Focus
Reaching Out to Young Analytical Chemists
F
verybody knows the National Science Foundation (NSF) as a grant-funding agency, but what does it do for analytical chemists—especially young analytical chemists—besides fund grants? Through its Grants Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI) and Faculty Early Career Development programs, NSF is doing more than just providing money: It is offering a means for communication between distinctly different sectors of the scientific community and allowing young faculty members to develop as complete professionals—researchers and educators. Fostering collaboration
A GOALI-sponsored workshop, held in Keystone, CO, last summer, addressed the issue of encouraging collaboration and communication between young analytical chemists in academia and industry. Organized jointly by Gary Blanchard of Michigan State University, Bruce Chase of Dupont, and David Rothman of the Dow Chemical Co., and sponsored by the NSF Division of Chemistry through the GOALI initiative, the conference brought together 14 young academic analytical chemists and 14 young industrial analytical chemists for three days of discussion on how to enhance communication and collaboration between the two communities. Over the past decade, industry has changed its approach to research and development, and one result is a lesser need for analytical chemists, says Blanchard. A predictable consequence of that change is a reduced level of communication between academia and industry. "We can't afford to have that lack of communication," he says. Participants have stated that the workshop gave them a chance to open a dialogue with people whom they may not have met other-
NSF is reaching young analytical chemists through two foundation-wide programs wise. Some of them also say that it gave them a chance to see things from the other side's perspective. "It was very revealing," says David D. Johnson of 3M Corporation. "It was very interesting to interact with my academic colleagues, to try to understand their perspective, and to appreciate their constraints. I was some-
what surprised by a perceived lack of recognition of some of the constraints in the industrial environment." However, Johnson also understands more clearly some of the constraints on academia. "It was good for us to hear, learn, and appreciate the bounds they place on incoming money. That's an ex-
Analytical Chemistry News & Features, January 1, 1997 33 A
Focus ample of where they educated the industrial folks. They're trying to achieve a longer-term plan that is somewhat studentdependent within the constraints of trying to get students out in a timely fashion. It's difficult to craft a dissertation around numerous short-term projects, some of which may not have the depth required for a dissertation. Understanding why some had an attitude of 'as long as it's on my terms, yes, I'll take your money' was helpful. It wasn't fun to hear, but it was helpful." One of Johnson's concerns is the reluctance of some academicians to submit reports to companies with which they collaborate. He says that it wasn't clear to him whether they were bothered by the frequency of the reports or the request for formal communication (and it's an issue he would have liked to explore even further). "Clearly, I'm going to be held accountable, and I need to have some sort of measure of progress on how we're doing. That's an assumed requirement on my part. If the resistance is to providing formal reports,fine.But at least be willing to provide informal updates in a timely fashion—even over the phone—otherwise, it might be construed by my management as me saying: 'Here's the money; just let me know when you're done.'" The participants had the opportunity to discuss issues that the two sides see differently, including intellectual property rights and time lines ("long term" vs. "short term"). Even within a given community, be it industry or academia, there were conflicting opinions on how to reconcile differences. Bob St. Claire of GlaxoWellcome says, "Academia traditionally takes a long-term view, with emphasis on intellectual development. However, for industry to survive, it must focus on the things society wants. As the wants, not necessarily the needs, of society accelerate at an ever-increasing pace, there is the danger that short-term thinking will produce shortsighted results. I continue to view academia as the guardian of our scientific conscience. I've told a number of the people in academia, 'Don't change.' I feel the differences in operating principles between industry and academia are healthy for society.. .a set of checks and balances. However, particularly in the areas of the education of graduate students 34 A
and other short-term arenas, industry and academia must work harder tofindcommon ground." St. Claire does, however, see some practical problems in such an arrangement because of academia's dependence on publishable research and industry's dependence on marketplace forces. Speaking from an academic perspective, Greg Swain of Utah State University, a conference participant, thought that many of the academic participants were chosen in part because their research lies in areas of interest to industry. In fact, a result of the conference was the realization that the technological and scientific problems of current interest are equally important to both communities. Swain says that interactions with one of the in-
chance to interact with people with a broad range of interests, but I went not knowing exactly what to expect." To facilitate communication and dissemination of information among participants as well as the broader community, the organizers are establishing a home page on the World Wide Web (http://alice.cem. msu.edu/index.html). The Keystone organizers hope that the August event will be only the first of a biennial series of workshops and have scheduled it to alternate with the Gordon Conference on Analytical Chemistry. As industry participation in Gordon conferences has decreased, they hope that their conference, although not designed for the same purpose, will assume part of the Gordon conference's original role of fostering communication between diverse scientific sectors.
