ACS COMMENT
Eating Our Own NANCY B. JACKSON, ACS PRESIDENT-ELECT
zen scientists. As the study group reviewed has long existed in the federally funded the data, both sides were surprised to find research and development community in that the facts did not necessarily match the U.S. It is a mistrustful rivalry that is their preconceptions. rarely discussed in public, but it permeAnother complaint I often hear is that ates the R&D community and generates professors do not see strong fundamental heated complaints among research emerging from the colleagues in private disnational laboratories decussions. I am referring to spite the large sums of fundthe long-standing disreing they receive. Conversely, spect that many university I hear lab scientists refer to research professors and naprofessors as “entitled” and tional laboratory researchnot doing research relevant ers feel for each other. to solving our nation’s many I have witnessed this challenges. friction throughout my I was reminded of this entire career, and I see it esagain recently. During the calating as federal research editing of the report on funding tightens. When I the ACS president’s Task chaired the National AcadForce on Innovation in the emy of Sciences review of Chemical Enterprise, one the Department of Energy’s The inefficiencies member wished to point Basic Energy Sciences proout that, despite the “lavthat come from gram in catalysis research, ish” funding of national this rivalry and committee members laboratories, there really lack of respect entered the study with prewas no innovation coming conceived notions. Univer- hurt us all. from them. Ironically, many sity professors thought nalaboratory energy researchtional labs received money ers who see the significant without proper peer review efficiency improvements and received more than their “fair” share. and technology developments emerging The professors also thought that too much from the national laboratories in solar and funding was wasted on big instrumentabiofuel technologies wonder why the govtion at national laboratories. ernment wastes any money on university National lab scientists thought univerenergy research at all. sity professors were handed money for too Because the national labs are not parmany years without much scrutiny (for ticularly involved in biomedical research, political reasons, because every univerthis rivalry has been an issue for the chemisity has at least one congressman). The cal scientists on the physical science side of dollar-to-dollar productivity comparison chemistry. The stereotypes and biases are between professors and national lab remost often found among materials chemsearchers seemed remarkably “unfair” to ists, nanoscience researchers, and energy the laboratory representatives. Profesresearchers. sors, national lab researchers pointed This situation is extremely self-destrucout, have nine months of their salary paid tive for the chemical science community as from sources other than grants and aca whole. Considering the relatively small cess to cheap labor in the form of graduate federal R&D support for physical science in students, who are often foreign. Lab scithe U.S., we are doing ourselves and the naentists, in contrast, depend upon research tion a disservice by wasting energy fighting funding to pay for 100% of their salaries one another. Our society and nation would and have no cheap labor. They are, howevbest be served if we joined together and uner, good employers of B.S.-level, U.S.-citiderstood and supported one another. KYLE ZIMMERMAN
A MUTUALLY SUSPICIOUS relationship
WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
52
OCTOBE R 2 5, 20 10
Lab scientists need to understand that the fundamental research done at research universities is key to our economic and scientific future and the health of our future workforce. University professors need to understand that the national laboratories, filled with talented scientists and engineers, make a profound contribution to national security, but a changed mission and the deterioration of the governmentowned, contractor-operated management model has left the labs inefficient and often struggling. DESPITE THE frequent complaints from both sides, they are each guilty of spending a significant amount of time and money securing federal research funding. It is a matter of semantics: Universities lobby, and laboratories do “program development.” The hostility between the two groups is not, of course, universal; there are many instances of productive collaboration and respect for the other’s mission, culture, and challenges. The American Chemical Society can be a catalyst for better understanding and support for both communities. The inefficiencies that come from this rivalry and lack of respect hurt us all. The political reality is that both national laboratories and big research universities are here to stay. In science, a rising tide raises all boats. Only if we understand one another’s challenges and work together for the good of research in the chemical and other physical sciences will our federal R&D funding be most productive. We need national laboratory scientists fighting for the continued health and support of large public universities during this time of dire state budgets and federal budget deficits. We need eminent university professors insisting on well-managed, -directed, and -supported national laboratories. Both types of institutions have much to offer the national R&D enterprise. Let’s get to work.
Views expressed on this page are those of the author and not necessarily those of ACS.
