00:00:01 and a video recording of the discussion.

00:00:07 Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon and welcome to our conversazione.

00:00:11 It gives me great pleasure to introduce the President of the Chemical Heritage Foundation, Dr. Arnold Thackray.

00:00:23 Thank you.

00:00:25 Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to welcome you all to the Chemical Heritage Foundation, to this meeting room, and to this conversazione.

00:00:32 As you're aware, this facility is dedicated to the preservation and conservation of our rich history in the chemical sciences and industries.

00:00:42 I should also say that many of you will have already discovered the Chemical Heritage Foundation is a work still in progress.

00:00:51 As you go upstairs, you'll see the finished things.

00:00:54 Downstairs, we're still in transition, and one of our transitions is if you examine the parking lot carefully,

00:01:01 you'll see that there are rough patches on it where people have just been digging the first preliminary excavations and explorations

00:01:10 for our Glenn and Barbara Oliot meeting suite, which will be immediately off the Irene DuPont lobby.

00:01:19 This time, two years from now, we expect a crowd twice this size, but we're already at capacity today.

00:01:27 Today, we're taking an opportunity to turn and look in both directions, to look backwards and forwards,

00:01:36 to gather insight from the past and to clarify aspects of our emerging future,

00:01:44 because the Chemical Heritage Foundation is concerned to take the past and to put it to work for the benefit of all our futures.

00:01:53 The format, the conversazione, is an exchange of ideas and imagination, as the title implies.

00:02:00 It's a two-way information path, and we very much want everyone to participate in this conversation.

00:02:09 I'd like to begin by making a couple of brief introductions and asking for remarks.

00:02:15 First of all, from Chad Holliday, that you know that from its beginnings in the mind of Eulothery Irene DuPont,

00:02:24 a company that now bears his name, a company, appropriately, you come into the chemical heritage through the DuPont lobby.

00:02:33 The chemical industries in the Americas begin with DuPont, and so they went to our building through the DuPont lobby.

00:02:41 The DuPont company has been a hotbed of innovation and advanced ideas,

00:02:47 and that tradition continues today, nurtured by its CEO, Charles Holliday.

00:02:53 Chad, welcome. Please welcome Chad Holliday.

00:02:56 Good afternoon. It's just exciting to be in a building like this.

00:03:06 It celebrates so much heritage and so much about what our industry can be in the future.

00:03:12 It's an honor to be here and welcome you formally to this exchange,

00:03:16 which is designed to be an organized way for people to share their ideas,

00:03:21 for everyone in the room to participate with your questions and thoughts.

00:03:25 I think it can build a great foundation for us as we go forward in the chemical science business.

00:03:30 Clearly, DuPont has believed over the years that having a vision and having clear communications is very important to our future,

00:03:38 and I think that all of us gathered here today is a great way to do that.

00:03:41 I'm looking forward to participating with you. Thanks very much.

00:03:51 When we think of the chemical industries in the Americas,

00:03:55 and we think of companies of great stature and of companies with a very proud heritage,

00:04:02 the name that immediately comes to mind following DuPont is, of course, Dow Chemical,

00:04:08 now one of the largest chemical companies in the world,

00:04:11 manufacturing over 2,000 chemicals and plastics products around the globe.

00:04:18 We're delighted that we have today representing Dow Chemical,

00:04:23 an important player in the chemical sciences world,

00:04:27 a noted spokesman for the chemical sciences and industries,

00:04:31 the president and CEO of Dow Chemical.

00:04:34 Please join me in welcoming Bill Stavropoulos.

00:04:43 Thank you, Wanda, and good afternoon, everyone.

00:04:45 It's a real pleasure to be here to help inaugurate this tremendous, tremendous building,

00:04:50 and I think the whole thought process and science here.

00:04:54 We might be considered giants of the industry,

00:04:58 but we've really got our feet firmly planted on the ground,

00:05:01 and hopefully a green ground, an environmentally correct ground.

00:05:05 All the people at Dow do recognize the importance of ideas and vision,

00:05:10 and we're really pleased to be part of this great event.

