and says it warrants further exploration. 'We're thinking along the lines of convening a meeting . . . to see whether a consensus develops about the need for such a board, and just how it would be structured, where it would sit, who would sponsor it—that sort of thing. We will take some additional steps to make sure this idea is fully aired." Another key concern of the report is its proposed new definitions for "misconduct in science" and for two other types of ethics problems—"questionable research practices" and "other forms of misconduct." Misconduct in science is defined as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reporting research." However, minority panelists Schachman and Yamamoto disagree with the panel's consensus definition of misconduct. The scientists say that the pros and cons of alternative definitions should have been discussed in the report. The panel rejects including in the definition of scientific misconduct ambiguous language such as "other serious deviations from accepted research
practices"—a phrase contained in current Public Health Service and National Science Foundation misconduct regulations. The reason for excluding such language, the report says, is to prevent misconduct complaints based solely on a scientist's use of novel or unorthodox research methods. The panel defines "questionable research practices" as actions that violate traditional values of the research enterprise, but fall short of misconduct. Examples include maintaining inadequate records, using inappropriate statistical methods of measurement, conferring authorship for insubstantial contributions, or bypassing peer review before releasing results to the media. By contrast, "other forms of misconduct" involve unacceptable behavior not unique to the conduct of science, such as sexual harassment, misuse of funds, and conflicts of interest. The panel notes that research institutions often have clear policies in place to deal with such issues, and that they should therefore not be treated as misconduct in science. Stu Borman
Du Pont and ICI swap nylon, acrylic operations Du Pont and ICI, the U.K.'s largest chemical producer, last week announced an agreement under which ICI will acquire Du Pont's U.S. acrylic resin and acrylic sheet operations, and Du Pont will take over ICI's European nylon resin and fiber operations. Du Pont also will pay ICI about $430 million to compensate for the difference in value between the two businesses. The two expect to close the deal by year's end, following regulatory approval. The swap, under negotiation for the past nine months, ends ICI's involvement with nylon. That involvement dates back to the mid-1940s, when the London-based company obtained a license to produce the resin (which made nylon and ladies' hose synonymous) from its inventor, Du Pont. Both ICI and Du Pont say the swap will strengthen their global competitiveness. "This is a good example of the chemical industry restructuring to compete globally," notes ICI North America chairman Ben Lochtenberg. Du Pont's chairman, Edgar S. Woolard Jr., stresses that the deal will allow both companies to focus resources on busi-
nesses where they can develop stronger global positions. Although Du Pont now has a $1 billion nylon facility under construction in Singapore, its nylon business is largely centered in the U.S. The swap will push Du Pont squarely into Western Europe, where it will compete head-to-head with major competitors Bayer, BASF, and Rhone-Poulenc. ICI's nylon operation has annual sales of $1 billion. Adding that to Du Ponf s current nylon sales will give the Wilmington, Del.-based company annual nylon sales of $4.5 billion. Du Pont will acquire production facilities for nylon fiber at Pontypool, Doncaster, and Gloucester, U.K.; for nylon intermediates at Wilton, U.K.; for engineering plastics at Billingham, U.K., and Rozenburg, the Netherlands; afld for nonwovens at Workington, U.K. The transfer will include all 6000 ICI nylon employees, including R&D personnel. In turn, ICI will acquire a Du Pont acrylic business with annual sales of $300 million. Combined with its current acrylic resin and sheet operations in the U.S., U.K., and Taiwan, ICI will have acrylic sales of $850 million annually. As a result, ICI will compete head-to-head
in acrylics with Rohm & Haas, as well as with smaller manufacturers such as Cyro Industries and Mitsubishi Rayon. The transaction will include Du Pont's new $50 million methyl methacrylate (MMA) manufacturing operations in Beaumont, Tex., and MMA operations in Memphis, Tenn. It also will include acrylic sheet operations in Memphis and Newport, Del. All 500 Du Pont acrylic employees, including those at a Memphis-based R&D facility, will have jobs with ICI. Marc Reisch
FDA limits silicone breast implant use As expected, Food & Drug Administration Commissioner David A. Kessler has ended a voluntary three-month moratorium on use of silicone gel breast implants by deciding to follow closely the advice of an advisory panel. FDA will strictly limit access to these medical devices while safety studies are conducted. His decision probably sounds the death knell for silicone breast implants, although other options, such as saline implants, remain. In announcing his decision, Kessler stressed that silicone breast implants only will "be available under controlled clinical studies." Women wanting them for reconstructive purposes after cancer surgery or to correct severe deformities will have certain access to
Kessler: long list of unanswered questions APRIL 27,1992 C&EN 5
