Chemical & Engineering News 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Editor: Michael Heylin Managing Editor: William F. Fallwell Assistant Managing Editors: David M. Kiefer, James H. Krieger, Donald J. Soisson Staff Editor: Ernest L. Carpenter Senior Editors: Earl V. Anderson (New York), Lois R. Ember, Jeffrey L. Fox, Wilbert C. Lepkowski, Howard J. Sanders Associate Editors: Doron Dagani, Rebecca L. Rawls, Richard J. Seltzer Assistant Editor: Pamela S. Zurer Editorial Assistant: Theresa L. Rome Editing Services: Joyce A. Richards (Head), Dolores Miner (Editorial Assistant) News Bureaus: New York: (212) 697-3223 William J. Storck (Business Editor), Patricia L. Layman and Stephen C. Stinson (Associate Editors). Chicago: (312) 236-7325 Ward Worthy (Head), Joseph Haggin (Associate Editor). Houston: (713) 522-4125 Bruce F. Greek (Head). Washington: (202) 872-4496 Janice R. Long (Government Editor), David J. Hanson (Associate Editor). West Coast: (415) 665-4971 Rudy M. Baum (Head) Foreign Bureau: London: (01) 540-0414 Dermot A. O'Sullivan (Head) Indexer: Nancy R. Gleboff Graphics and Production: Elmer M. Pusey Jr. (Head). Leroy Corcoran (Manager). John V. Sinnett (Art Director). Barbara Hayes (Designer). Linda Mattingly (Staff Artist). Bob Beard (Costing) Business Manager: Arthur Poulos Circulation Development: Cynthia G. Smith ADVISORY BOARD: Robert A. Alberty. William 0 . Baker, John I). Baldeschwieler. Eula Bingham, William A. Blanpied. John I. Brauman, Ronald Breslow. George B. Hegeman. James D. Idol Jr., Ray R. Irani. George C. Pimentel, M. E. Pruitt, Bryant W. Rossiter, William Spindel, George L. Suther land Published by AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY (202)872-4600 Raymond P. Mariella, Executive Director EDITORIAL BOARD: John G. Verkade (Chair man ); Board of Directors Chairman: Clayton F. Callis; President-Elect: Fred Basolo; Immediate Past-President: Albert C. Zettlemoyer; Arthur W\ Adamson, Wendell L. Dilling, Harold Hart, Herbert A. Laitinen (c: Copyright 1982, American Chemical Society Subscription Service: Send all new and renewal subscriptions with pavment to: Director of Financial Operations, ACS, 1155— 16th St., N.W., Washing ton, D.C. 20036. All correspondence and telephone calls regarding changes of address, claims for missing issues, subscription service, status of rec ords and accounts should be directed to: Manager, Membership & Subscription Services, ACS, P.O. Box 3337, Columbus, Ohio 43210; (614) 421-3776. Changes of Address: Include both old and new addresses with ZIP code numbers, accompanied by mailing label from a recent issue. Allow four weeks for change to become effective. Claims for missing numbers will not be allowed if loss was due to failure of notice of change of address to be received in the time specified; if claim is dated (a) North America: more than 90 days beyond issue date, (b) all other foreign; more than one year beyond issue date; or if the reason given is "missing from files." Subscription Rates 1982. Printed or microfiche editions: nonmembers U.S. 1 vr. $30. 2 vr. $56; outside U.S. 1 yr. $54, 2 yr. $106. Air freight rates available on request. Rates above do not apply to nonmember subscribers in Japan, who must enter subscription orders with Maruzen Co. Ltd., 3-10 Nihonbashi 2-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103, Japan. Tel: (03) 272-7211. Single copies: Current $1.75. Rates for back issues and volumes are available from Distribution Office, ACS, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. An annual index is avail able for $35 at the same address. Back and current issues available on microfilm and microfiche. For information, contact Microform Program, ACS. Chemical & Engineering News (ISSN 0009-2347) is published weekly except for the last week in De cember by the American Chemical Society at 1155-16th St., N.W.. Washington, D.C. 20036. Second class postage paid at Washington, D.C. and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Membership & Subscription Services, P.O. Box 3337, Columbus, Ohio 43210. ACS assumes no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by the contributors to its publications. Advertising Management CENTCOM LTD. (For list of offices see page 51)
2
C&EN June 21, 1982
Letters
