those present were not the usual attendees. Many of those present thought that unionlike professional activities might better be done outside of ACS for the industrial chemist, if he or she desires it. As was pointed out by several people, academic chemists have organizations and unions to look after their employment rights and don't need ACS for these activities. Some of the attendees thought that ACS should provide them with more information about how the directors of the Society vote on various issues. One comment: "If we don't know how a man votes, how do we know whether or not to re-elect him?" Panelist William E. Hanford, vice president of Olin Corp.'s research and development and a director of ACS, introduced himself as "the stinker every party has to have," and went on to say, "I don't like the title of this meeting 'friend or foe.' Who is this ACS? It's you. It's your society. If you don't like it, change it." The problems of ACS like anything else get down to a question of dollars, Dr. Hanford explains. ACS doesn't have any extra money to go into new projects unless some of those now in operation are cut out. "Will you give up any of the current projects for new ones?" he asks. "For instance, would you give up the 20% of your dues that goes to local sections to hire a public relations man to work on professional, membership, and public affairs? The answer I get most often to this question is no." There is a way to raise money, besides increasing dues which would be self-defeating because many of the members would leave, he continues. ACS does have a desirable, in fact necessary, product—Chemical Abstracts. About 40% of CA's subscriptions are outside the U.S. and many of them go to nonmembers—at cost. This is no way to run a business. If the price of CA were increased by $4000 over about the current $2000 price, ACS would have $26 million more to upgrade CA and the other journals and to use to improve the chemist's public image. In order for this idea, or another, to go it needs the support of the membership."
PATENTS:
Du Pont Sues Eastman Du Pont has launched a suit against Eastman Chemical Products, makers of Kodel polyester products, for infringement of a Du Pont polyester patent. The patent, U.S. 3,018,272, claims protection for incorporating sulfonated compounds such as derivatives of 5-sulfoisophthalic acid into polyethylene terephthalate polyester.
Presence of sulfonate groups in the polymer chain is alleged to give a fiber which can be dyed with basic dyes. A spokesman for Eastman Chemical Products says, "The Du Pont patent was studied before Kodel basic dyeable fiber was introduced. Eastman Chemical Products does not believe any patent has been infringed in the manufacture, sale, and use of its basic dyeable polyester fiber, and plans to defend the suit and to continue to market this fiber." Polyester fiber production for 1969 was about 1.3 billion pounds, according to Textile Economics Bureau, Inc., New York, N.Y. With the 1970 figure possibly more than 1.5 billion pounds, an easily dyed polyester is an important item for its marketer. Polyester is hydrophobic and has always been a problem to dye. The polymer has no functional groups that interact well with dye molecules. Disperse dyes were invented first to dye triacetate rayon, and later polyester. Disperse dyes are relatively nonpolar, and their adherence to polyester fiber resembles a dissolving in the polymer. Sulfonate groups in polyester interact with cationic basic dyes, thus extending the number of dyes that can be used for polyester fiber, Du Pont says. The Wilmington, Del., company further cites the use of pure and sulfonated polyester in blends to give shading and patterning effects when piece goods are dyed. In the suit, Du Pont claims that Eastman approached Du Pont with an offer to take out a license to use the patented process. On being refused, Du Pont claims, Eastman went ahead and produced products such as Kodel 541, which infringe the patent. The suit asks the court to confirm Du Pont's patent, to find that Eastman has infringed the patent, to enjoin Eastman from further infringement, and to assess and award a sum of money for damages and lost profits.
EDUCATION:
Four-Level Degree A major restructuring of college education that would cut time needed to earn degrees was recommended last week in the latest far-reaching report by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. The report followed on the heels of a precedentbreaking commission report on medical education (C&EN, Nov. 9, page 14) and is similar in its recommendations to educational changes recently proposed by British chemist Lord Todd (C&EN, Sept. 14, page 13). At the heart of the commission's report is a four-level degree structure. This comprises an associate of arts de-
Carnegie Commission's Kerr A four-level degree structure
gree after one or two years, bachelor of arts after three or four years, master of philosophy degree after five or six years, and a doctor of arts or a doctor of philosophy after six or seven years. To shorten the time required for the B.A., the commission suggests accrediting high schools to give students the equivalent of the first year of work in college. Within the Carnegie Commission's framework, a student could leave and re-enter at any level—take a 'stop-out'— to gain work experience and reassess his career plans. Or he could stop at any level with formal recognition, says commission chairman Clark Kerr. Alternatives to higher degrees should also be encouraged, he says. The commission also urges wider use of two new degrees. The master of philosophy degree is useful for people intending to teach in high school, community colleges, and lower divisions in colleges. It calls for two years of study beyond the B.A. degree. Another degree, the doctor of arts, now in effect at Carnegie-Mellon and University of Washington, would prepare students for rionresearch college and university teaching. If the reforms proposed by the commission, particularly those calling for shorter formal education periods, are effected, operating expenditures for higher education could be reduced by 10 to 15% ($3 to 5 billion) a year below levels that would otherwise prevail by 1980, the report estimates. In addition, construction costs could be reduced by $5 billion in the 1970-80 decade. Acceptance of this restructuring will not be easy, Dr. Kerr admits. The major hangup, he notes, will come from university faculties, which he characterizes as the most conservative group in the world about their own affairs. NOV. 30, 1970 C&EN
11