00:05:14 But there's one vision that we hope that you take away from this conversation,

00:05:19 is an eye-level view of how chemical innovation and chemistry in general has made our lives better,

00:05:26 is really responsible for our standard of living and responsible for our quality of life.

00:05:32 And I can guarantee you that the chemical industry and chemistry

00:05:36 is going to make our lives even better, richer, and cleaner.

00:05:39 Thank you very much for taking the day.

00:05:48 At this moment, I'd like to introduce the moderator for this session

00:05:53 and hand over the proceedings to him.

00:05:56 We have in the room and on the panel many distinguished innovators in the chemical industries.

00:06:04 This conversazione is co-sponsored by the Society of Chemical Industry,

00:06:10 which, of course, through its medals, has done an enormous amount

00:06:14 to recognize innovation and contributions to the chemical industries.

00:06:19 And we have a number of medalists on the platform and in the audience,

00:06:23 along with other distinguished contributors.

00:06:26 And to introduce them and to moderate the conversazione,

00:06:30 I want to introduce our near neighbor from the Lehigh Valley,

00:06:35 that Air Products and Chemicals is, of course, a very new company compared with Dow and DuPont.

00:06:46 It's a very old company compared with the Chemical Heritage Foundation.

00:06:49 I think you've been in existence two and a half times as long as we have had.

00:06:55 Air Products, of course, has had a legendary history of innovation and starting up in 1940

00:07:02 and doing the impossible from then till now.

00:07:06 And it's continued on its innovative course under Hatt Wagner, its CEO,

00:07:11 who is also the chairman of the Society of Chemical Industry.

00:07:15 And it's my pleasure to hand over this podium to Hatt Wagner.

00:07:24 Well, thank you very much, Arnold. I'm delighted to be with you all.

00:07:28 And what a wonderful turnout to a spectacular building.

00:07:31 And Arnold, before you leave, let me say congratulations to you and all of your team.

00:07:38 What a marvelous facility. Bellissimo, signori.

00:07:46 Well, that plus conversazione are my two Italian words for today.

00:07:52 You know, that is to introduce a conversation and a dialogue.

00:07:56 And I want to prepare you or get you thinking about being prepared to make comments

00:08:01 or pose questions after we get started.

00:08:06 And each of these gentlemen and this fine young lady will be making some comments.

00:08:11 I'm going to first introduce our panelists.

00:08:14 Then each of them has some remarks to make.

00:08:17 And then it's your turn. There is no free lunch.

00:08:20 You have to have a good question for these very talented, responsive minds.

00:08:25 So before I, though, introduce those panelists,

00:08:29 I want to recognize some of our distinguished colleagues who are in the room

00:08:33 and have traveled across the ocean to join us today.

00:08:36 First, Raymond Holland, past chairman of Council of Society's International Governing Body

00:08:42 and holder of the Lampet Medal.

00:08:45 Raymond, are you here? Please stand.

00:08:50 Rosemary Wood, member services manager at International Headquarters

00:08:55 with responsibility, among other items, for medals and awards.

00:08:59 Rosemary, where are you?

00:09:05 And Ronald Stevenson, past chairman of the SCI Construction Materials Group

00:09:09 and also a Lampet medalist.

00:09:11 Ronald, where are you? Please stand.

00:09:15 Now, I would like to introduce our distinguished panelists.

00:09:19 And the first being Dexter Baker. I have no trouble introducing this man.

00:09:23 I've worked for him for 37 years.

00:09:26 And he was obviously my predecessor at Air Products

00:09:29 and, by the way, was awarded the Chemical Industry Medal in 1991.

00:09:34 Next, Stuart Churchill.

00:09:36 Dr. Churchill is the Carl V. S. Patterson Professor Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania

00:09:42 and served as the president of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.

00:09:47 He's received most of that organization's awards in research and education

00:09:53 as well as the Max Jacob Memorial Award in heat transfer from ASME.

00:10:01 David Bryant, our third panelist, served as senior corporate fellow at UniCarbide Corporation

00:10:07 and among his many awards, he was honored with the Chemical Pioneer Award in 1989

00:10:13 and the Berkman Medal in 1998.