Economic challenge SIR: The article by Wil Lepkowski on innovation in your May 24 issue was so timely and well written that it prompts this letter. Innovation— the process by which an invention or idea is transformed into something of economic and social value—has been studied in some depth for 20 to 30 years and it is remarkable that we are still learning approaches to carrying it out successfully. We know a great deal about the process but unfortunately, as Lepkowski points out, the knowledge has not diffused sufficiently from industrial managers, with the resources to carry innovation forward, to those in academia and government who can play vital roles in the early stages. Moreover, much more diffusion of knowledge about the technological process must flow from the companies, such as 3M, IBM, and Intel, that are leaders in innovation to the many U.S. companies in all sectors that have dismal rec ords in technological innovation, productivity improvements, and profitability. As Lepkowski points out, "Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige insists that the failure of American productivity has its roots in poor American management. The national consensus seems to be that Baldrige is right." Presidents of some American universities, aware of the problem of too much emphasis on theoretical engineering studies and too little teaching of hands-on manufacturing, have en couraged dialogues between leaders in their business and engineering schools. This coop eration has resulted in better harnessing of American academic resources. With such new efforts, industry is ready to seek joint efforts with academia and so build new stepping-stones on the path to technological innovation. This phe nomenon is not new. As Lepkowski notes, this country needs to "relearn" the management methods known to be succcessful in the past. World War II witnessed the closest research cooperation among industry, the universities, and government. This was accomplished under the leadership of Vannevar Bush, head of the Office of Scientific Research & Development, and it produced unbelievable results in record time. As a new Ph.D. involved in OSRD I was proud to be part of that amazingly productive cooperative effort. I certainly hope we can again approach that level of cooperation in the 1980s—but with an important proviso. Now we are fighting an economic war, not a military one. The new challenge of urging the states, the universities, and industry to seek new forms of cooperation as the federal role is reduced is very exciting. Again, we have an example of such cooperation—the great success we have had in American agriculture. This did not just happen. It is based on our network of land-grant schools and of extension services. The emphasis on theory that Lepkowski
mentions at engineering schools rather than stressing hands-on manufacturing ideas and processes is true. While the article handles this subject well it does not state a similar problem that exists in the chemistry departments of America's elite universities. Polymer science does not have any standing in such departments after 40 years of growing importance of this science in industry. Industry today must still hire well-trained chemists and teach them polymer science and engineering. The only exception to this is the fact that a tier of schools, such as Case Institute of Technology, have long recog nized this important industrial need and have assumed leadership in the training of polymer scientists and engineers. The elite chemistry departments in this country should change cur ricula in the 1980s to include some polymer chemistry courses. Having recently retired from a position in the chemical industry and having become actively involved in fostering stronger industry/university cooperative efforts, helping reduce the barriers among industry/university/government in their relationships in science and technology, and in fostering new initiatives in technological inno vation, I welcome C&EN's article in this field and urge that you disseminate it widely. After all, many people from different functions are ulti mately involved in technological innovation and they all could benefit from the clear message in this article as we face the challenge of the eighties. Washington, D.C. Alfred Ε. Brown
