The Chemical World This Week
INDUSTRIAL R&D SPENDING ANALYZED DY NSF Industrial R&D spending in the U.S. increased by 8% to $20.9 billion in 1973, and even in terms of constant 1967 dollars increased bv 2%. Energy R&D funded by industry totaled about $870 million in 1973—22% more than in 1972—and increased by 217c to more than $1.0 billion in 1974. Energy R&D funded by the chemical industry alone totaled $85 million in 1974, about 40% more than in 1972. And as of January of this year, U.S. industry employed a full-time equivalent of 363,000 R&D scientists and engineers, 13,000 more than in 1972. The average cost per scientist or engineer to industry in 1973: $58,300, 6% more than in 1972. These are among the preliminary findings of an analysis by the National Science Foundation's Industry Studies Group of 1972-73 industrial R&D funding. Complete results of the industrial survey will be published by NSF next summer. For now, NSF says that more than 80% of the industry R&D money was accounted for by five industries: electrical equipment and communication, $5.3 billion; aircraft and missiles, $5.1 billion; motor vehicles and other transportation equipment, $2.4 billion; machinery, $2.1 billion; and chemicals, $2.1 billion. Among the industry groups, the motor vehicles industry posted the largest increase in 1973, 23%, and between 1970 and 1973 increased by 50%. By comparison, the chemical industry increased its R&D funding bv 9.7% in 1973. In general, the distribution of industrial R&D funds for basic research, applied research, and devel-
opment—at 3%, 18%, and 79%, respectively, in 1973—has remained about the same for the past several years. Industrial basic research funding totaled $605 million in 1973, 4% more than in 1972. NSF says that the chemical industry spent about 11% or $225 million of its R&D budget on basic research— the most of any of the industry groups—in 1973 and accounted for about 40% of all industrial basic research. Total industry spending for applied research amounted to $3.8 billion in 1973, 8% more than in 1972. All industry groups increased applied research spending, with increases ranging from 2% in petroleum to 12% in chemicals. The chemical and electrical equipment industries together accounted for 45% of all industrial applied research spending in 1973. Most of the industrial R&D budget in 1973 went for development, totaling $16.6 billion, 8% more than in 1972. All major industry groups increased development funding in 1973, with more than 50% of the industrial development performed in the aircraft and electrical equipment industries. The most dramatic increases, at least in terms of percentages if not dollars, occurred in industrial spending on energy R&D. Between 1972 and 1974, industrial spending on energy R&D increased by $346 million or about 48.5%. Not surprisingly, the petroleum industry apparently will be the leading performer of energy R&D in 1974, putting an estimated $405 million of its $504 million R&D budget into energv. NSF savs that industrial
Five industries account for 80% of total industrial R&D funds 1973 F U N D S TOTAL R&D FUNDS $ Millions
1972
1973
Chemicals and allied products $1,896 $2,079 Industrial c h e m i c a l s 1,042 1,130 Drugs and m e d i c i n e s 618 547 Other chemicals 330 307 Machinery 1,956 2,141 Electrical equipment 5,330 4,917 Motor vehicles 1,984 2,437 Aircraft and missiles 4,992 5,051 Others 3,626 3,899 TOTAL $19,371 $20,937
Federal
Company
$208
$1,871
191 na na 334
940 na na
2652
402 3961
700 $8257
1,806 2,678 2,035 1,090 3,200 $12,680
a As of J a n u a r y 1974. na = n o t a v a i l a b l e , b u t i n c l u d e d in t o t a l .
4
C&EN Dec. 23, 1974
ApBasic plied Develreresearch search o p m e n t
R&D scientists and e n gineers1
$225
$832
$1,022
124 81 20 25 165 11 52 127
490 233 109 296 827 159 502
517 304 201
42,100 20,500 12,000 9,600 45,800 94,700 28,400 69,700 82,400 363,100
$605
1143 $3759
1,820 4,338 2,267 4,497 2,629 $16,573
R&D on nuclear energy got the most federal support in 1973, $263 million (accounting for 93% of federal support of energy R&D in industry), and 23% more than in 1972. Nuclear energy R&D also got $129 million of industry's own funds in 1973, 41% more than in 1972. Finally, NSF says that companies spent $12.7 billion of their own money to finance industrial R&D in 1973, 12% more than in 1972. In all, industry monev paid for 60% of all industry R&D in 1973, the highest share since 1953. The government spent $8.3 billion on industrial R&D in 1973—3% more than in 1972—with more than 80% of the federal money going to the aircraft ($4.0 billion) and electrical equipment ($2.7 billion) industries.
