international tion in ISTC. "We're turning liabilities or embarrassments into assets. But things don't happen overnight as you go from [being] adversaries to partners." ISTC is "really contributing to reduction of the risk of nuclear proliferation," adds Cherie P. Fitzgerald, division director in the Office of Arms Control & Nonproliferation at the Department of Energy. "And it's making a wealth of resources and talent available that there was no access to before. We're trying to increase awareness of it as an option for DOE program offices." The NRC report notes that the scienfor projects with strong commercial potential. Another key recommendation is tists and scientific institutes of the former more emphasis on involving the former Soviet Union have fallen on hard times. Soviet Union's biological and chemical Under the Soviet regime, science and engineering funding came essentially from the warfare institutes in ISTC programs. ISTC is already moving in many of the central government. The Soviet Academy directions the panel recommends, says of Sciences developed basic research in its Anne M. Harrington, who, as coordinator institutes. Industrial and applied science of Nonproliferation & Science Coopera- and engineering focused primarily on the tion Programs at the State Department, military sector and were carried out in decoordinates U.S. government participa- fense and industrial ministries, employing many of the best scientists and engineers. "The country's science Although its scientists mainly sector was inflated beyond worked in nuclear arms . . . the economy's capacity to sustain it," the panel points Other Nuclear 14% out. Downsizing began in weapons Chemical 63% the late 1980s and has accelweapons 3% ~erated. Russian observers estimate more than a 50% Biological weapons drop in scientific personnel 4% since the mid-1980s, and the science sector is still not at a sustainable size. GovernMissiles 16% ment research funding has been sharply slashed. ScienParticipating scientists - 1 1 , 0 0 0 tists' salaries often go unpaid for months, and little . . . ISTC projects cover money is available for equipa broad range of areas ment or infrastructure. "Under such deterioratElectronics Space & ing economic and social Nonnuclear & computers aviation Energy . 5% conditions, those who reproduction environment , 12% main in science . . . do so 8% ^ ^ ^ C Nuclear with little hope of regaining Medical ^^^^^M ^ X environment technologies/ ^ M H their former prominence or ' V > 12% 8% , L^ ^ H quality of life," the report adds. Leading scientists have emigrated. "Others have left Nuclear V s' Sm!ll^^^±> yC Controlled their fields altogether to fusion safety / \ ^ iifPfl^^^B ^ / work abroad or to develop 11% 9% ' A v M ^ H Pn businesses in banking and x Instrumentation Materials / ' other commercial sectors." 90/0 11% Basic research In this demoralizing envi10% ronment, "the threat exists ISTC projects = 202 that weapons scientists and Source: 1995 annual report, International Science & Technology Center engineers"—once the elite of Soviet science—"will be
MOSCOW SCIENCE CENTER LAUDED
More government, industry support urged for programs that turn former Soviet weapons scientists to civilian research Richard J. Seltzer C&EN Washington
S
ince the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, a prime concern of the U.S. and other nations has been preventing former Soviet Union scientists and engineers from selling their expertise in weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, chemical, and biological, as well as missile delivery systems—to "outlaw" nations or terrorist groups. To facilitate these antiproliferation efforts, the U.S., Russia, the European Union (EU), and Japan established an International Science & Technology Center (ISTC) in Moscow to give the former Soviet weapons scientists and engineers "opportunities to redirect their talents to peaceful activities." ISTC officially started up in March 1994. The center has been "successful and effective in meeting its primary objective" during its first two years, finds a report by a National Research Council (NRC) panel, which assessed ISTC's programs at the request of the Department of Defense (DOD). "The opportunities provided to [former Soviet] scientists and engineers do indeed offer meaningful non-weaponsrelated work"—including some interesting chemically related projects. ISTC also has successfully addressed the secondary objectives in its charter, the panel adds: Contributing to "the solution of national or international technical problems; . . . supporting basic and applied research and technology development, inter alia, in the fields of environmental protection, energy production, and nuclear safety; . . . promoting the future integration of [Soviet scientists] into the international scientific community"; and contributing to "the transition to market-based economies responsive to civil needs." The panel makes several recommendations to broaden backing for ISTC and expand its work, including higher priority 28 DECEMBER 23, 1996 C&EN
