that visual opacity is directly related to the sun’s altitude. Because of the greater altitude of the sun, a plant in Brownsville, Texas, would have a more difficult time meeting opacity regulations than an identical plant in Amarillo, Texas, yet presumably the Texas Air Control Board would apply the same opacity standard to both of these plants. References (1) Goodwin, D. R., “Public Comment Summary: Opacity Provisions Under Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources of Air Pollution,” US. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, August 1975; p 23. ( 2 ) Ibid., p 24. (3) Ibid., p 5. (4) Ibid,. p 17. (5) Ibid., p 10. A. Weir, Jr., D. G. Jones, L. 1.Papay
Southern California Edison Co. Rosemead, Calif. 91770 S. Calvert, Shiu Chow Yung Air Pollution Technology, Inc. San Diego, Calif. 92117 Social relevance Dear Sir: The editorial “Universities and Social Relevance” (€S&T, July 1976, p 625) should bring an interesting response from the readership. The three principal functions of a public university, i.e., education, research, and public service, are interdependent. The first two cannot proceed in isolation from the third and retain essential social relevance. This implies an active and meaningful contribution to the solution of social problems. I cannot agree that the great universities at large have “staunchly resisted this notion.” I certainly agree that the first and most important function of the university is to educate and that environmental scientists and engineers must first of all have disciplinary depth and technical competence. But environmental scientists and engineers must eventually practice their professions and their training must include some bridging of the gaps between disciplines and an orientation toward environmental problems. Most will end up being problem-solvers and need to be trained as such. “The advances of the last few decades in agriculture, medical science, engineering, and the natural sciences” you cite can be credited primarily to the relevance of their education and research. This is most clearly demonstrated in agriculture with its chain of communication between the farmer, extension agent, research scientist, and engineer. You will agree, I am sure, that truth is not the sole possession of the university. This is particularly true with the environmental sciences and engineering, where very little knowledge is absolute. Socially acceptable solutions to the very complex problems facing us cannot occur in a vacuum and continuing interaction between university investigators, front-line
problem-solvers, and decision-makers is essential. Research administrators soon realize that good research involves trade-offs between the need to solve a problem and a good university investigator’s primary research interests. The problem is to strike a balance between payoff in related education of graduate students, the advancement of basic knowledge, and a meaningful contribution to the solution of social problems. The capacity of university faculty members at large for original research is not a continuum. I dare say it could be illustrated by a normal distribution with the marginally talented at one end and the truly gifted at the other. Very little is accomplished by the first group. The broad center provides the many incremental advances that collectively represent a strong central thrust toward the advancement of science and technology. It would be my argument that this work can best proceed within the framework of social relevance where good science and needed problem solving converge. The truly original and creative thinkers at the other end of the distribution should have the financial means to work in either the socially relevant or basic sciences as they desire. We need additional funding for this work. The problem is how to accomplish this with some degree of efficiency. Basic, non-problem-oriented research is far less demanding of the in-
vestigator in the sense of external pressures and can provide a haven for lessgifted investigators who simply want to avoid the demands of problem solving. In other words, the socially-oriented research usually requires some kind of product-some indication of acceptable performance within a reasonable time. By its very nature, basic research cannot anticipate breakthroughs on a predetermined time scale and the investigator must be allowed to pursue his efforts uninhibited by product completion dates. But for the broad center group there is no more excuse for the avoidance of tangible evidence of performance than for any other segment of our society. Lawyers must properly represent their clients, engineers design structures, physicians treat their patients, and so on. The taxpayers who support public institutions are entitled to some evidence of productivity by university faculty researchers. They expect it and increasingly demand it. In rereading your editorial, I am not so sure that we are very far apart. But many readers may interpret the editorial to say that universities have no need to be socially relevant and no obligation for public service. I strongly disagree with that interpretation and hope that this is not the impression you intended to leave. David H. Howells, Director U. of N.C. water Resources Research Institute Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Looking for microp
“Quick, Watson, the integrating nephelometer! ”
When you’re sleuthing for superfine particulate concentrations, you want the finest instrument you can get. Ask me about it.
To start a program or solve a problem, call on Mr. I, he may have already done it. Send for more information.
Meteorology Research, Inc. Post Office Box 637 Altadena. California 91001 Telephone (213) 791-1901 Telex 675421 A Subsidiary of Coho, I n c .
13 4
