The Training of Ph.D.’s for Industry I.M. KOLTHOFF, in his Fisher Award address before the Division of Analytical Chemistry, expressed the opinion that industry labors under the misconception that a Ph.D. with a major in analytical chemistry should be a specialist in some particular field of analytical chemistry. In support of his opinion Dr. Kolthoff pointed out that he receives many requests from industry for Ph.D.’s who are specialists in spectroscopy, spectrophotometry, x-ray analysis, polarography, etc. K e doubt that industry has done much thinking about the type of training given to Ph.D.’s majoring in analytical chemistry. We do not condone this lack of interest, but merely wish to point out that industry’s thinking usually does not extend beyond the immediate problem of filling a specific job n-ith someone highly qualified in a given field of specialization. If industrial leaders did some serious thinking about the problem-and they should-1T-e believe most of them vould agree in principle a t least with Dr. Kolthoff’s insistence that the academic training of Ph.D.’s should be in the basic aspects of chemistry with special emphasis on the scientific fundamentals of analytical chemistry. This is the only sound approach, whether the postdoctoral career is in teaching or in industry. The field of analytical chemistry is passing through a period of pronounced evolution and neither our colleges and universities nor industry can be said to have recognized all the ramifications of the changes that have occurred over the past decade or two. Much of the existing uncertainty may be due to the fact that our academic leaders in analytical chemistry have not had the direct contact with industrial leaders that, for example, the teachers of chemical engineering have experienced. As a result, there has not been a wide exchange of viewpoints so necessary to bring about mutual understanding of what industry expects in the way of training in analytical chemistry and what the colleges and universities can or cannot do in meeting these needs. Industry has accepted the growth of instrumental analysis with great enthusiasm. The reasons, of course, are perfectly plain. Large-scale manufacturing operations and, particularly, continuous processes have been made possible through the phenomenal expansion in instrumentation, costs for analysis have been reduced,
and technicians rather than graduate chemists can be employed for strictly routine and repetitive operations. What industry has not always recognized is that the analytical chemist who directs or supervises analytical work today must be thoroughly grounded in the basic concepts of many branches of both chemistry and physics and that such training is of much more importance than detailed skill in one or two highly specialized fields. The colleges and universities will cooperate with industry, but they must know the needs of industry. Dr. Kolthoff’s proposal that the Division of Analytical Chemistry circulate questionnaires to leaders of industrial laboratories and government and private institutions, and to Ph.D.’s with a major in analytical chemistry employed by industry, is an excellent method of fact finding, or the division might sponsor a symposium where industry, the teaching profession, and the younger Ph.D.’s in industry might present their viewpoints. Dr. Kolthoff’s warning to industry should be brought home to industrial leaders. I recognize that few industries provide an opportunity for unlimited fundamental research. However, I am confident that everyone will agree that the number of outstanding analytical chemists in and the output of fundamental analytical research by industry are deplorably small as compared to the size and manpower of our industrial laboratories. If we wish to continue to encourage graduate students to major in analytical chemistry, they should have some assurance that after many years of study and research industrial positions are available which are attractive, not only from a financial view, but especially from the view of scientific satisfaction’they can expect to derive from their work. The major question to be settled is whether the emphasis in the education of Ph.D.’s with a major in analytical chemistry should be on the scientific or on the applied side. From the academic view the answer is simple; it should be scientific, the same as it is for physical chemists and as it is or should be for organic or inorganic chemists. In my opinion the death blow would be given to the science of analytical chemistry if it ever were decided to make the education on the Ph.D. level of an applied nature. . . . I t is well to remember that applied research in all fields, including analytical chemistry, prospers and expands as knowledge of a fundamental nature is made available. In analytical chemistry, particularly, we are drying up the fountain of basic knowledge. We must replenish it or the field of practical applications will suffer. Industry cannot afford to permit this condition to arise. The time for seriously reviewing the problem is now. Inaction based on indifference is no longer excusable. 513