Creation/evolution debate SIR: The recent correspondence in C&EN re garding creationism has a dreary familiarity. The same old themes keep coming up. First, let's debunk the idea that evolution is untestable because it cannot be observed in nature. There is no a priori reason why experiments in the lab should work in the real world or why observa tions should be repeatable. We cannot prove these basic assumptions of science, but we can sure test them. If the assumptions continually yield consistent results and are compatible with other data, we certainly can consider the assumptions valid. The test is the workability of the results. It is exactly this sort of testing that allowed the ex perimental method to supersede other methods, such as interpreting the world in terms of scripture. If fossils did not occur in a develop mental sequence, if there really were no inter mediate forms (as opposed to the creationist denial games on this point), and there were no mechanisms for varying the genetic code, we would be entitled to say that evolution had been tested and found wanting. Evolution, however, has been tested and passes the tests. Second, it is glaringly obvious that most re spondents have not read creationist literature in Continued on page 44
Meetings 1985 April 23-26.127th Rubber Division Inc. Meeting. Century Plaza, Los Angeles. Mrs. M. E. Bauer, Rubber Division Inc., U of Akron, Akron, Ohio 44325, (216) 3757814 April 28-May 3. 189th ACS National Meeting. Miami Beach. A. T. Winstead, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 872-4397 Aug. 18-23. 20th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. Fontainebleau Hilton, Miami Beach. Divisions of Fuel Chemistry and Petroleum Chemistry Inc. et al. G. P. Townsend, United Technologies Corp., Windsor Locks, Conn. 06096, (203) 623-1621, Ext. 8723 Sept. 8-13. 190th ACS National Meeting. Chicago. A. T. Winstead, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 872-4397 Oct. 9 - 1 1 . Joint SoutheastSouthwest Regional Meeting. Memphis Section Oct. 13-16. 128th Rubber Division Inc. Meeting. Bond Court, Cleveland, Ohio. Mrs. M. E. Bauer, Rubber Division Inc., U of Akron, Akron, Ohio 44325, (216) 375-7814 Nov. 7-8. 20th Midwest Regional Meeting. Carbondale, III. Southern Illinois Section
1985 Meeting Dates Not Confirmed: 15th Northeast Regional Meeting. Mid-Hudson Section 17th Central Regional Meeting. Akron Section. J. C. Crano, PPG Research P.O. Box 31, Barberton, Ohio 44203, (213) 7534561, Ext. 559 19th Middle Atlantic Regional Meeting. Monmouth County Section 40th Northwest Regional Meeting. Idaho Section
October. 16th Northeast Regional Meeting. Binghamton Section. C. E. Myers, Dept. Chemistry, SUNY, Bimghamton, N.Y. 13901 38th Southeast Regional Meeting. Louisville Section 129th Rubber Division Inc. Meeting 130th Rubber Division Inc. Meeting 42nd Southwest Regional Meeting. Houston. Southeastern Texas Section
1986
1987
April 6-11. 191st ACS National Meeting. Atlantic City, N.J. A. T. Winstead, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 872-4397 Aug. 25-29. 21st Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. Town and Country Hotel, San Diego, Calif. Divisions of Fuel Chemistry and Petroleum Chemistry et al. Sept. 7-12. 192nd ACS National Meeting. Anaheim, Calif. A. T. Winstead, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 872-4397 1986 Meeting Dates Not Confirmed: 18th Central Regional Meeting. Toledo Section 20th Middle Atlantic Regional Meeting. Maryland Section
April 5-10. 193rd ACS National Meeting. Denver. A. T. Winstead, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 8724397 Aug. 30-Sept. 4. 194th ACS National Meeting. New Orleans. A. T. Winstead, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 872-4397 1987 Meeting Dates Not Confirmed: 19th Central Regional Meeting. Columbus Section 21st Middle Atlantic Regional Meeting. South Jersey Section 131st Rubber Division Inc. Meeting. Montreal, Que., Canada 132nd Rubber Division Inc. Meeting 43rd Southwest Regional Meeting. Little Rock, Ark. Central Arkansas Section
1988 June 5-11.3rd Chemical Congress of the North American Continent. Toronto, Ont., Canada. A. T. Winstead, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington D.C. 20036, (202) 872-4397 Nov. 30-Dec. 2. 44th Southwest Regional Meeting. Corpus Christi, Tex. South Texas Section 1988 Meeting Dates Not Confirmed: 20th Central Regional Meeting. Northern West Virginia Section 22nd Middle Atlantic Regional Meeting. Southeastern Pennsylvania Section 196th ACS National Meeting
