I
EDITORIAL Chemistry and the environment-1988 Many of you have recently received a copy of an impressive report from the National Science Foundation (NSF) entitled “Chemistry and the Environment1988.” The report is the result of a workshop held in South Lake Tahoe in the fall of 1987 to examine the present, past, and future of basic research in environmental chemistry and chemical processes. Participating in the workshop were 44 scientists and engineers from government, industry, and academia. The report of the workshop emphasizes that a “national, long term research commitment is needed to understand and solve the environmental problems which confront the United States” (and, we should add, the world); that NSF is ideally suited to guide the efforts that elaborate basic science associated with environmental problems; and that up to now a “cost-free” and “atrophied view of environmental problems” has existed within industry, agriculture, municipalities, and academia. The workshop report is a call for more attention to basic environmental research through NSF sponsorship; reorganization of NSF’s structure to include an environmental sciences division; and development of national centers to encourage cooperative problem-solving by industry, government, and academia. Most of the readers of ES&T will agree with these goals, though some will question the cost-effectiveness of centers versus individual investigator awards. A reasonable question seems to be: Where is NSF in the consideration of the recommendations of this distinguished panel? It is becoming increasingly clear that action from NSF is needed to bolster the level and quality of research in the environmental chemistry field and in other areas of environmental science. The other agencies that sponsor research in this field are not able to justify any significant expenditure for basic research given the pressures on them to solve pressing environmental crises. It is appropriate for NSF to address enviOOl3936)(/8910923-0751$01.5010 0 1989 American Chemical Society
ronmental systems at the most basic level, but it would be a mistake for the Foundation to assume that it can accomplish the needed task by simply continuing to sponsor basic research in nonenvironmental areas with the justification that all basic knowledge will eventually be useful in environmental problem-solving. Rather, as the workshop report concludes, NSF must face the need for a determined effort in environmentally relevant research-basic in approach, but with an eye on the problems that face us now or threaten us for the future. It is clear that a major change has taken place in the attitude of the general public toward industry and environmental problems over the past decade. There now appears to be a consensus that these problems are real, will not be waved away, and must be addressed seriously. It is time for government to give environmental research the highest priority. If a reorganization of NSF is needed in order to accomplish this goal, then we believe that NSF should proceed as soon as possible to this task and should support more work on basic environmental chemistry. Perhaps when the academic community sees evidence of this commitment there will be a reexamination of environmental chemistry as a “proper” field of research, and more chemistry departments will include this area in their research and teaching programs.
Environ. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 23, No. 7, 1989 751
