A N A L Y T I C A L CHEMISTRY Published by the American Chemical Society
W a l t e r 1. M u r p h y , E d i t o r
Reciprocity and Scientific Instruments THEAMERICAN CHEhircAL SOCIETY has taken no official position on this question, but your editors feel that the problem is of sufficient importance to American chemists and chemical engineers to call attention to these hearings, so that individuals can express their opinions if they care to do
T
Senate Committee on Reciprocity Information opened on January 13 the first in a series of public hearings in Washington, to consider reduction of tariffs on certain commodities. A number of manufacturers’ organizations, trade associations, etc., have filed briefs with the committee, including the Manufacturing Chemists’ Association and the Scientific Apparatus Makers of America. The latter in its brief asked that present rates under the Tariff Act of 1930 be retained as a minimum protection to the scientific instrument industry, stressing the arguments: HE
so.
Next to religion and politics, the tariff problem is the most controversial subject in the United States. It would be presumptuous for the editors to say what should be the specific protection given the scientific instrument industry or any other industry. The question is one for impartial experts. Undoubtedly there have been abuses in the past where industries have received hidden subsidies in the form of excessive high tariff protection. The opposite, of course, has been an occasional threat to the very existence of essential industries caused by the “dumping” of foreign goods in a deliberate attempt to destroy certain key American industries. If the editors were asked to name what, in their opinion, was the most important single technical contribution which made American industry, particularly the chemical process industries, function so efficiently during the war, they would very likely say the availability of widely diversified and specialized types of scientific instruments and apparatus. The limited technical and scientific manpower available during the war would have been severely handicapped in the development of the atomic bomb, synthetic rubber, pharmaceuticals such as penicillin, light alloys, and hundreds of other products which made victory possible. The editors of this publication believe in a strong virile American scientific instrument industry. We believe that like all fundamental scientific knowledge it should be internationally available. New advances in scientific instrumentation made in other countries should be freely available t o American industry and American scientists. Chiefly for these two.basic principles we hope that the problem of tariff rates will receive a thorough study and that the decisions will be arrived a t in a wholly impartial manner, so that science in America will continue to grow a t an ever-accelerating pace. If it does, the march towards better health, longer and more useful lives for all, and a continually rising standard of living for all will be maintained. If you wish to express your personal opinion to the Committee on Reciprocity Information, the editors suggest you address your communications to the chairman of the committee, Lynn R. Edminster, and the chairman of the Chemicals Panel, John P. Gregg.
1. The industry is a “master key industry” which must be preserved in the interest of national defense, research, public health, production process control, and training of scientists and laboratory technicians. 2. The nerve fiber of any piece of large mechanical equipment is the scientific instrument-by itself it is small but without it the whole equipment is worthless. 3. The Army, Navy, Air Forces, and Rlaritime Commission were dependent upon scientific instruments for use in fire control, communications, signaling, radar and loran, navigation, enemy detection, and nuclear experimentation. 4. The scientific instrument industry is not an industry that can be established in the short time available to serve when national emergency arises. Production must be rapidly increased. Existing plants must serve as pilot plants to supply necessary L‘know-how’l. The capacity to expand war industries depends upon instrumentation t o counteract manpower shortage. 5 . In the period from 1914 to 1947, instruments of foreign manufacture were not available 40y0 of the time: 1914 t o 1920 (during World War I and the return to production); 1939 to 1947 (during World War I1 and not available at present). In times of national emergency, a nation cannot depend upon foreign scientific instruments. 6. Any impairment of domestic production by increased imports automatically increases foreign production and strengthens the military position of the exporting countries. 7. The dollar value contributed to international exchange by importation of scientific instruments is negligible as compared with that contributed by mass production industries. 8. Scientific instruments are largely “hand-made”, depending to a small extent on raw materials and primarily on long-trained, skilled, technical workers. The operations of these workers do not vary greatly in different countries in the volume of production. There are no production methods in the American industry whereby capital invested in plant and equipment can secure lower unit cost than can be done abroad. Competition in the cost of production is primarily a direct comparison of the wages and hours of the American workman with the foreign workman. 9. A nation does not dare to impair seriously an industry so vital to the national defense in this era of total warfare.
73
