L iaz &e+fi
oga&fi+
cLohauMd& a + a y .
b b b The thirty-eighth recipient of the Perkin Medal is Gaston F. DuBois, senior
1906 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1013 1914 1916 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1825 1926 1927 1928 1929 1830 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944
SIR WILLIAM H. PERKIN
J. B. F. HERREBHOFF
ARNOBEHR E . G . ACHESON CHARLKS M. HALL HERMAN FRASCH JAMESGAYLEY JOHNW. HYATT EDWARD WESTON Lao H. BAEKELAND ERNSTTWITCHELL AUQUSTE J. Ross1 F. G. COTTRELL CHARLES F. CHANDLER WILLISR. WHITNEY WILLIAMM. BURTON MILTONC. WHITAKER FREDERICK M. BECEET HUGHK. MOORE R. B. MOORE JOHNE. TEEPLE IRVINGLANQMUIR E . C. SULLIVAN HERBERT H. Dow ARTHURD. LITTLE CHARLES F. BURQESS GEORQE OENSLAQE~B COLING . FINK a B O R Q E 0.CURME, JR. WARRENK. LEWIS THOVAB MIDGLEY, JR. FRANK J. TONE WALTERS. LANDIS CHARLES M. A. STINE JOHNV. N. DORR MARTINH. ITTNER ROBERT E. WILSON GASTONF. DUBOIS
vice president of Monsanto Chemical Company, St. Louis. He became, on the evening of January 7, one of that distinguished company of chemists who have “descended” in a direct line from Sir William Perkin. I n 1856 William Henry Perkin discovered Perkin’s purple or mauve and thereby initiated the synthesis of dyestuffs. This, in turn, became the foundation or the vastly important synthetic organic chemical industry, beginning the utilization of coal tar. Sir William was also the first to synthesize the perfume coumarin, and he actually engaged in the manufacture of dyestuffs until 1874. He had many friends and admirers in the United States, and it is customary for those who were present when the first Perkin Medal was awarded to him in 1906 to wear the same or a replica of the mauve tie which made its appearance on that occasion. The 1944 presentation was made to DuBois a t a dinner meeting of the American Section, Society of Chemical Industry, a t the Hotel Commodore in New York. Foster Dee Snell, chairman of the American Section, presided. Charles Allen Thomas, director of the Central Research Department of Monsanto Chemical Company, summarized the attainments of the medalist; since the time he came from his birthplace in Switzerland to America on L visit (1903) and was given a position by John F. Queeny, president and founder of Monsanto, DuBois has contributed to practically every technical development of the company and its subsidiaries. Francis J. Curtis, another Monsanto vice president, spoke briefly of DuBois the man, and the medal was presented by Marston T. Bogert of Columbia University. Dr. DuBois then gave a timely talk on the role of the chemist in the postwar world. Dr. Bogert wore the celebrated mauve tie; and one other “wearer of the purple” was present on this occasion-August Mere of Calco Chemical Company. The Perkin Medal was founded in 1906 in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the coal-tar color industry. The award may be made to any chemist residing in the United States of America for work which he has done a t any time during his career, whether this work proved successful a t the time of execution or publication, or whether it became valuable in subsequent development of the industry. The medalist is chosen by a committee representing the Society of Chemical Industry, the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY,the Electrochemical Society, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. and the Societe de Chimie Industrielle.
Charles Belknap, president of Monranto Chemical Company (/eft), Francis J. Curtis, and Charles A l l e n Thomas watch their colleague,
Gaston F. DuBoio, receive the medal from Marston T. Bogert, wearing his famous Perkin mauve tie.
134
Y READINESS to accept this medal is not entirely selfish, because I am but the representative of a team of loyal
M
men who have been associated with me for years and have devoted their talents to building up American chemical industry. For them all, I accept. These chemists realize that their work has been only the laying of a cornerstone; it is up to the young scientists who follow to erect the great chemical industry of tomorrow. At times we have been enthusiastic about our progress, but the greatest discoveries and developments in chemistry are yet to come. Our present era is characterized by something new in the life of man-the impact of science and of applied science or technology on our lives. This impact is powerful and is noticeable in all our activities. It affects sanitation, clothing, housing, transportation, and also the war we are waging. Technology will be a determining factor in winning this war. However our ultimate goal is not science for science’s sake, but a higher degree of culture and civilization. Science is not the measure of civilization; science and technology are merely tools, not ends in themselves. To be of value to man’s progress, science must be blended with something far more important, something difficult to define, something which develops slowly in the minds of men and as the result of experience. Science must be blended with a recognition of moral principles and these principles must be properly applied. Therefore if scientists and technologists are to play a greater part in the world of tomorrow, they must accept wider responsibilities which will take them out of the laboratories and plant and into the life of the nation. Do we, the technicians of the world, fully recognize these obligations? If so, what are we doing to meet them? How will we apply this torrent of new knowledge? This audience does not need t o be told about the new discoveries of science, but I would like to emphasize the effect of these discoveries on our lives and upon the world they are making. Within the past fifty yeam the chemist’s outlook has changed completely. Only fifty years ago we thought we understood the field of chemistry and could define its limits of usefulness. We had a smug, comfortable feeling that all the important elements were known and doomed to remain unchanged as we had found them. Now all that has been swept aside and we are disturbed, for we recognize how little we know. There have
as 1916 the German consul general in New York (Hossenfelder) in a letter to von Bethman-Hollweg, German chancellor, predicted American defeat in World War I because of our dependence on German chemical industry: “Americans can never establish such an industry. They have the resources, but they lack the necessary science and technology.” But he was wrong. We did start making chemicals, and World War I demonstrated not only their usefulness, but also the indispensability of our industry to this nation. We grew in ohemicai stature and knowledge
GASTON F. DUBOIS Monsanto Chemical Company, St. Louis, M o .