tempted to emigrate to countries of proliferation concern." The long-term solution lies in overall economic progress, R&D investment by private industry, a shift by research institutes to doing civilian R&D and getting funding from nongovernment sources, and closing of some institutes, the panel points out. However, if "science and technology wither and flounder, it is difficult to see how the [former Soviet] nations can prosper. Science and technology, together with capital and free social institutions, propel a modern economy." The U.S. and other nations have responded to this scientific crisis with several intergovernmental programs. There have also been various projects by U.S. scientific societies, national labs, private industry, and other bodies. ISTC was created to focus specifically on former weapons scientists. It is an intergovernmental body now backed by the U.S., the EU, Japan, Sweden, and Russia. Scientists from Russia, Georgia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazahkstan, and Kyrgyzstan participate. The U.S. has contributed $64 million to
ISTC through fiscal 1996. As of mid-1996, the EU had contributed $53.5 million and Japan, $17 million. Sweden has pledged $4 million. The U.S., the EU, and Japan also contribute staff members and provide in-kind support, such as reviewing research proposals. Russia provides the secretariat with in-kind support—such as office space and equipment, communications and utilities, and staff members—and the institutes involved in projects pay part of the overhead and personnel costs. ISTC's governing board, which meets three times a year, contains representatives of the U.S., the EU, Japan, and Russia, plus a rotating seat for another former Soviet republic. The ISTC secretariat is based in Moscow, with branch offices in Kazakhstan and Belarus and information centers in Georgia and Armenia. A Scientific Advisory Committee helps assess projects and research proposals. Former Soviet scientists who are doing ISTC projects remain employees of their institutions. They are paid in dollars through tax-free grants and may receive equipment and travel funds, as well. They are encouraged to collaborate with
foreign scientists, but foreign collaborators must pay their own way and do not receive ISTC funds. For the 202 projects approved through the end of 1995, 63% of the scientists funded had worked on nuclear weapons. Only 3% had worked on chemical weapons and 4% on biological weapons, with 16% having worked on missile technology. The remaining 14% include nonweapons scientists. (ISTC supports primarily weapons scientists, but allows projects to include nonweapons scientists.) The 202 projects, representing about $82 million in funding, cover a broad range of subjects. Leading topics are nuclear-related environmental work, nuclear reactor safety, energy production, controlled fusion, instrumentation, basic research (including chemistry), and materials. In terms of technology phase, the highest portion of the projects, 38%, are in a development phase; 31% are applied research; 22%, demonstration studies; 8%, basic research; and 1%, feasibility studies. Russians received most of the support, 192 of 202 projects, totaling $79 million. Armenia and Georgia had three
Water Soluble Azo Initiators — for free-radical polymerization — Call today for additional information and free samples!
/ / / / / /
R-N=N-R
variety of initiators with 10 hour half-lives from 44°C to 86°C easily controlled polymerization reactions synthesis of high molecular weight polymers with high linearity minimally affected by other components in the formulation end-group functionalization easy to store and handle
Wako — your choice for unique water-soluble azo technology! Wako Chemical USA, Inc.
Wako
1600 Bellwood Road Richmond, VA 23237, U.S.A. Telephone: (804) 271-7677 Facsimile: (804) 271-7791
Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Ltd. 1-2, Doshomachi 3-Chome, Chuo-Ku, Osaka 541, Japan Telephone: (06) 203-3741 Facsimile: (06) 222-1203
Wako Chemicals GmbH NissanstraBe 2, D-41468 Neuss, Germany Telephone: (02131) 311-0 Facsimile: (02131) 31 11 00
CIRCLE 2 ON READER SERVICE CARD
DECEMBER 23, 1996 C&EN 29
E5K
international projects each; and Kazakhstan and Belarus, two each. An average project received about $400,000—which goes a long way in that part of the world—with an average duration of 30 months. After a project ends, ISTC will help recipients formulate plans for further development and application. Some interesting chemically related projects are under way. For example: • Development of new-generation biopesticides, by the Institute of Applied Microbiology in Obolensk, in collaboration with the University of Georgia in the U.S., Cambridge University in England, PasteurMérieus Institute in France, and Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium. • Development of technologies for production of new drug delivery systems, by the Research Institute of Highly Pure Biopreparations in St. Petersburg, in collaboration with Vienna University. • Development of the technology of catalytic fluidized-bed destruction of mixed organic wastes containing radionuclides, by the Boreskov Institute of Catalysis in Novosibirsk, in collaboration with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in
