SOUTH KOREA:
THE CHEMICAL WORLD THIS WEEK
Bigger R&D Investments Realizing the necessity of raising its level of science and technology in order to eventually erase its name from the list of developing nations, the Republic of Korea plans to gradually increase its investment in research and development from this year's $6 million (0.3% of gross national product) to about $171 million (2.0% of projected GNP) by 1981. An intermediate goal is to attain 1.0% of GNP for R&D spending by 1971, and 1.5% five years afterward. By comparison, the U.S. spent $17 billion (or about 3.5% of GNP) on R&D last year. An important part of Korea's hopes for attaining these goals rests on the nation's newly formed independent research organization—the Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), which held its first international Symposium on the Development of Industrial Research in Korea at Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio, last week. KIST was founded in 1966 to support and advance economic development in Korea through direct links with the nation's industrial community. Battelle, through funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development, has played a sister role in guiding the infant organization. Although funding Korea's projected ambitious programs in R&D may present problems, the main difficulty facing Korea today is the development of human resources, Dong Shik Shin, senior secretary to Korea's president Park Chung Hee, said. As with many less advanced countries, the so-called brain drain has had its effect on Korea, with many students who do postgraduate work in the U.S. deciding to stay in the U.S. to live and work. Thus, KIST president Hyung Sup Choi says, Korea has strongly encouraged KIST to induce back to Korea as many Korean scientists educated overseas as possible. Several features have been built into KIST to help attract Korean scientists living abroad back to their homeland. These include an environment in which autonomous research can be carried out to a maximum extent; modern, well-equipped facilities; higher salaries that will allow a comfortable living; and a sabbatical leave program. With these attractions, KIST has been successful so far in its recruitment program. Of its current professional staff of 38, two thirds were recruited from outside Korea—mainly in the U.S., Dr. Choi notes. With expected growth, the staff should number about 500 by 1970, and possibly 1000 by 1975, he says.
J. Kneeland Nunan One of the "one percenters"
EDUCATION:
More Financial Aid Chemical companies interested in giving financial aid to higher education might keep a lookout for J. Kneeland Nunan. He is out to extend nationally an idea that originated in Cleveland. Mr. Nunan, a former electrical engineering educator and industrialist, is director of the "Corporate 1% Program for Higher Education" created last week. Object of the program is to induce U.S. business to give colleges and universities at least 1% of pretax income. Will Nunan succeed? American corporations today give about $300 million a year to the colleges of their choice. Mr. Nunan would have them contribute around $830 million under his plan. He cites as precedent the Cleveland experience, where 42 companies increased their educational philanthropy from $1.7 million in 1962 to $5.1 million in 1967. Mr. Nunan is a peppery, quicktalking fund raiser whose last job was in the Defense Department as chief of sea warfare systems research and engineering. Before his DOD appointment he headed his own company, Electra Scientific, in California. His educational experience goes back to the early 1940's when he was head of the electronic engineering department at the University of Southern California. Mr. Nunan believes that he brings to his company visits a convincing argument in favor of the plan. " 'My God/ they tell me," he says, " 'we can't give any 1%!' I just say to them, look: say your earnings per share after taxes are $2.50. That means your earnings were about $5.00 before taxes. One per cent of that is 5 cents. If you don't give the 5 cents, 2.5 cents are going to the Government
anyway. So, why not make it a whole nickel?" Mr. Nunan says that his listeners are very intrigued with the plan, especially when he makes the point that the overhead in administering federal grants sharply reduces the value of such funds. Some estimates are that $3.00 are three spent for every $1.00 used. Company money would flow cleanly into the colleges. Cleveland's "one percenters" are backed by a board of directors headed by George S. Dively, who as board chairman of Harris Intertype originated the program locally. Vice chairman is Charles M. White, former Republic Steel board chairman. What really launched the program on a national scale was a $500,000 grant from the Ford Foundation. When it is considered that the income of U.S. colleges and universities is expected to fall some $4.9 billion short of expenses between 1968 and 1969 (according to Office of Education figures), Nunan's 1% program could take up considerable slack. If Mr. Nunan intends to call on many chemical companies, he may find that he won't have to argue too vigorously. The chemical industry has a good record in giving money to education. In 1966 (the latest year for which information is available), 87 chemical companies gave $24.3 million to higher education, according to the New York City-based Council for Financial Aid to Education. But, in general, Mr. Nunan has his work cut out for him. According to CFAE, for 18 industry categories surveyed in 1966, the average educational contribution on the basis of net income before taxes increased from 0.31% in 1960 to 0.35% in 1964 and dropped back to 0.34% in 1966. It's a far cry from 1%.