Scientists protest firing of NIH chief Six scientists from the National Institutes of Health have decried the firing of NIH director Robert S. Stone. At a press conference last week sponsored by the Federation of American Scientists, they called for the repeal of a National Cancer Act provision that requires that the director be a political appointee. Dr. Stone is the second NIH director to be ousted within the past two years and he will not comment on his firing. The scientists included three Nobel Laureates—Dr. Christian Anfinsen (1972), Dr. Julius Axelrod (1970), and Dr. Marshall Nirenberg (1968). They said the forced resignations indicate the degree to which NTH can be vulnerable to "unwarranted and counterproductive political control. '' However, they were unable to cite specific instances where they felt politicization of NTH research actually has led to decreases in research productivity. They urge President Ford to immediately involve the scientific community in the search for a new director. Dr. Jeremy J. Stone is director of FAS. Speaking on behalf of FAS, he said that NTH appears to be under pressure to allocate whatever funds it gets in accordance with the wishes of the Office of Management
Jeremy Stone: sever NI H from HEW
& Budget and of the Department of Health, Education & Welfare. Such interferences, coupled with highlevel personality disagreements, have interrupted the trend of NIH's research. He suggests that M H be severed from HEW and made a separate agency or linked with another agency, such as the National Science Foundation. Also last week, in an action unrelated to FAS's, Dr. Charles C. Edwards submitted his resignation as HEW's assistant secretary for health. Edwards, also a former Food & Drug Administration commissioner, is said to have accepted a job as senior vice president of Becton, Dickinson & Co. (Rutherford, X.J.), a maker of medical and surgical supplies. Edwards was responsible for firing Robert Stone.
Federal aid needed for synthetic fuels To ensure getting a commercialscale synthetic fuels program off the ground in the U.S., industry will need support from the government against financial disaster, witnesses from Ashland Oil and Oil Shale Corp. (TOSCO) told the House Science, Research & Development Subcommittee last week. The hearings were on H.R. 17400, the Synthetic Liquid Fuel Research & Development Act of 1974, which would promote R&D and provide federal contracts for construction and operation of commercial-size plants. Similar legislation may be enacted in the next Congress. William H. Gammon, administrative vice president of Ashland Oil and Charles H. Brown, senior vice president of TOSCO, said in prepared statements that an uncertain price for oil, inflation, high capital requirement costs as well as the high cost of capital have hindered commercial-scale development
of coal gasification and production of oil from coal and shale. Brown's testimony particularly underscored the fiscal problems faced in the development of oil shale. He noted that the Colony Group—consisting of TOSCO, Atlantic-Richfield, Ashland Oil, and Shell Oil—suspended a construction start in September on a commercial oil shale complex. And he noted how the cost for a 50,000 bbl-per-day plant producing hydrotreated shale oil had escalated from 1967 to September 1974. To wit: Capital costs for such a plant went from $144 million in 1967 to $255 million in 1972 to $653 million in 1974. Direct operating costs went from $1.20 per bbl in 1967 to $1.82 in 1972 to $4.77 in 1974. And the price per barrel required for a 12% return on investment went from $2.36 in 1967 to $12.50 in September 1974.
Job outlook for new grads could be worse Despite the currently troubled state of the economy, college seniors can be "guardedly optimistic" about finding jobs when they graduate next spring. So says Dr. Frank S. Endicott, director of placement (emeritus) at Northwestern University and compiler of the Endicott report, a yearly survey of trends in employment of graduates by business and industry. This year Endicott surveyed 160 well-known concerns, mostly medium- or large-sized, in a wide variety of fields. Although 41% of the companies say they will hire fewer graduates next year, another 50% say they will hire more. Altogether, the 160 firms plan to hire about 13,200 graduates with bachelor's or master's degrees, almost the same as this year. Thus, Endicott comments, the job market next spring will be the toughest in three years —but not nearly so tight as in 1970 or 1971. For all fields, projected 1975 demand for bachelors is up 1% from 1974; for masters, down 4%. Demand for bachelor-level engineers is up 3% but for masters-level engineers down 11%. That decrease may reflect cutbacks in R&D by some firms, Endicott says, or it may show that companies would rather give on-the-job training to bachelor-level engineers than pay higher starting salaries to advanced-degree holders. Endicott notes that starting salaries for 1975 graduates will be up about 5% across the board. Among
the bachelors, the survey reveals, engineers will be offered the highest starting salaries: an average of $1062 per month, up about 7% from this year. According to the survey, 22 companies will hire 111 bachelor-level chemists—a 27% increase over the 87 hired by 24 companies in 1974. Starting salaries will average $992 per month, up 6.7% from this year's $930.
EPA tests refute LaForce engine claim The Environmental Protection Agency apparently has shot down a supposedly revolutionary auto engine that last month triggered some excitement and a considerable sense of urgency in the Senate Commerce Committee. Testifying before the committee last week, EPA's Eric O. Stork said that the engine, known as the LaForce engine, is neither a new nor an important development. On Nov. 26, Robert and Edward LaForce (Richmond, Vt.) told the committee that by modifying the engine of a standard AMC Hornet, they had obtained a 70% increase in gasoline mileage. They also said the modified engine can meet federal emission standards without "complicated and costly" antipollution devices. According to the LaForce brothers (C&EX, Dec. 2, page 16), their engine employs a centrifuge to separate the heavy and light ends of gasoline. The light ends are volatilized and the heavy ends recycled back to the combustion chamber where they are burned completely. At least one Detroit car manufacturer—General Motors—is interested in this engine. The Senate Commerce Committee called a further hearing almost immediately following the LaForce revelation for Dec. 10. At that time, Stork testified that EPA could not make recommendations until its evaluation tests had been completed. At a later hearing, however, deputy assistant administrator Stork said EPA tests show that although the LaForce engine gets a 30% better gasoline mileage than the unmodified Hornet, it does so at a 15 to 32% loss in horsepower output. Further, he testified, the LaForce engine, when compared with conventional engines, emits three times as much hydrocarbons and more than three times as much carbon monoxide. EPA's final report was released last week. Dec. 23, 1974C&EN
5
