INDUSTRIAL AND ENGIN E E R I N G CH E IUI ISTRY PUBLISHED
BY
THE
AMERICAN
CHEMICAL
SOCIETY
0
HARRISON
E.
HOWE,
EDITOR
EDITORIALS The Grand Prize
really required it, but to have built up our defense and provided skilled workers both for peace and military establishment. The problem is undoubtedly one of the most complex that ever has faced the United States. We have greatly increased our national debt without obtaining therefor much that is of any value in a time like this. Legislation and action under it have given us the most unhappy labor relations in our history. There are many evidences of a “fifth column”, not only in the United States, but in other republics of the Americas. The opportunity we had for training young men for skilled work in industry or for service in the military establishment was largely lost. And we are now in the midst of a presidential campaign which certainly does not tend to consolidate the thought or action of our people. Notwithstanding all this, there is reason to believe from past experience and history that ways will be found quickly to marshal resources of the country, should our defense require it. Nevertheless, it is worth while to continue the effort for peace. The American Association of Scientific Workers has recently distributed a peace resolution, together with a letter from Arthur H. Compton, of the University of Chicago, expressing the point of view held by scientists generally:
vv
HILE overcomplacent America looks on, the hid-
eous European war spreads and some begin to realize that it may be more a conflict of idealogy than a war merely between countries. Should the totalitarian states overcome the democracies, is there any reason to believe but that they may look across the sea with greedy eyes and begin to plan what might be done to acquire the riches of the Americas? May we not be the grand prize? While we might wish to be isolationists, it is becoming clearer that there is no such thing and that all that protects us from attack is only the lack of those devices which might give such a move a chance for success. Nothing impossible is involved. The World War saw the development of chemical warfare and a t its close the airplane was just beginning to attract attention as a war weapon. In our office hangs a picture showing the results of airplane bombing of an obsolete ship, which was one of the trials to help decide the argument of that day as to whether bombs could be dropped with sufficient accuracy to make the airplane a useful tool in warfare. At various stages in the world’s history the tendeney of military men to cling to what they know and to refrain from trying new things has been demonstrated. The impossible weapon of one war has often been preferred in the next. And so today the little known airplane of 1914 is well nigh the dominant weapon, and the tank, which appeared toward the end of the World War, is now reported used literally by the thousands in a single engagement. N o one can predict what is next, unless it may be the further emphasis of the war of nerves, or still more effective propaganda, thanks to radio, and the development of the spy and traitor system which has come to be known as the “fifth column”. Swift action and giant bombs from the air so far mark the present war. One need be neither a pacifist nor a belligerent to be impressed by the seriousness of world conditions and to realize in perfect calmness that the United States may yet be called upon to perform a service for civilization that will demand some type of extreme military or economic activity. The extent to which all factors in politics and business have agreed with the necessity for beginning now to improve our means of defense is heartening, but it is to be regretted that the billions spent in the last few years could not have been used in a way, not only to have afforded financial help to those who
Science is creatiye, not wasteful or destructive. Yet, the same scientific advances which have contributed so immensely t o the well-being of humanity are made to serve also in increasing the horrors of war. The present conflict in Europe focuses attention on this perversion of science. The futility of war is especially clear t o scientists, for war, as a method of solving human problems, is out of harmony with the rational spirit and objective methods of science. Wherever objective analysis is permitted, the great advantages of peaceful procedure in the adjustment of conflict become obvious. Scientists deplore the fact that the fruits of their efforts are exploited for the ends of death and destruction and look t o the future when science will be employed only in the one struggle worthy of it-in man’s never-ending contest with nature. Scientists know that democracy and freedom of thought, which are precious t o us both as citizens and as men of science, are endangered in the emotional turmoil which accompanies war. The continuance of progress now largely depends upon the scientists of the neutral nations. American scientists can best fulfill their share of this responsibility if the United States remains a t peace. We, the undersigned workers in science (including members of the American Association of Scientific Qorkers and other American scientists) therefore recommend t o our fellow-citizens the wholehearted and unceasing support of all reasonable programs which seek a better understanding of the causes of war, and which will preserve peace for the United States and bring peace t o the world.
Unquestionably everyone, save perhaps a few leaders abroad, really desires peace and will do his utmost to 149
750
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
obtain it. However, when mad dogs are loose, defense is the first order of business. No one can really rest a t ease until convinced that America is prepared to defend herself and the principles for which she stands.
