§§
gg
©
g
cHEMICAL
%jMnt;niii;iii
Jtngineering ©ws
WALTER J. MURPHY, tJitor
Women Engineers K
think we kiu>"w b u t if Sen. McCarthy questions u s , w e definitely are going t o invoke the Fifth Amendment.
ATHERINE STINSON, president of the Society of Women
Engineers, is o n e who will not remain silent when the comment is made that girls can't b e as good engineers as men. Indeed, the spokesman for the women engineers recently told an Associated Press reporter that "women engineers are better in some jobs." W e certainly will not quarrel with Miss Stinson. Indeed, if we must be counted, we are. on her side. The present head of the Society of Women Engineers is an aeronautical engineer. W e do not know what the situation is as to acceptance of women in aeronautical, civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering, but w e do know something of the roadblocks which once confronted the distaff side of the chemical engineering profession—perhaps still do to some extent. In the not t o o distant past, the "typical" chemical engineer was portrayed as the fellow w h o , in shirtsleeves and old trousers, provided the wherewithal (commonly believed to be haling wire) that kept the messy chemical plant from falling apart. l i e liked to be known as the "pipefitter"—it sounded earthy and was supposed to impress the little woman who did not have t h e slightest conception of what a chemical engineer d i d for a living and, of course, was also supposed to demonstrate to the nonprofessional help around the plant that a Ch.E. was a democratic sort of fellow. Things h a v e changed quite a bit in a decade or so. T h e plant of yesterday was considered to be much too dirty, dangerous, a n d ill-smelling for ladies to be a->M>cia:» -1 with. Besides, bulging muscles were considered essential to get the last turn on t h ^ fittings as well as to impress on occasion t h e rugged individual who did not show respect for properly constituted authority. Now, thanks to a lot of folk a n d their inventive minds, most plants have that touch of "automation" which makes possible direction and control by a Don Juan in a Brooks Brothers ensemble or a Powers' model in a Dior creation. Under these circumstances, why should there be any discrimination against the fair sex? We strongly support the premise that the female sex as an institution is here to stay. If so, we see no reason w h y more women shouldn't think of careers, temporary or permanent, as chemical engineers. There may still be certain specialized fields where the more rugged male has an advantage, but by a n d large most jobs depend on brains, not brawn. Furthermore, formal training frequently is of less importance than natural skills and personal inclinations. W e know many individuals trained formally as chemists who are performing most creditably as chemical engineers and many members of the profession trained as engineers who are serving as directors of research, heads of analytical departments, etc. We cannot help but wonder about one aspect of this women engineer business. When t h e last vestige of discrimination against women engineers h a s disappeared, what will the Society of Women Engineers have as its objective? W e
V O L U M E
3 1,
NO.
44
.
NOVEMBER
9.
British Productivity A M O N G the key recommendations of t h e British Productivity Team wliich visited our heavy chemical industry last year was one urging t h e widest use of work study. T h e team was particularly impressed by improvements in process, maintenance, packing, and materials handling methods resulting from work study here. The British chemical industry has just taken its first concrete step to implement this recommendation. Nearly 5 0 0 of its top executives met in Buxton early this month t o discuss work study techniques and how they might b e applied to increase productivity in the chemical industry. The unique feature of the Buxton conference was that tor the first time a single organization, Imperial Chemical Industries, p u t its experience at the disposal of the entire industry. It w a s I C I work study specialists—not academic or government experts—who lectured and led the discussions. Top management of I C I has b e e n sold on work study for some time. It has trained a staff of specialists n o w numbering over 1 ()()(>. And it has paid off. Technical Director Sir Ewart Smith reported that in one year's time savings amounted to three times the additional administrative cost. What will l i e t h e results of this conference? Only time will tell the complete story, b u t two steps seem assured: ( 1 ) formation of u work study information clearinghouse tor use of the industry, and ( 2 ) focus of attention on inadequate educational facilities. This latter point merits particular attention in view of the fact that the work study courses which we normally find in our "industrial engineering" curricula are taught in only two institutions in Britain. The imports nee of increased productivity was emphasized again a few clays ugo i n London by a former Ambassador to Washington. Speaking before the annual dinner of t h e Association of British Chemical Manufacturers, Sir Oliver Franks charged t h e chemical industry, together with t h e electrical and automotive industries, with the primary r e sponsibility for a continued rise in productivity and t h e standard of living. It seems axiomatic that the road to higher productivity and its companion, better living, begins with rigorous economy of manpower, materials, and energy. Whether it be in Britain or America, a fresh and continued examination of production techniques through the application of the principles of work study will pay dividends to t h e chemical industry. Our congratulations to the ABCM for its part in organizing the Buxton conference, to ICI for its unselfish contribution to i t s success, and to the entire British chemical industry for passing this important milestone on the road to higher productivity.
1 9 5 3
4515