+
been other changes too. Thirty years ago there was a belief in government circles that the business of dealing with chemicals was something for the British and Germans, but not for Americans. The public in the United States did not know much about chemistry or chemists. The press, our statesmen, our bankers did not care. Let the dreamers and the dilettantes of Europe play with pretty things in glass dishes! We were workers of wood and iron and stone, those more fundamental things. Some of our representatives in Washington, on the occasion of the tariff revision of 1912, refused to consider or assist in the establishment of a chemical industry in the United States. Why make chemicals here when we could grow corn, raise cattle, mine iron ore, and build railroads? The chemicals which we might need were certainly not essential, and we would never make them so cheaply as England, or Germany. Even as late
until today growth rate of our industry is so accelerated that no one can keep even superficially informed of its progress in all lines. Statistics available do not measure this growth. Applied chemistry is indefinable because it has no definite limits. It overflows its boundaries and invades territories where it was not supposed to be. For example, rubber has been for a century a natural product obtained from trees, but now almost overnight we have converted the rubber industry into a branch of the chemical industry, with an output valued at over 400 million dollars. Paints were formerly made from natural products-vegetable oils, natural resins, and a few mineral pigments-with the chemist contributing little to that industry. But after World War I he took over and has since given the paint industry little or no rest. The chemist introduced synthetic resins, began to use 135
136
INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
new synthetic solvents of every conceivable boiling point, modified chemically the natural oils, and produced surface coatings which will dry in a few hours and withstand sun, rain, and cold ten times longer than did our former paints. But paint is only skin deep, and so the chemist invaded the metal world. Aluminum and magnesium, which we now claim as members in good standing of our chemical industry, will shortly reach a production value of 400 million dollars yearly. All this time the plastics industry was growing. Since 1933 it has expanded sixteen fold. From a small novelty business it has entered the building field and overrun the paint and textile industries. Cotton, wool, and silk are no longer masters in the field of textiles but will have to accept plastics a8 partners to emerge as improved cotton, improved wool, and improved silk. In many instances the synthetic material is superior to the natural fiber. This plastics industry, having reached a yearly output valued a t 500 million dollars, will not drop in volume after the war but will continue to grow. Plastics will become an important factor in all industries, in transportation, in housing, in the electrical industry, in textiles, and will even affect agriculture, lumbering, pulp, and paper. All these revolutionary developments, and others yet unannounced, must and will change the chemist’s outlook. His field has emerged within two or three decades from a relatively small and obscure industry into one which by necessity flows t o and through all industries.
