R e c i p r o c i t y and S c i e n t i f i c I n s t r u m e n t s a guest editorial bg Ralph E. Muller
I
THE February issue of AKALYTICAL CHEMISTRY the Editor discussed the current deliberatiom of the Senate Committee on Reciprocity Information and listed the principal arguments in favor of tariff protection for the American instrument industry. He pointed out that the AiuER1c.m CHEMICALSOCIETYhas taken no official position on this question and also said that ‘lit rrould be presumptubus for the editors to say what should be the specific protection given the scientific instrument industry or any other industry.” The following observations adhere strictly to that, sensible attitude but venture t o suggest that, in a larger sense, there are factors more important than tariff protection or the lack of it. There are countless products of the American instrument industry d i i c h are so well designed, efficient, and precise that competition from any quarter is negligible. There are a few for which no tariff, hon-ever high, would be adequate. At the present time it seems that we are in a position t o keep the American instrument industry in its pre-eminent position if n-e are willing to assume all the responsibilities which the exalted role requires. History has a habit of playing shabby tricks on the best of artificial edicts. Empire preferences, federal tariffs, and equivalent barriers wither before a superior product and the fruits of exhaustive research and development. Professor Abbe’s long researches in Jena effectively moved the optical industry from England to Germany despite the marvelous skill of British craftsmen. Great Britain takes justifiable pride in her scientific instruments, but on the authority of Dr. Cronshaw, many of the industrialists among his countrymen prefer American control instruments and give unstinted praise for their excellent design, reliability, and precision. I n recent years politicaal and social thinking inclined toward the proteetion and nurturing of that which \\-e had and seeking rather for its more equitable distribution. There is an earlier American creed and it still sounds familiar. I n that spirit when a true craftsman was praised for his accomplishment the invariable reply n-as--”Wait ’til you see t>henext one.” It is partirulnrly encouraging to witness the many small instrument companies n-ho started business or expanded their limited facilities during the war. Many of them are adapting wartime developments-usually \\-ith the same verve and enthusiasm which prevailed in those phrenetic days. They mere brought u p on the slogan--“the difficult n-e do immediately-the impossible takes a little longer.” If their spirit cnn survive adversity and if they do not succumb to the even-
i s
tual conservatism of successful enterprise, then we may pity their competitors. I t has been pointed out that scientific instruments are largely handmade, and for this and other reasons American mass-production techniques cannot be applied. It would seem worthy of a forum to decide to TThat extent this handicap might be minimized. For example, the electronic components of many instruments are intimately related in parts, techniques, and practices t o the huge radio industry. Similarly, many mechanisms are not too unrelated to the devices of the automotive and aviation industries. Yet it is not uncommon to find an instrument manufacturer who does all his optical. mechanical, and elertronic work under one roof and management. Have the extensive and successful n-artime practices of subcontracting been applied to the fullest extent? Our pre-eminence in the field of instrumentation will require far more research and development than is now being done. Training in this subject from the level of top-flight design dorm to the lowliest technician is mandatory. n’here and by Tvhoni these necessary things shall be done and who is to pay the bill constitute the sixty-four dollar question. Is it not true that we are most gravely concerned about those items which are important but relatively unprofitable? If so, it seems that 11-e must decide how important these things are for our general economy and to what extent we wish to leave their manufacture to others. If it is imperative that we do it ourselves, then a frank and outright goveinment subsidy might be in oyder. Certainly there would be no difficulty in finding precedence for less worthy causes during the past fifteen years. Such action is contrary to the sentiment of a growing fraction of the public today. and it does ignore the fact that’ the instrument industry does not enjoy so much support and encouragement as it might f i om its customers. It is interesting to consider what might be accomplished if every university, research institute, and industry-in short all users of instruments-were to offer advice and assistance as well as fun& toward the qolution of long-range problems of the instrument industry. They all have a large stake in its future; they can and should be more than prudent and thrifty shoppers. Does anyone really doubt our ability t o maintain a commanding position in instrumentation? It seems to be a a matter of keeping strong, alert, and progressire, n i t h no particular need t o ask the referee after each iound to look inside the other fellow’s glove. The problem will be solved if every one concerned will recognize his responsibilities and opportunities. 435