00:10:18 Edith Flanagan, also a senior corporate fellow at UniCarbide

00:10:24 and, incidentally, the first woman to hold that high position of distinction in that fine corporation.

00:10:30 She was awarded the Perkin Medal in 1992.

00:10:33 Among her accomplishments are the synthesis of new molecular sieve materials

00:10:38 for applications as absorbents and catalysts

00:10:41 as well as inventing the hydrothermal emerald synthesis process.

00:10:46 John Johnstone, next in the panel, former chairman and CEO of the Olin Corporation.

00:10:53 He played a central role in the development of the Responsible Care Program

00:10:58 that established the new environmental standards in the chemical industry.

00:11:01 And John, I'm sure you know, but that program has absolutely been a resounding success.

00:11:07 You'd be delighted with the progress we're making as an industry

00:11:10 and how we're changing not only what we're doing but what people think about what we're doing.

00:11:15 He was a longstanding member on the CMA board.

00:11:21 He was also awarded the Chemical Industry Medal in 1996.

00:11:26 John Sinfeld was best known, perhaps, as the inventor of the platinum-iridium catalyst

00:11:32 used in the production of gasoline and other petrochemical products.

00:11:36 For that innovation, he was awarded the Perkins Medal in 1984.

00:11:42 And Louis Hegedus, vice president of research and development for Atafina Chemicals, Inc.

00:11:49 Dr. Hegedus is a leading authority on catalysis

00:11:52 and played a central role in developing the catalytic converter

00:11:56 that has transformed the auto industry and certainly cleaned up our air.

00:12:01 In the audience, we also have Marinus Loos,

00:12:06 developer of plant-environment-safe herbicides at American Cyanamid,

00:12:11 winner of the Perkins Medal in 1994.

00:12:13 Would you please stand up, Doctor?

00:12:17 Maybe he is still in the Chestnut Street parking lot that we've all rested in here.

00:12:25 And also, James Idle, who worked for 22 years at Standard Oil of Ohio

00:12:30 and now is an educator at Rutgers University at Perkins Medalist in 1979

00:12:35 for his work at Ashland Chemicals in acrylamide trial and its derivatives.

00:12:39 James, are you here?

00:12:41 In the parking lot, in a way.

00:12:44 Okay, that introduces all of our distinguished panelists

00:12:48 and other distinguished guests that we have.

00:12:52 Let's now get to the heart of the matter,

00:12:55 and we will begin, Dexter, by you, if you will please give us your remarks.

00:12:59 And you may either do so sitting, sit in your seat, or stand.

00:13:03 Well, I'm very comfortable right now.

00:13:06 Fire away, Dexter.

00:13:08 As I understand the assignment,

00:13:10 we were supposed to describe three or more significant characteristics

00:13:14 of the chemical industry that have occurred over the last 50 years.

00:13:20 We are also to describe the opportunities that were lost during that time frame.

00:13:26 And we're also to reflect on the next 50 years.

00:13:30 And we're supposed to do this in five minutes.

00:13:33 I think we're here until 11, just with your introduction.

00:13:37 Now, I'm going to have to condense my normal 30-minute remarks,

00:13:43 so you'll have to bear with me.

00:13:46 But as I look back on my 48 years with the chemical industry,

00:13:50 the three things that I find to be most significant

00:13:55 is our tremendous commitment to safety,

00:13:59 to safe work, safety in the environment,

00:14:03 safety in the transportation of our products,

00:14:06 safety in their use and disposal.

00:14:09 No industry, in this country or abroad,

00:14:13 has as high a record of safety for its employees as we do.

00:14:19 Now, I guess it's kind of natural

00:14:22 that if your industry starts out by mixing black powder on the branding line,

00:14:27 you develop a sense of safety rather quickly.

00:14:32 And if you don't, you visit your ancestors rather quickly.

00:14:37 But clearly the DuPont company has led us all

00:14:42 in a recognition that safety is our number one priority.

00:14:47 And there is no question that our record exceeds that

00:14:50 of any other manufacturing industry in this country or abroad.

00:14:54 And, of course, that has led naturally into our initiatives

00:14:59 to protect the environment and protect the workplace

00:15:03 for our chemical products.

00:15:06 The second significance, and Bill touched on that also,

00:15:10 is the tremendous creativity that this industry has had

00:15:15 throughout its life and certainly since the post-war era.

00:15:20 My post-war goes back to World War II.

00:15:23 Everything we wear, everything we eat,

00:15:27 the medicines we use, the transportation we have,

00:15:30 the exploration of space are all products of the chemical industry.

00:15:37 The wealth of our country today is in direct proportion to that creativity.

00:15:44 Wealth is created by new products having greater benefits

00:15:49 and lower costs of displacing existing products.

00:15:53 And that's how wealth has occurred.

00:15:55 And our industry has been a leader in the wealth creation processes

00:16:00 of our country as in the course of our initiative.

00:16:05 And the third significant aspect, I think, of our industry

00:16:08 is the worldwide breadth of our commitment to market our products

00:16:14 in every section of the globe.

00:16:17 We have plants, we have technical services,

00:16:20 we have research laboratories scattered throughout the globe.

00:16:23 Something close to 35 percent of our revenues

00:16:27 are derived from international markets as an industry.

00:16:31 And there isn't a corner of the globe

00:16:34 in which the American chemical industry is not represented.

00:16:38 We are ambassadors to the world, business ambassadors.

00:16:42 And as we go, as we conduct ourselves,

00:16:46 so does the reputation of American manufacturing.

00:16:51 And so that are the three things that occurred to me.

00:16:55 And I'll hold back on the other part of the assignment

00:16:58 until I can hear from my distinguished colleagues.

00:17:01 Very good. Thank you very much, Dr. Seward.

00:17:09 I didn't receive any instructions from Arnold,

00:17:14 so I'm free to talk.

00:17:18 I'm free to talk for an hour on anything I please.

00:17:22 However, I will cut down an hour of talk.

00:17:25 I have prepared for five minutes or an approximation thereof.

00:17:30 My topic is a little different one because I'm in education.

00:17:35 So I'm going to try to address in those five minutes the question,

00:17:39 can we teach our students to be creative?

00:17:43 And if so, how?

00:17:46 Progress in the practice of chemical engineering,

00:17:49 as well as in all related fields, occurs more rapidly

00:17:53 and more profoundly by virtue of discovery and invention,

00:17:57 and thereby by discrete steps

00:18:00 than by systematic incremental improvements.

00:18:04 If our students are going to advance the practice of our profession

00:18:09 and not just be participants,

00:18:12 they must be discoverers and innovators.

00:18:16 Genius is not required,

00:18:19 only the proper environment and mindset.

00:18:26 It is, of course, easier to impart the science and art of engineering

00:18:32 to our students than it is to teach them to innovate.

00:18:35 Discovery and innovation are not programmable

00:18:40 and are therefore difficult to formalize,

00:18:43 but we can stimulate innovative thinking by creating an atmosphere

00:18:48 in the classroom, conference room, or laboratory

00:18:51 in which creativity is encouraged, welcomed, and rewarded.

00:18:57 The relationship to the Center for the Chemical Heritage Foundation

00:19:06 is that I primarily use the history of the great innovators

00:19:11 of our time and the past as examples for the students.

00:19:16 If I told them,

00:19:18 you should go out and imitate Newton or Fleming or something,

00:19:23 they would either be intimidated or laugh.

00:19:26 But if I tell them, not in a formal way,

00:19:30 but in the context of their work,

00:19:33 and go to stories about the difficulties that these people faced

00:19:37 and how they went about it,

00:19:39 they somehow pick up the idea that maybe they can do this too.

00:19:44 The other secret thing is to get students in a group to think innovatively

00:19:49 because they, one, will be competitive,

00:19:51 and two, they will recognize other students can do this,

00:19:55 perhaps I can too.

00:19:59 The examples that come from the great inventors that are very useful

00:20:06 are that, one, most discoveries and new ideas are agreed with skepticism,

00:20:12 misunderstanding, lack of appreciation, or outright rejection.

00:20:17 The writings of the great innovators reveal

00:20:20 that they all had sufficient self-confidence

00:20:24 to persist in the face of such reactions.

00:20:27 And so I tell the students,

00:20:29 you mustn't worry if we knock down what you propose,

00:20:32 that's the way that it's happened to all the other people.

00:20:36 Even the greatest geniuses have proven to be fallible.

00:20:40 For example, Newton,

00:20:43 using the wrong postulate that the velocity of sound was isothermal,

00:20:51 got the wrong answer by a factor of 20%.

00:20:55 He didn't set a very good example at that stage

00:20:58 because he fudged the data to make it look good.

00:21:05 But the most effective thing that I have found,

00:21:08 other than things I've mentioned,

00:21:10 is that the combination of experimental and theoretical work is synergetic.

00:21:16 That is, if students do both,

00:21:18 they invariably become more innovative.

00:21:20 They may observe something that they can't explain,

00:21:23 they use the theory to explain it.

00:21:25 Nowadays, sometimes you can even use your computer,

00:21:28 if you have a good enough model,

00:21:30 to predict something that has never been observed,

00:21:33 but then you must go out and observe it

00:21:35 to be sure that it really occurs.

00:21:38 Students resist doing both of these things

00:21:41 because they don't have confidence in one or the other,

00:21:44 but when they get done,

00:21:45 they have benefited from doing both

00:21:47 and usually feel most proud

00:21:49 about detecting the one

00:21:51 that they had not any experience before.

00:21:57 The exploratory research

00:22:00 is the real key to students doing innovative research.

00:22:05 By that I mean working on open-ended problems

00:22:08 and being willing to abandon the original objective

00:22:12 if they observe something that looks more worthwhile.

00:22:15 At home, that's a privilege they won't have

00:22:18 most of the rest of their life

00:22:19 where time and money may make them stick

00:22:22 to what they set out to do,

00:22:24 but in a rather shallow academic environment,

00:22:27 they should take advantage

00:22:29 to explore anything new that they see.

00:22:33 My experience is that these things do work.

00:22:37 When I look back,

00:22:38 maybe 80% of my students did something identifiably innovative.

00:22:44 That may seem they should be expected,

00:22:47 but we don't expect doctoral students to be innovative.

00:22:50 You can make a fundamental contribution to knowledge

00:22:54 without doing anything innovative,

00:22:56 so innovation is something else.

00:22:58 One of the interesting things that happens in our seminars

00:23:01 is that invariably somebody says,

00:23:03 your students have more fun than the rest of us

00:23:06 because innovation is really something very joyful to do.

00:23:12 It is difficult to teach,

00:23:14 but nevertheless it is worthwhile

00:23:17 to encourage students to do this.

00:23:20 The psychological gains from innovative work

00:23:22 may be as important

00:23:24 as the technical and intellectual contributions.

00:23:27 Despite the favorable image of innovation in our society,

00:23:32 it is invariably resisted

00:23:34 not only by those contributors that are displaced,

00:23:41 but also by the common public

00:23:44 who has to reorganize all their thinking

00:23:47 and accept new ideas.

00:23:49 Thank you.

00:23:51 Applause

00:24:04 Seven people here,

00:24:06 and I think you're going to hear

00:24:07 seven different interpretations of what I'm saying.

00:24:10 Laughter

00:24:12 I'd like to start my talk with a trick question,

00:24:15 and it's something you've got to do quickly.

00:24:17 I'd like for you to look around the room

00:24:19 and identify three things that are not made of chemicals.

00:24:22 Don't tell anybody else.

00:24:24 Laughter

00:24:26 I think this is really part of the problem

00:24:30 that we face in the world today.

00:24:32 In things that we did well in the past 50 years,

00:24:37 there were enormous increases in analytical capability.

00:24:42 Now, the fallout that this has is that,

00:24:45 well, not only can you do things you couldn't do before,

00:24:48 but particularly you don't need as much material.

00:24:52 If you don't need as much material,

00:24:54 then the cycle time is faster.

00:24:57 All of my remarks are from the standpoint

00:25:00 of an organic chemist who's doing homogeneous catalysis.

00:25:04 So as you hear from other people,

00:25:07 keep in mind that that's what I'm looking at.