B UT
the industrial invasion of inanimate chemicals is not the entire story, great as this may be, for outside of purely technological developments, the chemist as an individual has extended his sphere of activity. It started in this country about twenty years ago when, having supplied the needs of buyers, he began t o look for new uses for his products and to seek buyers for them, This release of the cloistered chemist of early days resulted in direct contact between him and men in other industries. The chemist stepped out of the laboratory to find new consumers, new customers for his brain children; from there to his role as salesman and emissary of science was but a short step. Today in the United States thousands of chemists are active in promoting new uses for the products of the laboratory. This evolution of chemicals and chemists has been so rapid that we are not yet fully conscious of its results. The chemist is in touch with the world, with men, with other industries; and it is time to consider whether we, as chemists, are prepared to shoulder the responsibilities corresponding to the important role we will play in the future. Have we grown industrially so fast that we have neglected our obligations as citizens? What does the world think of us and our role in relation to the affairs of society? Have we allowed the comic magazines to interpret impressions more vividly than we ourselves are able to do? In 1935 the London Punch lampooned research by saying: If you are going to have a research department at all, go the whole hog and enter into the spirit of the thing. Build a laboratory and place in it a lot of bottles and benches. Then collect a few people from the universities with First Class Honour degrees in Chemistry. Turn them loose in the laboratory and leave them. For a few days they will probably wander restlessly around, but after a while they will settle down and start bending glass tubing and filtering things perfectly happily, and you will be. able to show them to visitors, which is a nice thing to be able to do . . . . . If one needs a quick answer on some technical roblem, it is far better to get a rouqhly a p roximate one from old foe Binks, the foreman, who hasn t the xisadvantages of a scientific education. Give the research workers only Big LongTerm Problems and leave the results in trust for your heirs. Summing up, Punch simply says that scientists are nice quiet lads, but impractical. Even in our own chemical literature we find odd and naive ideas. In August, 1943, an editorial in one of the leading British chemical magazines stated:
Vol. 36, No. 2
The chemist is primarily, by training and profession, a scientist. His first duty is to science. By following that lodestar, he will find the truest expression of himself and it may be in some instances, the fullest development of his own faculties and his own wellbeing, not only spiritually, but practically. Again I quote from an editorial appearing in September, 1943: Chemistry is not only a huge and difficult science, it is also a very absorbing one, so that some chemists have given up their whole lives to its study and have deliberately thrown away opportunities of doing work that they could have done very easily. The young chemist is obliged to spend the larger part of his life in mere study, more than the average lawyer or engineer. This sort of life suits those who are studious rather than adventurous, but leaves them at a disadvantage in worldly matters in which they have to compete with men and women whose knowledge of human nature is derived from constant association with men of every sort, good and bad, industrious and lazy. These three quotations, one from Punch, the other two from serious technical journals, have a number of points in common. They emphasize that we scientists give allegiance first to science, that we are nice quiet lads, that we have no time for worldly affairs, that we are not men of action, and therefore that we are at a disadvantage in worldly matters. This is not a pretty picture, so let us stop for a moment and ask ourselves whether the scientist’s first duty really is to science. Why is the scientist constantly seeking new knowledge and why is he happy when, as a result of his studies, he unravels some of nature’s mysteries? Is it just an urge to solve mysteries, or is there more t o it? If there is no more t o this than solving a puzzle, then the scientist’s work is akin to a game of solitaire. Frankly, I was a bit startled when I read the statement, “The scientist’s first duty is to science.” In the past it may have been, but it is no longer. If that is the star to which a scientist must hitch his wagon, then I would want to become a lawyer, because a lawyer is useful in a hundred different ways outside of the narrow legal field. However, there is evidently some confusion in the minds of many as to just what role the scientist should play in our world. We chemists, physicists, engineers are not the only ones who are uncertain. Philosophers, statesmen, economists, and others are today confused about many subjects. All are constantly groping for the truth, for truth is the result of a continuing evolution of thought and understanding. But what should concern us now is the marked evolution in the ideas of the world’s citizens in regard to the relation of science and of scientists to the rest of the world. We should be fully aware of this evolution, for science is now rapidly becoming more and more important to civilization. As the chemist steps out of his laboratory, he must accept the responsibility that is consistent with his new status. He is only one of a large team. The baker makes bread for his fellowmen; he too is a member of the team, as is the chemist who is applying his particular talent. It is therefore absurd to claim that the chemist’s first duty is to science. His first duty is t o his fellowmen, like the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker,
R
ECENTLY Thomas Mann confessed that he and his scholarly fellows had committed a grave error in being content to be writers and nothing else. They had not attempted to apply the result of their studies; they had not assumed civic responsibilities. What happened? They were blasted out of their comfortable lives by that small man, Hitler, who did translate his ideas into action. Thomas Mann would perhaps tell us now that the practice of science for the sake of science alone is not enough, we must go farther. Thomas Mann would undoubtedly second John Dewey’s words: “The philosopher is expected t o come out of his study, out of the ivory tower, and apply his philosophy to daily living.” It seems imperative there-
February, 1944
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
fore that we scientists must also be prepared to carry our ideas forward into action, as do merchants and businessmen. Business leaders today are far more conscious of civic responsibilities toward their employees and toward the public in general than they were twenty or thirty years ago. This change in civic consciousness corresponds to a moral growth, and moral growth is a step in the development of civilization. I repeat, civilization does not advance through technical progress ; its advance is the result of moral progress, and history amply demonstrates this. Therefore the progress of the chemist cannot be measured by his technical achievements alone. His real achievement can be evaluated only by the service he renders to his fellowmen, and for this purpose his technical skill must be combined with a consciousness of civic duties, But is the chemist fully aware of them? I n his inaugural address as head of this society, Wallace Cohoe stated: “We have allowed ourselves to become too much men of the cloister because we have used microscopic rather than telescopic vision.” And John Dorr told us a few years ago: “The engineer has played too small a role in the responsibilities of our own government, Men trained as engineers should take a larger part in the formulation of laws and the shaping of policies.” These men have acknowledged their greater responsibilities.
137
small committee of representatives of the Fifth Estate visit, as an independent body, the main government research laboratories yearly, to review the past year’s achievements, the future program, and the budget, and report to our societies and to the Government. Such a committee, competent to make recommendations, could suggest extension or curtailment of current projects and expenditures or initiation of new projects. The Fifth Estate would in this manner contribute the fund of information available to it through its contacts with industry and universities, and thereby help our Government. It is rather unbecoming to criticize the activities of city, state, and federal governments unless we have constructive ideas and a sound program which would better serve the needs of our nation.
THE
responsibility of the chemist with respect to the patent system is greater today than ever before. In its broad aspects, our patent system has contributed much to American industry and world-wide technological advancements. I approve of the American patent system, but a t the same time I recognize that it can be improved. We now have the report of the National Patent Planning Commission, and what are we, as chemists, doing about the changes proposed? Changes of this character in our basic laws are as important t o the chemist as they are to the businessman or the lawyer. And what about the manufacturing activities of our Government? Are we competent to lay down rules which should H E term “Fifth Estate” was once suggested by Arthur D. govern such activities? Should our Government in peacetime Little to define all those responsible for the advance and application of science. Cohoe recently suggested that the Fifth manufacture nitrates, ammonia, styrene, butadiene, carbide, Estate assume its responsibility in solving international postsynthetic rubber, phosphorus, fertilizers? Can our Governwar problems. I would like to go one step farther and make a ment successfully compete with industry? I do not know the answer, but I do know that the facts should be obtained withfew suggestions regarding the things we can and must do here a t out prejudice or partisanship. Why should we wait for the home. lawmakers to give us the answer? We, as chemists, should assume those civic responsibilities for which we are, through training, best suited. We chemists All I have said about national problems could be repeated should take an interest in the use and control of science. This regarding state or city or even community questions. We have will lead to an interest in law and government, which does not problems pertaining to the production of solid household fuels mean an interest in “lobbying” but active attention to planand of smoke elimination, one of the banes of our cities. Public ning for daily living. If that is our purpose, what then can we health and sanitation is another and never ending problem that do to translate these ideas into action? can well use our experience and knowledge. Hundreds of Our first duty should be to see that these, our fundamental similar tasks need our attention. We should exhibit more foreideas, are broadcast and generally accepted by the members of sight and steadfastness in tackling the really basic technical our profession. Our scientific societies should recognize these problems to help solve many of our economic ills and be alert objectives. Through discussion a t our meetings, we should to anticipate problems to come. disseminate these ideas and let them mature, so that in time the These ideas are not new. Our Comptons, our Conants, and collective judgment of scientists will help mold national policies. many others have demonstrated not only the value of services This has not yet been given a fair trial; at the meeting of the rendered by the Fifth Estate, but also the prompt approval by American Institute of Chemical Engineers in November, the Congress of recommendations well presented and free of partisanprogram contained but one item of broad significance, and all The spirit of research is not peculiar t o chemistry. It ship. the others were purely technical. This exception was a paper can be applied to anything. It is a frame of mind, a ferment on postwar planning problems and was followed by one of the which brings life and can be applied to our national problems. most vigorous debates ever held by chemical engineers. The Finally, let us remember that in a democracy the people have men were interested in the subject and participated eagerly, the responsibility of guiding and running their Government, and which demonstrates the desirability of such topics. The meetings of other scientific groups, such as the AMERICAN this guidance coming from responsible, nonpartisan groups will be acceptable. The nation has recognized during this war the CHEMICAL SOCIETY, are mainly concerned with divisional topics importance of science and technology to our safety and progress, except for the addresses at the “general meeting”, and leave and we will be called upon to perform a heavy task in the postwar little room for discussion of matters of basic importance to the years, This calls for leadership, and leadership by membera of nation, in which we scientists should play a leading role. The the Fifth Estate. We can no longer claim allegiance to science mechanical engineers do better in that respect. At their last first. We have a much greater responsibility to serve our national meeting they discussed matters of broader importance, fellowmen f i s t through the use of science. It is now up to us, such as Relation of Management and Organized Labor, Accelerwi6h the help of scientific organizations, to think and live in ating Scientific Management in the Federal Government, a broader field of usefulness to society; and when some of our Critical Period of Transition after Victory. We might well members are abked to assume greater responsibilities, we will profit by their example. discover a ready and willing cooperation from industry and uniAre we not interested also in governmental research? If so, versities. The scientist is not out of this world, he is in it, what do we think should be the proper field and scope of such and should add his learning and voice to the solution of national research? How should our government laboratories report their problems. activities to us who are paying the bill? I would like to see a
T
