Here are a few of the reactions of this versatile, bifunctional compound...
EVANS
THIOGLYCOLC ACID HS-CHCOOH
WITH METAL SALTS: HSCH2COOM
MSCH2COOM
MSCH2COOH
WITH ALDEHYDES: H H 2 HSCH2COOH + R - C = 0 > R- C~SCH2COOH I + H20 SCH2COOH
WITH KETONES: 2 HSCH2COOH + [ > = C - * ^ Ο ^ ^ Η +H20 WITH ORGANIC HALIDES: NaSCH2COONa + RCI->RSCH2COONa-fNaCI
WITH OLEFINS: HSCH2COOH-fRCH=CH2-*RCH2CH2SCH2COOH
DATA SHEETS AND SAMPLES AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
? fc.\/*xr\s CHemeTics, irvc. 90 Tokeneke Road Darien, Connecticut 06820 Phone: 203-655-8741 Cable: EVANSCHEM TWX 7 1 0 - 4 5 7 - 3 3 5 6
12
C&ENSept. 4, 1972
NSF claims federal R&D support rising Within days of the Republican Party national convention, the National Science Foundation has issued a report on federal R&D support that could well be used to confirm what the Nixon Ad ministration says it has been doing for science. The timing of the report ap pears fortuitous—last year's report was issued in September. After analyzing t h e Nixon Adminis tration budget for federal R&D support in fiscal 1973 as well as federal R&D obligations for the past several years, NSF has determined that "an upward trend since 1970 in federal R&D support is now clearly established. . . [reversing] . . .the downward trend from fiscal years 1967 through 1970." The NSF figures show that the total federal obligation for R&D will increase to an all-time high of $17.8 billion in fiscal 1973—assuming that Congress agrees with the Administration's budget. They also show that even in constant dollars (1967) the federal R&D obliga tion has increased since fiscal 1971 (the first year of a Nixon budget), growing by 4.3% in fiscal 1972 following an average annual decline of 5.9% from fiscal 1967 through 1971. NSF adds that "although a price deflator is not yet available for 1973, an increase will also probably be shown in constant dollars for that year. " The NSF report details programs set out in the Administration's R&D budget proposals earlier this year. However, it does not say what happened to the fund ing levels planned for those programs in Congress because t h e funding analysis was conducted shortly after the Admin istration submitted its fiscal 1973 bud get to Congress. The report notes that of the $970 mil lion increase in R&D obligations the Ad ministration proposed for fiscal 1973, the Pentagon would get $400 million, and NASA and AEC $67 million each. Even so, NSF says that the share of the federal R&D budget claimed by the Pen tagon, NASA, and AEC has tumbled from 90% of the federal R&D total in fiscal 1963 to about 75% in fiscal 1973. Meanwhile, the R&D programs of other agencies have been steadily grow ing for the past 10 years, NSF says, add ing that in fiscal 1973 the other agencies —Commerce, Interior, NSF, Transpor tation, HEW, Agriculture, and Environ mental Protection Agency—are ex pected to increase their R&D obligation by $436 million. The report goes on to detail what these agencies would do with that additional $436 million, echoing, in essence, the President's R&D budget. In other areas of the report, NSF esti mates that 74% or $13.2 billion of the total federal R&D budget for fiscal 1973 will be performed by the nonfederal sector of the economy. Industry will per form 52% or about $9.2 billion of the federally funded R&D in fiscal 1973, down from a high of 66% 10 years ago.
Universities and colleges will get 12% or about $2.1 billion of the fiscal 1973 R&D total. About $4.6 billion will go for intramural work by federal person nel. Nonprofits and others will get the balance of the R&D budget.
Senate passes bill to put scientists to work In spite of continuing Administration opposition, the Senate by a vote of 70 to 8 has passed virtually intact Sen. Edward Kennedy's (D.-Mass.) "Na tional Science Policy and Priorities Act of 1972." Among other things, the bill (S. 32) would give NSF more than $1 billion over the next three years to retrain scientists and engineers, and it sets up a Civil Science Systems Admin istration within N S F to put them to work creating systems to improve public services. The Senate accepted only three of five amendments offered to the bill, beating back two amendments offered by Sen. Peter Dominick (R.-Colo.), who has led the Administration effort against the bill. Defeated were Admin istration amendments to strike language in the bill that states federal policy con cerning federal investment in science and technology and to give the Na tional Science Board authority to dis approve grants and contracts in excess of $2 million. Amendments accepted to S. 32 in clude one by Sen. Vance Hartke (D.Ind.), which would require NSF to help scientists and engineers get new jobs if their jobs are lost because of the transfer abroad of technical activities of U.S.-based multinational firms. This amendment is an apparent spinoff of the protectionist "Foreign Trade and Invest ment Act of 1972" sponsored by Sen. Hartke and Rep. James Burke (D.Mass.). Sen. Dominick succeeded in getting an amendment adopted to cut funding under the bill from $1.8 billion to $1.0 billion over the next three years. And in the end, he voted for S. 32. The resounding approval of the bill by the Senate belies the slim chance that it will pass Congress this year, however. The major hangup is that time is run ning out on Congress, and Congressmen, particularly House members, are anx ious to get to the hustings. House action this year is largely up to Rep. John W. Davis (D.-Ga.)—who survived a primary challenge by less than 3000 votes. He is chairman of the Science, Research and Development Subcommittee. Although Rep. Davis was unavailable for comment last week, the subcom mittee staff indicated that he will proba bly want to have hearings on the mea sure. If that happens the bill stands little chance of enactment this year unless there is a postelection session of Congress. If the bill doesn't pass Con gress this year, it will be reintroduced next year in the new Congress.