1989 April 9-14. 197th ACS National Meeting. Dallas. A. T. Winstead, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 8724397 Sept. 10-15. 198th ACS National Meeting. Miami Beach. A. T. Winstead, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 872-4397
Letters Continued from page 2 much detail. Creationists repeatedly attack the idea that evolution can be the work of a creator. If you believe in natural evolution of species, you are an evolutionist, regardless of whether or not you believe in a creator. Creationists refer to belief in both God and evolution as theistic evolution and go to great lengths to discredit it. If people are going to enter the creation/evolution debate, it would be nice, not to mention professionally sound, if they knew which side of the debate they were on. Third, it is all too obvious that none of your respondents have bothered to check out creationist claims to see if they actually work. It is not the untestable claims of creationism that bother me; it is the claims that can be tested and that turn out to be dead wrong that are annoying. To take a simple example, Harold Slusher, a creationist author, wrote a booklet entitled "Critique of Radiometric Dating," in which he attempts to show that the great ages of rocks indicated by radiometric dating are fictitious. One of his lines of argument is that tiny variations in decay rates have been observed, and that decay rates therefore fluctuate according to environmental conditions. The variations in decay rate, however, are observed only in electron-capture decay and are at most a few per cent, not the tens of thousands of times that the creationists want. The argument is a bit like saying that if you 44
C&EN June 21, 1982
can load a beam 5% above its rated strength, you can go ahead and apply a load 10,000 times greater. To take another example, Slusher describes a method for calculating the initial amounts of lead isotopes in a sample, assuming that 207Pb and 208Pb form by bombardment of lead with neutrons. The neutrons are supposed to come from spontaneous fission of uranium. Slasher claims that such bombardment could produce the observed isotope ratios in only a few thousand years. The two examples he cites give initial 206Pb/207Pb ratios very similar to modern lead. Slusher cites this as proof that the observed ratios were produced when common lead was bombarded by fission neutrons very recently. I performed Slusher's calculation for 33 reported lead isotope ratios (selected according to the criteria he used) and got initial ratios that varied from —759 to 142 (the expected value is 21.5). In order to produce the postulated neutron bombardment, several per cent of the uranium atoms in the sample would have to fission, taking slightly more than the few thousand years Slusher claims: 1014 to 1015 years is more likely. Finally, neutron bombardment should produce a lot of long-lived isotopes like 41Ca, 59 Ni, and 236 U in easily detectable abundances (a few per cent of their respective elements). We would also expect technetium to be present in the crust in the parts-per-million range (rather than the
10~18 concentration that actually occurs). There is no excuse for Slusher not to have checked these points out, and creationist literature is filled with such slipshod, superficial work. R. V. Gentry is a much more careful worker than most creationists, but there is good reason not to take his results at face value. In the first place, halo formation is rather variable; halos can be bleached, overexposed, or reversed from dark to light in color. The minerals at the centers of halos are usually common uranium or thorium-bearing accessory minerals, and the polonium isotopes he reports are exactly those that form during uranium or thorium decay. There is every reason to believe that the polonium he reports formed during the normal decay of uranium or thorium. Finally, the halos are so close to those produced by modern radiation processes that they indicate that decay processes have not changed significantly since the rocks formed. Halo research makes sense only if the evolutionist view of Earth history is valid. It may be good education to present alternative views. It is not good education to present demonstrably fauJty work and leave students with the idea that it might be valid when in fact it can be shown not to be. Why not equal time in engineering curricula for psionics, dowsing, and the Hieronymus machine? Steven Dutch Earth Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay
