CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 872-4600 Letters to Editor:
[email protected] C&EN Online: http://pubs.acs.org/cen EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Madeleine Jacobs MANAGING EDITOR: Rudy M. Baum ART DIRECTOR: Robin L. Braverman SENIOR CORRESPONDENTS: Lois R. Ember, Wilbert C. Lepkowski NEWS EDITOR: Janice R. Long ONLINE EDITION EDITOR: Melody Voith EDITOR-AT-LARGE: Michael Heylin ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Patricia Oates BUSINESS William J. Storck, Assistant Managing Editor Northeast: (732) 9068300. Michael McCoy (Senior Editor), Marc S. Reisch (Senior Editor), Ronald S. Rogers (Associate Editor), Rachel Eskenazi (Administrative Assistant). Houston: (281) 486-3900, Ann M. Thayer (Bureau Head), (281) 4966382, Paige Marie Morse (Associate Editor). Hong Kong: 852-2984-9072. JeanFrançois Tremblay (Bureau Head). London: 44 181 8706884. Patricia Layman (Senior Editor) GOVERNMENT David J. Hanson, Assistant Managing Editor Washington: (202) 872-4495. Bette Hileman (Senior Editor), Jeffrey W. Johnson (Senior Editor), Linda R. Raber (Associate Editor) SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY/EDUCATION Pamela S. Zurer, Assistant Managing Editor Washington: (202) 8724505. Stuart A. Borman (Senior Correspondent), Mairin B. Brennan (Senior Editor), Doron Dagani (Senior Correspondent), Rebecca L. Rawls (Senior Correspondent), A. Maureen Rouhi (Senior Editor), Sophie L. Wilkinson (Associate Editor). Northeast: (732) 9068301. Stephen C. Stinson (Senior Editor). Chicago: (773) 463-2371. Mitch Jacoby (Assistant Editor). West Coast (510) 8490575. Elizabeth K. Wilson (Associate Editor). London: 44 1256811052. Michael Freemantle (Senior Editor) ACS NEWS William G. Schulz (ACS News Editor), Diana L. Slade (Assistant Editor) EDITING & PRODUCTION Ernest L. Carpenter, Assistant Managing Editor Janet S. Dodd (Associate Editor), Robin M. Giroux (Senior Editor), Arlene Goldberg-Gist (Associate Editor), Julie L. Grisham (Associate Editor), Rita E. Johnson (Assistant Editor), Stephen K. Ritter (Associate Editor) PUBLISHING & CREATIVE SERVICES William R. Succolosky (Head), Linda Mattingly (Staff Artist), Phillip Payette (Design Consultant). Composition Systems: Vincent L. Parker (Manager), Meltem Akbasli (Assistant) CIRCULATION Circulation Manager: Scott Nathan ADVISORY BOARD Jeannene Ackerman, Steven W. Baldwin, Ronald Breslow, Vincent A. Calarco, Marvin Cassman, Margaret A. Cavanaugh, Debbie C. Crans, Frank L. Douglas, John G. Ekerdt, Slayton A. Evans Jr., J. Michael Fitzpatrick, Renée G. Ford, Mary L. Good, Carlos G. Gutierrez, Dudley R. Herschbach, J. Roger Hirl, Robert J. Huggett, Robert S. Langer, Robert L. Lichter, Stephen J. Iippard, Leo E. Manzer, Gary L. Mossman, Hans C. Noetzli, Jane Margaret O'Brien, Gregory A. Petsko, Douglas J. Raber, Alan Schriesheim, Ian Short, Richard E. Smalley, Gabor A. Somorjai, Enrique J. Sosa, Kathleen C. Taylor Published by AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY (202) 8724600; TDD (202) 872-4432 John Kistler Crum, Executive Director Robert D. Bovenschulte, Director, Publications Division EDITORIAL BOARD Michael P. Doyle (Chair); ACS Board of Directors Chair: Joan E. Shields; ACS President: Paul H. L. Walter; Paul S. Anderson, Lura J. Powell, Eisa Reichmanis, Ed Wasserman © Copyright 1998, American Chemical Society Canadian GST Reg. No. R127571347
• EDITOR'S PAGE
Paradigms & Partnerships
W
hen it comes to socks and bathrobes, "one size fits all" may work fine. But when it comes to science and technology policy, such a principle no longer makes sense. like an old beloved suit, it has become outdated with time. That's the conclusion reached by a number of people who have examined U.S. R&D policy—a highly successful policy that essentially has been in place since Vannevar Bush's 1945 report, "Science: The Endless Frontier." But change is on the way. A few weeks ago, under the direction of Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), the House Science Committee released a special report—"Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy"—that examined the process needed to devise a post-Bush R&D paradigm. Although the report does not break new ground, it reinforces the vision that the U.S. must remain preeminent in science and technology. The report also rejects a one-size-fits-all formula. Rather, it stresses that multiple approaches involving innovative partnerships among industry, academia, and government are needed to develop a new R&D policy. These themes were further explored last week in Orlando, Fla., at the 20th annual meeting of the Council for Chemical Research. Nearly 250 scientists and research executives from university, industry, and government laboratories heard from a wide range of thoughtful people. From the smorgasbord of ideas, a few struck me as real food for thought. Columbia University vice provost and professor of science and technology policy Michael Crow noted that the current R&D paradigm is "so old and antiquated that people spend all their time talking about money rather than about purpose" The complexity and diversity of the 16,000 R&D labs in the U.S. today, he said, demand more formalized planning and a "systems approach" to policy formulation. In a new book, Crow and Barry Bozeman, director of the School of Public Policy of Georgia Institute of Technology, offer a blueprint for how to best utilize the nation's R&D facilities. The book is titled "Limited by Design: R&D Laboratories in the U.S. National Innovation System" (Columbia University Press). PPG Industries Chairman and CEO Raymond W. LeBoeuf discussed how
Views expressed
companies can best use their limited R&D resources. Companies the size of PPG—$7.4 billion in sales in 1997—cannot afford to do "blue sky research," LeBoeuf said. He noted that his firm's "'home runs' in the past 30 years built on ideas that came from outside our company"—from work done at and in collaboration with universities, research institutes, and other laboratories. "Academia has never been more productive in its support of business than it is today," he said. Columbia University chemistry professor Ronald Breslow also used a baseball metaphor in his overview of the opportunities for chemical research. Some of the most interesting research advances, he said, "come out of left field." Although partnerships and planning are valuable in research, he cautioned that the most exciting research comes from individuals who "often march to their own drummers." Presidential Science Adviser and Director of the Office of Science & Technology Policy Neal Lane sounded three themes that he promoted as National Science Foundation director: the interdependence of R&D laboratories; the need for scientists and engineers to be accountable to the public; and the importance of strengthening partnerships. Lane encouraged the audience to engage fellow citizens in two-way conversation—his so-called civic scientist approach. He recommended starting in the schools, and this civic scientist practices what he preaches. Last week, he taught a class on the science of climate change to 11th and 12th graders at Galileo Academy of Science & Technology in San Francisco. The CCR meeting brought forth dozens of other worthwhile ideas. As a unique collaborative organization itself, CCR could have an important role to play as new R&D paradigms and partnerships are developed. But as Lane and others have suggested (see page 26), individual chemists and chemical engineers must become more involved both in policy formulation and in communicating the benefits of science to the general public. It should not be left to the policy wonks. Otherwise, the chemical enterprise will find itself burdened with an inappropriate, uncomfortable, one-size-fitsall policy.
^
^
^
Editor-in-chief
on this page are those of the author
^
^
^
/
and not necessarily
those of ACS
OCTOBER 5, 1998 C&EN 5