the U.S., British Nuclear Fuels in the U.K., and Université Louis Pasteur in France. • Adaptation of high-temperature rocket technology to detoxification of supertoxic materials, by the Central Scientific Research Institute of Special Machine Building in Kaliningrad, in collaboration with Lurgi Energie & Umwelt in Germany. This year, ISTC has added many more projects to the 202. At its October meeting, the governing board okayed AA new projects, bringing the total to 327 approved during two and a half years of operation, engaging some 15,400 scientists with total funding of about $121 million. New chemically related projects include developing novel composite polymeric materials from waste auto tires; neutralization and then utilization of toxic wastes; environmental characterization and remediation of soil, air, and water pollution; options for disposal of weapons plutonium; medical diagnostics, recombinant vaccines, and a virus library; and lasers. Also approved was a new project involving collaboration by DuPont scientists with scientists at the Institute of Organic Chemistry and the Institute of Organo-Ele-
wmm aiii CM
11 ι
llwl
β
(Mira
30 DECEMBER 23, 1996 C&EN
ment Compounds, both in Moscow: "Creation of Scientific Grounds, Techniques, and Technologies for the Transformation of the Explosive 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (Trotyl, TNT) into Valuable Civil Products (Polymeric Materials, Dyes, Biologically Active Compounds, etc.)." And DuPont already is working on an ISTC project with the Institute of Chemical Physics in Chernogolovka, focusing on the role of kinetic factors in the formation of network polymers and related materials. Based on its findings, the NRC panel makes seven recommendations to advance ISTC's work: • The U.S. should continue core funding of ISTC. • To maintain a focus on nonproliferation goals, DOD and DOE should increase their roles in ISTC. • The U.S. managers of ISTC should seek new funds for the center from federal mission agencies and the private sector. • ISTC should consider organizing an industrial advisory council. • ISTC should expand collaboration with Western scientists. • ISTC should place more emphasis
You've also got oils, waxes, gases, plastics, surfactants, catalysts, pharmaceuticals, dyes, organic and inorganic chemicals, and synthetic elastomers. In short, everything chemical. They're all available on the Web, thanks to CHEMCYCLOPEDIA-the latest Internet "shopping service" from the American Chemical Society. CHEMCYCLOPEDIA provides quick and easy access to valuable information for users and purchasers of commercially available chemicals. You can search on a chemical name and get a list of companies. You can search on a company name and get its mailing address, e-mail, and contact person. You can jump to display ads or quickly link to all companies that provided Web addresses. Toll-free phone numbers are also listed for contact the traditional way. Access CHEMCYCLOPEDIA on the Web on ChemCenter (http://www.ChemCenter.org) under Electronic Shopping Center. This service is free to all.
ACS III PUBLICATIONS Essential Resources for the Chemical Sciences
on involving biological and chemical warfare institutes in its activities. • ISTC should allow grants to fund communications equipment. The first $49 million of U.S. support for ISTC came from DOD's Cooperative Threat Reduction (Nunn-Lugar) program. Support now comes from the State Department's Freedom Support Act funds. The State Department has coordinated U.S. participation in ISTC since the program began. With this funding, the panel notes, "ISTC has been, if not explicitly, at least by association, a short-term crisis management program with a relatively nearterm end point." Funding of $18 million annually through 1998 was envisioned, declining to almost zero by fiscal 2003. But the proliferation threat has not abated, the panel warns. ISTC has provided up to 50% of the staff salaries in some of the most important weapons institutes in former Soviet republics. If this funding were precipitously withdrawn, "the threat could increase significantly," the panel says. So the U.S. should continue to provide core funding until 2003, and probably beyond. "It would be pretty dumb to stop funding ISTC; the problem certainly won't be solved by 2003," stresses Dick Combs, a former aide to Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) who is now director for Newly Independent States Programs at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey, Calif. "It's a very smart investment of a small amount of money in the big scheme of things, and it can pay big dividends." Mission-oriented agencies, in particular DOD and DOE, also should supply core funding to ISTC, the panel adds. Both have already made important contributions. For example, a team from national labs coordinates much of the peer review process in the U.S. for research proposals, and scientists at national labs collaborate on projects with Russian colleagues. More involvement by industry is a particularly fertile area to explore, the panel suggests. It says ISTC should put higher priority on projects with strong potential for commercial application, with the proviso that they continue to include a majority of weapons scientists and engineers. For example, "It is likely the private sector will be willing to fund precompetitive research in such fields as biotechnology, optics, and materials science." But the panel opposes ISTC's going beyond precompetitive research—up to and including prototypes—to commercialization. Indeed, State's Harrington tells C&EN,
