May, chairman of American Can. "The effective R&D manager of the future," he states, "will be the manager who looks beyond the costs of R&D to the total costs of business survival in a free enterprise society that is increasingly concerned with social needs." He calls on technical managers to "pledge new members to their fraternity from the behavioral and social sciences and the humanities." "It seems pretty clear," he continues, "that a lot of the romance and excitement have gone out of the nation's marriage to technology. I am not suggesting that a divorce is in the offing, only that it is time to strengthen the relationship by giving our technological instrument a new dimension."
DOD RESEARCH:
Senate Orders Cost Cuts Shock waves from a Senate-approved amendment to the fiscal 1969 Department of Defense appropriation bill still were reverberating through the federal R&D establishment as C&EN went to press last week. The controversial amendment—proposed by Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D.Mont.) and approved by a 47 to 19 margin—would impose a ceiling on the indirect cost or overhead allowance on all DOD-funded research grants and contracts of just 25% of the direct costs. And although the amendment is given little chance of surviving during the give and take between HouseSenate conferees on their differing versions of the bill, Sen. Mansfield has made it clear that, should the amendment die, it would be resurrected and perhaps broadened next year. Although the amendment would apply only to DOD-funded research grants and contracts, and only for fiscal 1969, it has brought a storm of protest to Capitol Hill from every corner of the federal research establishment. Leading spokesmen for academic science claim that a ceiling on indirect research costs would seriously undermine not only the research, but graduate education in science as well. Their counterparts on the industrial side maintain that the amendment would make it impractical for companies to accept Defense research contracts. A top executive of the contract R&D arm of a major chemical company says, "If this goes through, it will drive people like us out of business."
WATER POLLUTION:
Lake Erie's Foes Named
Majority Leader Mansfield Just the beginning
As things stand now there is no upper limit on the indirect cost allowance on DOD research contracts. Such allowances generally run upward from roughly 125% of the costs of the contract. The only restriction now is that the Government must not bear 100% of such costs—that there must be some cost sharing on the part of the grantee institution. According to DOD figures, overhead rates of universities range from a low 28.6% of the amount of the grant to a high of nearly 87%. But academic community spokesmen claim that these figures are misleading because of the difference in bookkeeping systems of the various schools. "The need for such a limitation has become vital," Sen. Mansfield told the Senate. "Out of the billions of research dollars awarded . . . most of the money goes not for the prosecution of the project itself, but for those expenses that only relate indirectly— expenses that cover new equipment and construction, building maintenance, secretarial services, and supporting staffs. The question of allocation is left entirely to the recipient. As a result, the Government pays the recipient twice and in some cases as much as three or four times the costs directly allocated to the project." According to Sen. Mansfield, $1.2 billion of the $1.67 billion in total federal support of research in the universities in fiscal 1967 went for overhead costs. While he agrees that these costs "are perhaps necessary, if not vital for the proper functioning of any university," Sen. Mansfield feels they should be provided for in some more direct manner. One of the main purposes of the amendment, he warns, is "to demonstrate that this is but the beginning of an evaluation that will continue over the months and years ahead."
The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration's report on Lake Erie pollution has predictably raised a ruckus around the lake. Especially offended are those whom the FWPCA report places at the head of the list of the lake's chief polluters. For example, the Lake Erie report— the result of a five-year study that cost $3 million—states that municipal waste is the principal cause of pollution in Lake Erie and its tributaries. Ranking the sources of municipal waste in terms of waste discharged, the report places Detroit at the top of the list, followed by Cleveland and Toledo, in that order. In fact, the report contends, Detroit contributes more wastes than all the other cities combined. The Michigan State Water Resources Commission calls the report misleading and says it conveys the impression that the state is doing nothing about Lake Erie's worsening condition. Commission executive secretary Loring F. Oeming charges that the report ignores progress made in the past three years under federally approved antipollution programs. Industrial wastes were also cited by the FWPCA report as a major source of pollution, especially in tributaries and harbors. At least 360 known industrial sources are responsible for 87% of the total waste flow discharged to Lake Erie and its tributaries, the report contends, contributing 9.6 billion gallons per day of waste water. Electric power production accounts for 72% and steel production accounts for 197c of this flow. The report ranks Ford Motor Co., Dearborn and Monroe, Mich., as chief producer of industrial waste water, with 19.7% of the total volume of waste water discharged, excluding electric power-producing facilities. Following Ford are Republic Steel (Lorain and Cleveland, Ohio, and Buffalo, N.Y.) with 14.9% and Bethlehem Steel (Lackawanna, N.Y.) with 13% of total volume of industrial waste water discharged, excluding electric power producers. Ford wasted no time in denying the villainous role in which it was cast.
FWPCA's Joe Moore, Jr. Engineering's not the problem
William D. Innes, vice president of Ford's manufacturing group, North American automotive operations, says this 19.7% figure refers to the Ford usage share of industrial water discharged into the lake's drainage basin. "Most of this water is used for cooling," he says, "and has nothing to do with waste or pollution." FWPCA calls for an immediate start on spending $1.1 billion to control municipal pollution and $285 million for curbing industrial contamination. Joe G. Moore, Jr., FWPCA commissioner, says that the cleanup of Lake Erie is "less a problem of engineering than it is a problem of diverse, inadequate, and unwieldy changing governmental policies, funding, and management . . . it remains for the citizens of the (Lake Erie) basin to act quickly, decisively, and wholeheartedly." Lake dwellers get just that chance to act at the polls early next month. In Michigan, for example, a state bond issue for $335 million is on the ballot, an amount which, when combined with federal funds, would provide $1.2 billion for building new sewage treatment plants, improving existing plants, and constructing new sewers to service 3.5 million people. In Ohio, issue No. 1 on the Nov. 5 ballot would provide $759 million for capital improvements, including $120 million for water pollution control programs.
Detroit Area Is Main Polluter of Lake Erie Waste Contribution
Phosphorus B.O.D. Chloride Source:
Detroit & Southeastern Michigan
ClevelandCuyahoga River
ToledoMaumee River
Other
40.0% 60.3 51.0
18.6% 11.0 10.6
15.3% 15.5 4.7
26.1% 13.2 33.7
FWPCA OCT. 14, 1968 C&EN
21