PATENT POLICY:
No Hard and Fast Rules A report just released by the Federal Council for Science and Technology dispels a few popular notions about who should get title to inventions resulting from federally sponsored research and development, the Government or the contractor. The substance of the report would seem to be that there should be no hard and fast patent policy. The report highlights the finding of an 18-month study conducted by Harbridge House for the Council's Committee on Government Patent Policy. And the findings pretty much support the Government's present policies— with a few notable exceptions. SEPT. 16, 1968 C&EN
19
THE CHEMICAL WORLD THIS WEEK
The findings confirm that the R&D mission of the sponsoring agency has a critical effect on the commercial applicability of resulting inventions. For example, patents arising out of contract R&D for the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Atomic Energy Commission in most cases covered inventions designed to meet operating requirements of these agencies. Commercial applications for these inventions, therefore, essentially were a by-product of government uses and dependent on a coincidental overlap between government and business. On the other hand, inventions of agencies, such as the Departments of Agriculture and Interior and the Tennessee Valley Authority, were highly oriented to civilian needs, reflecting the civilian orientation of their R&D. The study turned up significant differences in the types of costs incurred on DOD-oriented inventions, where in almost all cases the contractor/user has exclusive rights, and inventions of civilian-oriented agencies, where the user has a nonexclusive license. For example, the cost of developing a DOD invention to the point of commercial use ran to 56.8% of the private dollar investment against only 2 1 . 1 % for the technical development of civilian-agency inventions, which again brings home the relationship between agency mission and commercial potential of inventions. This, the report says, has a bearing on the degree of patent protection that may be needed as an incentive for industry to try to use such inventions commercially. "All other factors being equal, more protection is required where the technical costs and financial risks are greater than where they are not," it states. The report recommends giving exclusive invention rights to contractors: "Where the inventions as developed under government contract are not directly applicable to commercial uses and the inventing contractor has commercial experience in the field of the invention. This occurs most frequently with DOD, NASA, and AEC inventions. "Where the invention is commercially oriented but requires substantial development to perfect it, applies to a small market, or is in a field occupied by patent-sensitive firms and its market potential is not alone sufficient to bring about utilization." The study group found "little evidence" of adverse effects on business competition by permitting government contractors to retain title to inventions. For one thing, it says, both in number of inventions used and in sales volume the patents sampled "appear to have 20 C&EN SEPT. 16, 1968
had small impact on commercial markets." Also, it says, it could find "very few instances" where owners of government-sponsored inventions refused to license their patents. "Industry's main concern about participating in government research has been the compromise of private investment in research and invention," the report points out. Industry complains most about the "peep-hole" effect of government programs whereby the Government receives rights in the accumulated results of private work. Traditionally, under federal patent provisions, an invention which has been conceived at private expense but reduced to practice under a government program is classified as a government invention to which rights are to be disposed under terms of the contract. In some programs, the study found, the reach of the contract has been extended to background patents owned by the contractor at the time he signs the contract. "This practice causes the sharpest industry reaction of all because firms feel caught between their wish to participate in government programs and the need to protect their private investment and competitive position," the report points out.
SYNTHETIC FIBERS:
Du Pont Is in Fabric Du Pont's textile fibers department is breaking away from its traditional marketing practices by selling, for the first time, a woven fabric instead of just fiber or yarn. The company is now marketing a dyed nylon fabric, trademarked Dorzan, which has a woven straw effect particularly suitable for use in casual shoe uppers, luggage, handbags, and other personal accessories. Dorzan is now available in
Du Pont's Lynch Broader line
four weaves and 15 colors at prices ranging between 30 and 40 cents per sq. ft. This radical move to marketing a finished fabric seems at first to suggest that U.S. fiber producers might be integrating ahead into textile mill operations. Such integration, for example, characterizes the British fiber-textile industry. However, in view of the facts that Du Pont is contracting the weaving work out and that its poromeric products division is marketing the fabric, the rationale for the move lies elsewhere. Indeed, it lies simply in keeping profits up. First, Du Pont will squeeze as much mileage as it can out of the very successful but costly marketing organization it created to sell the first poromeric synthetic leather—Corfam. Or as Charles A. Lynch, director of marketing for the poromeric products division, phrases it: "The addition of Dorzan now provides the Corfam sales group with a broader line covering more than 90 c/o of the footwear market." Second, Du Pont will gain full control over the processing, pricing, and sales of Dorzan to fabricators and thus realize more profits from the operation. Until now, the company has been selling the nylon ribbon yarn, trademarked Ruvea, to converters who, in turn, profited in their sales to the fabricators. Whether today's costs of marketing Corfam are disproportionately hign compared to total sales revenues remains an unanswered question. But the recent Dorzan move indicates that Du Pont is preparing for a time when even more competitive pricing in the poromeric synthetic leather market will weaken its profit position to such an extent that it will not want to finance a marketing group selling only Corfam. After Du Pont began marketing its poromeric in 1964, it encountered competition much sooner than it expected. Last year, Goodrich began marketing Aztran and Japan's Kurashiki Rayon introduced Clarino into the U.S. Other companies working toward U.S. distribution of their poromeric materials are West Germany's Glanzstoff, A.G., with Xylee, Japan's Toyo Rubber Industry with Patora, and Kanegafuchi Spinning Co., w i t h Belesa. Uniroyal is now licensing rights from Japan Amino Acid Chemicals and Japan Leather Indus-try Co. to produce a polyamino acid material which is poromeric and resembles leather. And other chemical companies in the U.S. such as Union Carbide, Celanese, and Tenneco are currently evaluating poromeric materials and could enter the market.
