CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING
NEWS
DECEMBER
2 1,
1964
Engineers Get Voice in Government Science New national academy of engineering will have autonomy under NAS charter Engineers, who have long been clamoring for a part in making decisions on national science problems, now have an official voice in government science circles. It is the National Academy of Engineering, just formed by the National Academy of Sciences. NAE was created by the National Academy of Sciences under the NAS basic charter "as part of its own structure, operating on an autonomous and parallel, but coordinated, basis." One of NAE's prime functions will be to advise the Federal Government, upon request, on engineering projects and on the engineering aspects of federal science problems. Formation of NAE marks the culmination of a long series of negotiations between committees of the Engineers Joint Council and NAS, begun in 1960. These groups felt that an engineering academy was needed because: • There is no existing organization to permit engineers to take part in matters related to national technical problems and policies. • NAS has neglected its membership in the area of applied science. The 25 charter members of the National Academy of Engineering have elected these officers: president, Dr. Augustus B. Kinzel; vice president, Dr. Eric A. Walker; secretary, Dr. Harold Work; and treasurer, Dr. Thomas C.Kavanagh. According to Dr. Kinzel, NAE will ultimately have a total membership of 300. Next March up to 75 new members can be elected to NAE. However, Dr. Kinzel expects less than half this number will be elected. The reason is that NAE wants to move slowly to be sure that it selects people of the highest quality and ability. Members will not be selected on the basis of specialties—chemical, electrical, mechanical engineering, and the like. Instead, they will be
selected from the point of view of areas in which NAE can best serve the Government, such as transportation, communications, and similar broad fields. The basis for election to the National Academy of Engineering will be in recognition of: • Important contributions to engineering theory and practice, including significant contributions to the literature of engineering. • Demonstration of unusual accomplishments in the pioneering of new and developing fields of technology. Structure. The original charter for the National Academy of Sciences, approved by Abraham Lincoln in 1863, gives NAS authority to act on problems of science and art. In this context, "art" meant industrial arts
NAE President Kinzel System emphasizes similarities rather than differences
Twenty-five Charter Members Have Been Elected H. W. Bode
Clarence H. Linder
V.P., Bell Telephone Laboratories
Former V.P., General Electric Co.
Walker L. Cisler
Clark B. Millikan
Board Chairman, Detroit Edison Co.
Professor
Hugh L. Dryden Deputy Administrator, NASA
W. H. Pickering
President, Radio Corp. of America
Director, Jet Propulsion Lab, Caltech
William L. Everitt Dean, College of Engineering, University of Illinois
Antoine M. Gaudin Richards Professor of Mineral Engineering, MIT
Executive V.P., Thompson Ramo Wooldridge
Arthur E. Raymond Consultant, RAND Corp. Professor of Chemical Engineering, MIT
President, Standard Oil Co. (N.J.)
J. A. Stratton
George E. Holbrook
President, MIT
V.P., E. I. du Pont de Nemours& Co.
C. G. Suits
J. Herbert Hollomon, Jr. Commerce
for
Partner, Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, Engineers-Architects
Augustus B. Kinzel V.P.—Research, Union Carbide
V.P., General Electric Co.
F. E. Terman Provost and V.P., Stanford University
Thomas C. Kavanagh
V.P., Bechtel Corp.
Simon Ramo
Thomas K. Sherwood
Michael L. Haider
James N. Landis
Aeronautics, Caltech
Head, Civil Engineering Department, University of Illinois
Elmer W. Engstrom
Assistant Secretary of Science and Technology
of
Nathan M. Newmark
Charles Allen Thomas Board Chairman, Monsanto Chemical Co.
Eric A. Walker Corp.
President, Pennsylvania State University
Ernst Weber President, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn
DEC.