Silk Prices ATIONAL monopolies of essential raw materials are seldom popular except with the nation controlling them. Even there they not infrequently become boomerangs to disturb insiders more thoroughly than outsiders. The recent history of Japan’s virtual monopoly of silk is much to the point. In it are all the elements of unexpected, but obvious, events which make the story live. In the morning newspapers of March 3, 1939, three headlines point the moral. “Japan Drops Plan for Ceiling on Silk Prices” headed an account of the refusal of Japanese interests to put into effect a control of silk prices. Presumably this curb was abandoned in the hope that high prices for silk would aid in financing Japan’s undeclared war in China. “Expects Silk Price Rise to Shut Mills” expressed the views of silk weavers and other consumers of the oriental fiber. “Textile Users Are Seen Asking for Nylon Soon”. At that time raw silk was priced a t about $2.30 per pound in New York. By December 18, three days after the announced date of the opening of du Pont’s nylon plant at Seaford, Del., continued advances had brought silk’s price well above $4.00 per pound. Just how much of Japan’s financing has been done with that price rise is no part of the story. It is pertinent that the silk price ($2.50 per pound) is now down nearly to the level of a year ago. The fallacy of the Japanese scheme is plain. Scarcity of labor, partly if not wholly caused by war conditions, forced silk costs up, and a t the same time a subtle new chemistry had been a t work destroying silk’s hold on its last uncontested market, hosiery. Between the two, Japan’s ultimate defeat in this economic field seems sure. Obviously if mills are threatened with bankruptcy by silk a t $2.30 per pound, they cannot support a level above that against competition from a synthetic fiber of presumably equal merit a t a substantially lower price. It might seem that, in this transfer from a foreign natural monopoly to a domestic synthetic one, consumers are given merely a Hobson’s choice. That, if it were true, might be equally unhappy. But it has been announced that the retail price of nylon products is not to be controlled. Further, other synthetics are known to be in the experimental stage, promising some competition for the new fiber, and furnishing additional proof that in this fast-moving chemical age numerous factors work together to prevent improper control. After more or less impatiently waiting, the public
N
VOL. 32, NO. 6
began on May 15 its purchase of nylon in the form of hosiery, and while still in the experimental stage in a sense, the fiber is about to have its trial on a scale large enough to represent before the year is over a t least 10 per cent of the silk stockings that are normally taken by the retail trade. Meanwhile plans for plant expansion go forward and a largely unsaturated market awaits more and more of the polymer in its diversified forms. Consumers win. Only Japan loses.
Your Audience UTHORS in considerable numbers now have under consideration papers which they intend to present the 100th meeting of our SOCIETY in Detroit in September, or perhaps a t some subsequent gathering. Their thoughts are concentrated on the subject of that paper, the data which it must contain, and perhaps illustrations to be used with it. They have in mind the rules laid down by the divisions of the SOCIETY and may even consider the requirements of the publication where they hope to see the paper in print. But how often do they think of the audience? Some of us have been attending meetings for many years and can doubtless recall those occasions upon which a good paper was presented in a masterful manner that did show some thought for the audience. Many papers are hurriedly written at the last moment and so poorly read that you have no difficulty in remembering those which rose sufficiently above the normal to be outstanding. The audience has suffered in silence and then in large numbers has left the room for fear the next paper would seem equally uninteresting. We have contended for years that authors should exercise such care in the preparation of their papers that, barring some unforeseen development as the result of discussion where time is allowed for this constructive feature, they could be turned over at once for editorial consideration. Some divisions now practice this policy, but still others feel that they would be too greatly hampered if such a rule were enforced. Through the years has come to adopt rather generally the rethe SOCIETY quirements of more or less lengthy abstracts so that a paper could be prejudged and a decision reached as to its acceptance for presentation and the time to be allowed for it. But there is still plenty of opportunity to improve the quality of our meeting papers and to strive for such excellence in presentation as to attract and hold an audience rather than to emphasize mass production. It is generally agreed that the increasing attendance at meetings indicates a growing appreciation of personal contacts and corridor conferences. Many of the papers more than justify their audiences. Can we not give our divisional meetings added value by so improving the papers and their presentation that the audience will feel that it has been taken into consideration?
A at