Too early to assess impact of Ukraine science program Ukraine does not participate in the In- prominent role in the Soviet Union, esternational Science & Technology Cen- pecially in military aerospace. But few ter (ISTC) in Moscow. Instead, it has its nuclear weapons activities took place own independent center in Kiev aimed in Ukraine, and there's no evidence of at achieving similar goals. biological or chemical warfare work. The Science & Technology Center in Thus, the panel notes, STCU would Ukraine (STCU) was established by the seem to have an easier job than ISTC But U.S., Canada, Sweden, and Ukraine. It be- Ukraine's past subordination to Moscow gan operations in July 1995. So far, it has makes its task more difficult Many of approved 87 projects engaging about 1,600 Ukraine's research institutes are "small scientists, awarding them atotalof $10.4 parts that have been cut off from their million, llie U.S. has contributed $15 mil- larger organizations" in the rest of the lion to the budget; Canada, $5 million; and former Soviet republics. Sweden, $1.5 million. Ukraine provides of- Moreover, Ukraine's economic decline fice space and other in-kind support since 1991 has severely impacted science A National Research Council panel and technology. There's been an extensays it is too early to assess STClPs im- sive exodus from the science sector, inpact on Ukrainian science and technol- cluding a high proportion of young reogy and the proliferation threat. Ukrai- searchers—many shifting to the comnian science and engineering played a mercial sector or emigrating.
ISTC now has an "industrial partner" program, which already has two members, with others pending. It will offer members quicker review of proposals, in two to three months. ISTC already offers companies several advantages for collaborations in Russia. ISTC pays the Russian participants. It provides unique tax and customs benefits and protection of intellectual property rights. It enables access to formerly closed defense-related institutions that had top priority and were at the cutting edge of technologies. And it offers monitoring of work by ISTC's Moscow staff. Moreover, project approval means clearance by all relevant government agencies. If any problems arise, the participants enjoy the Ml backing of the U.S., the EU, Japan, and host governments. "The Russian government has gone to extraordinary lengths to make the program succeed," she adds. For example, motivated by the advantages and leveraging that ISTC offers, Dow Chemical is planning to become an ISTC industrial partner, explains Arie Cohen. Cohen is senior program manager for external technology at Dow and manages the company's program in the former Soviet republics. "The ISTC people know what they're doing," he says. "There's a very valuable resource of intellectual know-how [in the weapons-related institutes]—but you have to know how to do things there." Dow will soon begin work with the Zelinskii Institute of Organic Chemistry in Moscow on an ISTC project similar to DuPont's—seeking to extend TNT-based chemistry to nonmilitary applications. "It's a
known technology, how to remove TNT from commercial explosives," Cohen says. "But it's not a trivial problem, how to make something useful out of know-how used to produce TNT. And it would be even better to bypass TNT and go directly to a final product unrelated to military applications. "We view this as a pilot project in Russia," he adds. "We're grappling with the idea of how to combine generally open research with the proprietary interest of a company. There are other ideas we think we might want to pursue." The NRC panel also recommends seeking to increase involvement of scientists from the former Soviet Union who have worked on chemical or biological warfare research. In particular, it believes U.S. biotech firms can benefit from collaborating with former biological warfare institutes. Harrington says plans are already afoot in this area. "But it requires different scrutiny than nuclear work because of the dual-use capabilities and other factors." Some critics have attacked ISTC for giving funds to Russian scientists who may also be doing weapons-related work. Combs points out, "That's exactly what ISTC is for, to wean them away from weapons-related work." Russian scientists seek to retain links to defense institutes to keep the infrastructure support and social benefits, he notes. "But ISTC is very careful to monitor use of its funds to be sure they're not used for weapons work." And it requires collaboration with Western scientists for work in some sensitive areas. "It's not like a lot of ninnies are over there just shoveling money out the door," he adds. "They know what they're doing. "M DECEMBER 23, 1996 C&EN 31