The Career program Funding the holistic development integrates education NSF funds young researchers in all areas through a foundation-wide program called and research in the the Faculty Early Career Development Program, or Career for short. Professors classroom and are eligible if they are withinfiveyears of their initial tenure-track appointment. Any researcher who has been a "senior" or laboratory. dustrial participants has led to the donation of much-needed equipment to his group and to the submission of a research proposal on a topic of mutual interest. Swain believes that programs and collaborations such as these will be particularly important to young faculty members as federal funding becomes increasingly competitive. "It will be necessary for young academicians to develop collaborations with industry," he says. Too little time has elapsed to determine whether the conference met its objective of constructing a viable communication network, although stories such as Swain's should bolster the confidence of the coordinators. Another participant, Christine Evans of the University of Michigan, says, "The jury will be out on the effect [of the network building] for a while. Has there been an immediate effect on me? No. Did I expect an immediate effect? No. I attended with an open mind. I knew I would get a
Analytical Chemistry News & Features, January 1, 1997
"highly experienced" investigator in a previous position is deemed ineligible. Thus, although age limits are not explicitly defined, the program is essentially restricted to young professors in theirfirstacademic position. The Career program supersedes the NSF Young Investigator (NYI) program, which used an application mechanism. The Career program requires the submission of a proposal for the integration of research and education in the classroom and the laboratory. The funds support the research program, as well as the "holistic" development of the young faculty member. Some examples of the educational components of the proposals have included what Henry Blount, program director for the Analytical and Surface Chemistry program at NSF, calls "innovative uses of multimedia in the classroom". Another difference between NYI and Career is that the research and the educational development components of the proposal must be endorsed by die applicant's department chair, and each year's
progress report must be signed by the investigator and the department chair. Blount believes that the NYI was viewed as an endorsement of an investigator's pedigree rather than as an acknowledgment of research that had been performed in the current position and may thus have had a detrimental effect on the tenure process. A misconception, possibly widespread, is that the Career program uses "setaside" money. One scientist who has received an award says that he thought the competition was easier than that for "regular" grants because Career-eligible grants competed only against one another. Blount hastens to dispel that illusion: "Career is not a gentle slope; it's not the shallow end of the pool. If the proposals weren't competitive, we wouldn't fund any. If we fund zero, so be it." Despite Blount's rather harsh words, the chemistry division funded 33 Career proposals in fiscal year 1995, six of which were in analytical and surface chemistry, and 31 proposals in fiscal year 1996, five of which were in analytical and surface chemistry. The analytical awards were selectedfroma pool of 23 proposals in each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996, equivalent to success rates that hover around 20-25% and can be compared with the 36% overall funding rate for the chemistry division in fiscal year 1996. Easing the way
What can young academics do to improve their chances of being funded? Blount says to pay attention to the review process. First, propose the most exciting and the best science of which you're capable, which goes almost without saying. Then, before sending it to the granting agency, ask an experienced person to examine it. Blount also recommends talking with the program officer at the particular funding agency, both before submitting the proposal and after receiving the reviews. "Talk with your program officer, because he or she has been in the business long enough that they can help interpret the reviews for you. Sometimes it's difficult to interpret a review written about something that we've written ourselves. We're too close to it, and we get really personal about it. After all, we're showing the holes in our intellectual T-shirts."
Stephen Beale of the University of Alabama-Birmingham is proof that Blount practices what he preaches. Beale had submitted four proposals to NSF before submitting one to the Career program on Blount's recommendation. Beale consulted with Blount several times during the writing of the proposal and says, "The comments that camefromthe reviewers were very helpful in writing the next version of the proposal. They weren't generally nasty, although it does hurt to propose something that you think is a decent idea and then have somebody else point out aspects that make you say 'I hadn't thought about that.'" Kimberly Prather of the University of California-Riverside, who has been funded by NSF through both a Young Investigator award and a "regular" grant, had positive experiences with the organization. "I didn't get [funded] the first time I tried. I think most people don't. When you get back the comments, as long as you address them, it can go through the second time. It was a positive, well thought-out process. The people who reviewed [my proposal] were obviously knowledgeable and well chosen," says Prather. Robert Kennedy of the University of Florida thinks that reviewers consider the fact that an investigator is young without either patronizing or "cutting any breaks". He says, "They'll say things like, 'If this were a more established person, I might expect to see more preliminary results' or Td like to see more of a track record, but this is a good proposal.' Most of the community is supportive of a young person trying to break in. Criticisms were valid and stated in a constructive way most of the time. I felt they were supportive and understanding of my position, but they didn't cut me any breaks just because I was a new guy." How much should current and future young faculty members worry about potential federal budget reductions? Blount says that the foundation does budget scenario planning that can be "pretty sobering". However, he says, "You don't chop the young people off at the pass. There will not be a disproportionate loss of young people. The Chemistry Division, the [Mathematical and Physical Sciences] Directorate, is going to protect its investment in young people." Celia Henry
Principles of Environmental Sampling, Second Edition This expanded second edition retains the essential sampling theory and technology from the popular first edition, but adds 24 new chapters to cover the most recent sampling technology for all major environmental matrices: water, air, biota, solids, sludges, and liquid wastes. Principles of Environmental Sampling focuses on the essentials of obtaining reliable samples, including calculating how many samples to collect for specific objectives and confidence levels and presents typical problems and solutions, sampling equipment, preservation techniques, and special considerations for each matrix. This new edition is useful for both experts and novices who need to obtain reliable environmental samples. Lawrence H. Keith, Editor ACS Professional Reference Book 800 pages (1996) Clothbound ISBN 0-8412-3152-4 $99.95
ORDER FROM American Chemical Society 1155 Sixteenth Street, N W Washington, DC 2 0 0 3 6 Or CALL TOLL FREE 1-800-ACS-9919 and use your credit card! FAX: 202-872-6067. ACS Publications Catalog now available on Internet; URL http://pubs.acs.org
Analytical Chemistry News & Features, January 1, 1997 35 A
