News of the Week ate and much needed balance in the regulatory rule-making process." Its work, they claim, "assures better government regulation." And they vow to "resist partisan efforts to destroy the council's role as your overseer of regulatory processes." Lois Ember
Staff reaction to NSF restructuring mixed This week shapes up as a big one for the National Science Foundation. Its director, Walter E. Massey, is expected to issue a statement outlining his views and priorities as director, and a long-range planning process for NSF. At press time, no further details were available. However, his statement couldn't come at a better time, because as one veteran staffer puts it, "Never have I seen morale so low around here." Recent organizational changes have greatly upset agency staff members. When physicist Massey took over NSF early this year, staffers breathed a collective sigh of relief. His predecessor, Erich Bloch, was a hard-driving industrialist whose main purpose, it seemed, was to agitate in favor of engineering. Hopes ran high that Massey would let the agency settle into its post-Bloch era while shifting it back to its old basic science persona. That hasn't happened. Massey, it turns out, is carrying out an even bigger organizational revolution at NSF than Bloch ever conceived. At the same time, many believe Massey has walled himself off from much of his staff by appointment of a socalled praetorian guard around him. Several major changes have been announced in the past few weeks, but a few more realignments still are expected, for example in international programs. Massey has created a new Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences; eliminated the old Science, Technology & International Affairs (STIA) Directorate, scattering its collection of unrelated but innovative programs; revamped the data and analysis activities that fell into disarray u n d e r STIA; and removed Sandra D. Toye, a popular associate 8
December 2, 1991 C&EN
of Bloch's, from her job as budget director. Toye was offered a position heading a new planning and assessment office under Massey, but decided to take retirement instead. Meanwhile, she is a member of an implementation team appointed by Massey to oversee changes that will affect about 600 NSF staffers. The changes are expected to have only minimal impact on chemistryrelated programs. Some of the changes make sense, others don't, in the opinion of several observers. Although program assessment ranks high on Massey's priority list, policy analysis has no place in the new scheme. And the new Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences Directorate—an activity the Reagan Administration initially tried to eliminate—is seen by most observers as long overdue and deserving. But placing international research exchange programs under that directorate is regarded as anomalous (it had been under STIA). The popular Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCOR) has been switched
from STIA into the Education & Human Resources Directorate. EPSCOR was aimed at supporting research in universities that receive relatively less research funding, and seems only peripherally related to human resource issues. The biggest complaint about Massey is that he is away too much, and has put two personal staffers—Marjorie MacFarlane and William Harris—between himself and everyone else. "There's no way you can communicate with him unless you have them on your side," says one senior staff member. Other NSF staff members defend Massey. For example, assistant director for biological sciences Mary E. Clutter says one of Massey's main jobs now is to make himself and the foundation better known to the university community. She also says every director needs a personal staff to protect him or her from trivial matters. Former chemistry division head Harris tells C&EN he is surprised to hear of staff discontent. "We think we're approaching a stable steady state here, with an exceptional team." Wil Lepkowski
Group to tackle public concerns over plastics Top executives and managers from 27 of the largest U.S. plastics producers have formed an industry group, the Partnership for Plastics Progress, to respond to public concerns about plastics. The partnership is a joint program of the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) and the Society for the Plastics Industry (SPI). "The mandate of the partnership is to coordinate and improve existing recycling, conservation, and resource recovery programs; to develop new initiatives when required; and to do a better job of communicating with the public about our commitment and efforts," says H. William Lichtenberger, president of Union Carbide's chemicals and plastics group and chairman of the partnership's board. "It is very clear that our ability to continue providing for the needs of society depends upon our successfully responding to public concerns about plastics and the environment." In contrast with other industry initiatives aimed at individual problems
involving plastics, the partnership expects to address broader issues and to attract a wider range of member companies represented by senior executives, says an SPI spokesman. The group seeks participation from other segments of the plastics industry, including processors, end users, suppliers, and machinery manufacturers. Member companies are pledging personnel and financial support in areas such as product stewardship. The group also plans to strengthen advocacy and outreach efforts. Most of the partnership's activities still are in the planning and development stages under a coordinating group consisting of senior managers from the plastics operations of member companies. SPI is providing administrative support for the coordinating group. Programs of the Council for Solid Waste Solutions— an SPI effort focused on plastics in the waste stream—will continue under the partnership. Ann Thayer