21, 1964
C&EN
17
or applied science. This broad basis gives NAS authority to set up the National Academy of Engineering under its original charter. Although set up under the NAS charter, NAE, will be completely autonomous. It will have its own funds, elect its own officers, select new members independently, and conduct its own business. NAE will be solely responsible for the contents of reports on projects which it undertakes and will issue reports in its own name. However, activities of NAS and NAE will be closely coordinated. A joint board is being set up "to recommend policies and modes of operation for accomplishing the most effective cooperation between the two academies." NAS and NAE will have an equal number on the joint board. No Veto. Both Dr. Frederick Seitz, president of NAS, and Dr. Kinzel firmly agree that NAS will have no veto power over NAE actions. Although NAE has been created under the NAS charter, there is no parentchild relationship involved. "The relationship between the academies is like a business partnership," Dr. Kinzel says. He sees little chance of serious disagreement on policy between the two academies. However, if there should be a disagreement on a particular project or policy, he believes that the joint board would issue a statement setting forth both views. Other methods of creating an engineering academy were discussed and abandoned. One proposal was to merge the scientific and engineering points of view and create a National Academy of Science and Engineering. This was a desirable theoretical approach, Dr. Kinzel says, but it would have created too many problems to be practical. Another proposal—to get a separate Congressional charter for the engineering academy—Was abandoned because it would have emphasized the differences between science and engineering. The system finally selected will emphasize similarities rather than differences between science and engineering and will give the maximum coordination between two viewpoints, Dr. Kinzel says. Dr. Seitz is enthusiastic about the potential of NAE. "The purpose of the National Academy of Sciences is to serve; NAE permits NAS to serve more effectively," he says. 18
C&EN
DEC.
21,
1964
Chemical Companies Battle for Foreign Trade Zones Union Carbide talks of $90 million complex at Taft, La.; Monsanto and Dow also interested in trade zones A Federal panel in New Orleans began hearing arguments last week on the proposed foreign-trade subzone at Taft, La. Union Carbide's interest in the subzone has risen to the point that the firm is now talking in terms of a $90 million petrochemical complex there. Included in this is a newly announced complex to make par acetic acid and derivatives. Monsanto and Dow Chemical are also interested in foreign-trade zones. Monsanto says it may file an application for a foreign-trade zone at its Chocolate Bayou plant near Alvin, Tex. Dow Chemical is ahead of both Union Carbide and Monsanto. The Board of Supervisors of Bay County, Mich., has already approved Dow's proposal to put an existing Bay City petrochemical plant into a foreign-trade zone. The application is now being readied for submission to the Federal Government. Arguments. Leading off Carbide's testimony at the hearing, executive vice president William M. Haile says economic advantages that U.S. chemical producers have had in the past because of large plants are diminished and will vanish in the immediate future. This is because large plants have recently been and are now being built abroad. Under such
CARBIDE'S HAILE U.S. naphtha uneconomic feedstock
circumstances, relative costs of raw materials—35 to 40% of operating costs for petrochemicals—assume top importance. Mr. Haile says Carbide's foreign competitors have an advantage in feedstock costs because foreign naphtha is less expensive than the U.S. product. (In the Caribbean naphtha sells for 4 to 4.5 cents a gallon, compared to 10 cents a gallon for U.S. naphtha.) The U.S. oil refining industry is oriented toward gasoline 'in which naphtha can be blended. As a result, the higher price of domestic naphtha makes its use as a petrochemical feedstock uneconomic. In the Taft subzone, Carbide could bring in foreign naphtha which it would crack to make ethylene, propylene, butadiene, benzene, and other raw materials. The naphtha would be brought in outside of the limits of the Government's mandatory oil import program. Chemical products made in the subzone at Taft would be either shipped out to foreign markets or entered into U.S. customs territory (imported) and duty paid, where necessary. Views. Competition figures heavily in both the pro- and con- viewpoints on granting the subzone. The prospect of increased employment, more satellite plants, and more "exports" brought support for Carbide's application from state and local government officials. In addition, Monsanto gave qualified support to the application. Unfair competitive advantages to Carbide and another loophole in the Government's oil import program are the two major reasons for opposition cited at the hearing by chemical and oil companies and officials of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. Most officials, however, went on record at the beginning of their testimony as favoring the foreign trade zone concept. Changes in the application could melt the opposition, but radically reduce the value of the subzone to Carbide. Officials of IPAA, such as Minor S. Jameson, its executive vice president, say the board should approve the Taft subzone only if foreign feedstocks are subject to limitations of the oil import program. Chemical and oil company officials agree, and feel the application should be granted if Carbide can guarantee that all or nearly all of any chemicals made from foreign feedstocks would be exported.
