Chemical & Engineering News 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Acting Editor: Michael Heylin Assistant Managing Editors: William F. Fallwell, David M. Kiefer, James H. Krieger, Donald J. Soisson Staff Editor: Ernest L. Carpenter Senior Editor: Earl V. Anderson (New York) Senior Associate Editors: Wilbert C. Lepkowski, Howard J. Sanders Assistant Editors: Jeffrey L. Fox, David J. Hanson, Rebecca L. Rawls, Richard J. Seltzer, M. Mitchell Waldrop Editorial Assistant: Theresa L. Rome Editing Services: Joyce A. Richards (Head) News Bureaus: New York: William F. Fallwell (Head), William J. Storck, Assistant Editor. Chicago: Ward Worthy (Head), Joseph Haggin (Staff Writer). Houston: Bruce F. Greek (Head). Washington: Janice R. Long (Head), P. Christopher Murray (Assistant Editor) Foreign Bureau: London: Dermot A. O'Sullivan (Head) Editorial Reference: Barbara A. Gallagher (Head) Graphics and Production: Bacil Guiley (Head). Leroy Corcoran (Manager). John V. Sinnett (Art Director). Norman W. Favin (Designer). Staff Artists: Linda Mattingly, Diane J. Reich Editorial Services: Arthur Poulos, Editorial Promotion; Marion Gurfein, Circulation Development ADVISORY BOARD: Alfred E. Brown, Mary Carter, Theodore L. Cairns, Marcia Coleman, Arthur W. Galston, Derek P. Gregory, James D. Idol Jr., Gerald D. Laubach, Richard D. Mullineaux, Paul F. Oreffice, Rustum Roy, Edward R. Thornton, Herbert L. Toor, M. Kent Wilson Published by AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY (202)-872-4600 Albert F. Plant, Publisher EDITORIAL BOARD: Robert W. Parry (Chairman), Herman S. Bloch, Bryce Crawford Jr., Mary L. Good, Gordon L. Nelson, Gardner W. Stacy; President-Elect: Anna J. Harrison; Representative Council Publications Committee: Ernest L. Eliel; Past-President, Glenn T. Seaborg © Copyright 1977, American Chemical Society Subscription Service: Send all new and renewal subscriptions with payment to: Office of the Controller, ACS, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. All correspondence and telephone calls regarding changes of address, claims for missing issues, subscription service, status of records and accounts should be directed to: Manager, Membership & Subscription Services, ACS, P.O. Box 3337, Columbus, Ohio 43210; telephone 614-4217230. On 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 1977: nonmembers U.S. 1 yr. $17.50, 3 yr. $37.50; Pan American Union $25.50, $61.50; Canada and other nations $27, $66. Air freight rates available on request. Single copies: Current $1.00. Rates for back issues and volumes are available from Special Issues Sales Dept, ACS, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. An annual index is available for $25. Standing orders are accepted. Back and current issues are available on microfilm. For further information, contact Special Issues Sales. Published by ACS from 20th & Northampton Sts., Easton, Pa., weekly except for the last week in December. Second class postage paid at Washington, D.C, and at additional mailing offices. ACS assumes no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by the contributors to its publications. Views expressed in the editorials are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of ACS. Advertising Management CENTCOM, LTD. (For list of offices see page 55)
4
C&EN April 18, 1977
Letters
ACS in legislative affairs SIR: I would like to comment on Dr. Alan Nixon's proposal (C&EN, Feb. 14, page 3) for more ACS involvement in legislative affairs. I feel that money made available for lobbying is not the most important concern, but the act of lobbying itself is. I feel very strongly that the basic purpose of ACS is to educate students and lay persons alike in chemistry and its interaction with our technical society, and to provide unbiased information on technical questions of importance. Therefore, lobbying, which implies a bias toward or against stands taken on issues, is against our purposes. I do not think that scientists and engineers really want to shun the responsibilities involved in the technical questions on legislation with impact on chemists and the chemical industry. I do feel that they would rather shun the area of sensational charge and countercharge headlines involved in lobbying, and the loss of public and private trust that is inevitable when accusations of bias begin in hearing rooms and on news programs. I also feel that legislators who look to ACS for aid in technical areas of legislation would feel that they could rely better on information from a source which is not "blowing its own horn" on an issue. There are important controversies to be settled, and ACS should and can take part in resolving them without entering the lobbying arena on Capitol Hill. ACS can set up and run its own "science court" such as proposed by Dr. Kantrowitz for the government. The evidence on issues could be gathered through our membership, with all the evidence found for all positions on the issue and any conclusions reached being presented to legislators for their use in decision making, or the framing of new legislation. In doing this ACS would be holding to its basic purposes on providing unbiased information, and would also be helping to fill a need by providing an arena for the thorough discussion of all sides of important technical questions that would be satisfactory to all persons involved. Bruce Siggins Madison, Wis.
Support for basic research SIR: I noticed the excellent guest comments by Sen. Mathias advocating more government support for basic research to help combat the energy crisis (C&EN, Feb. 14, page 2). I wonder if Mathias and ACS members recall the mass layoffs of research personnel carried out by the oil industry in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Instead of devoting top priority to energy research, major oil companies were closing laboratories, laying off hundreds of scientists, engineers, and technicians, and relying more and more on the importation of cheap foreign crude. I seem to recall also that the American Chemical Society expressed little concern, either for the fate of the technical people who had lost their jobs or for the long-range effect that the cur-
tailment of petroleum R&D would have on the fate of the country. (Yes, I was one of those people, and no, I am no longer a member of ACS.) Mathias' call for more government aid to basic research is probably a good idea. I might suggest that if the oil industry wants to allay that prevalent public suspicion about who is responsible for the energy crisis, they should consider increasing their commitment to research too. Thomas A. Schenach Huntington Beach, Calif. SIR: In his guest comment Sen. Mathias pointed to the American sweep of the Nobel Prizes last year as indicative of indigenous talent. On the other hand, one may readily infer from Philip Handler's statements [American Scientist, 64, 255 (May-June 1976)] that the labor force on which the American fundamental research enterprise has largely progressed has been graduate students and postdoctoral fellows and that the consequence has been a surfeit of scientists. From his position as president of the National Academy of Sciences, I believe Handler is in a position to know. In his efforts to increase funding for the National Science Foundation and, thence, basic research, I wonder if Mathias has addressed this problem of the utilization of talent or if we are about to produce a surfeit anew. Orville G. Lowe, Ph.D. Los Angeles
Distribution system needed SIR: Comment on Max Tishler's editorial (C&EN, March 28, page 5). It is one more repeat of what we have heard many times before. It says we need lots more basic research to help solve the world's problems. He makes a strong push for us to better our public relations. It strongly implies that basic and applied science can go a long way toward solving the world's problems. Let us look at the smaller picture first; just the U.S. We have plenty of national product to provide an acceptable living for all our people. What is badly needed is a system of distribution of this product which will do better than the present one, namely, according to the bargaining power of the individual or the group to which he or she belongs. Will Tishler show me what contribution—however small—basic research will make toward this need? Next, let us look at the whole pie, the world. If tomorrow science were to provide us with the means to fulfill the needs of all the peoples of the world, how do we prevent the dozens of corrupt governments from skimming the cream off the largesse and leaving their deprived subjects little better off than before? Will Tishler please stand up? The best public relations department in the world can't obscure the facts that science and technology have given us PBB, PCB, thalidoContinued on page 54