00:25:12 We were able to get much greater understanding

00:25:17 of the mechanisms of the homogeneous catalyst,

00:25:21 which resulted in higher efficiencies.

00:25:24 So we got more of what we want,

00:25:27 which also means you get less of what you don't want.

00:25:31 You get more product you can sell, less waste to dispose of.

00:25:36 Things that weren't done well in the past 50 years,

00:25:44 I think the failure to educate the public in the media

00:25:48 about chemicals was a major omission.

00:25:52 I mean, a really big deal.

00:25:54 One consequence of this oversight is seen in writings and reports.

00:25:59 The word toxic commonly precedes the word chemicals in the media.

00:26:05 Certainly there's no political correctness

00:26:08 when it comes to chemicals.

00:26:11 Really, chemicals have been stereotyped as toxic,

00:26:16 and yet few people realize that the laboratory chemical

00:26:20 that causes the most deaths each year is water.

00:26:24 Yet the risk-benefit relationship for water is accepted.

00:26:29 By today's standards,

00:26:33 this is looking into the next 50 years from today,

00:26:37 the relationship between risk and benefit seems to be

00:26:41 that you must only have benefit and no risk.

00:26:45 Let's try a mental experiment.

00:26:49 Imagine glass doesn't exist,

00:26:52 and that only plastic is available for windows, containers, and other uses.

00:26:59 Now imagine a company discovered glass,

00:27:03 and they're considering marketing it.

00:27:06 The public would have to be educated to the fact that when it breaks,

00:27:11 it gives shards that cause nasty cuts.

00:27:16 Could you just imagine the lawsuits that would arise?

00:27:22 You might even see a caution attached on each window pane.

00:27:27 You know, this coffee may be hot.

00:27:31 It's really hard for me to conceive that in today's climate,

00:27:35 glass would have any chance of succeeding in the market.

00:27:39 However, we've grown up with glass,

00:27:42 and we accept the risk in order to receive the benefit.

00:27:47 Someone needs to unravel this puzzle

00:27:50 and figure out how we can get a better acceptance

00:27:56 of the risk and the risk-benefit equation.

00:28:02 Another question that's often asked about chemicals and other things today is,

00:28:07 is it safe?

00:28:09 That's also a line in Marathon Man, if you remember.

00:28:14 Is it safe as if safety were an absolute state?

00:28:20 A response to this question is, yes, if handled properly.

00:28:25 If any of you are involved in patents,

00:28:29 you know that what that answer is is a functional definition

00:28:34 because if it's handled properly, obviously it's safe.

00:28:39 Nitroglycerin is safe if handled properly.

00:28:43 However, it seems at times the question is,

00:28:46 is this material safe whether handled either properly or improperly?

00:28:53 Changing to a different area,

00:28:56 another major concern for me,

00:29:00 and again, organic chemist working in industry,

00:29:06 now retired,

00:29:08 I attended a conference in which a number of internationally known professors

00:29:14 presented their work.

00:29:16 And what I observed was that very much of their presentation

00:29:22 was based on crystal structure and extensive NMR data.

00:29:28 I didn't recall a single paper where there was any grave information,

00:29:33 any uncertainty.

00:29:36 A professor I spoke with about this said the reason was

00:29:40 that the current standards for public question required definitive proof.

00:29:46 If definitive proof cannot be obtained,

00:29:49 then it's best to work in areas where this type of information can be had.

00:29:54 That is, if you can't get a clean result, undertake a different research problem.

00:29:59 Now, working in industry, we don't have the luxury of abandoning a problem

00:30:04 simply because the results of the experiment are not clean or not definitive.

00:30:10 When NMRs and crystal structures are not available to us,

00:30:16 many of our newer employees are at a complete loss, in that word and term.

00:30:22 They're not equipped to deal with information

00:30:25 that carries a considerable level of uncertainty.

00:30:30 In summation, if the trend line developed during the past 50 years

00:30:35 continues into the next 50 years,

00:30:38 it's difficult to imagine what type of working environment we're going to have.

00:30:43 Thank you.

00:30:45 Thank you.

00:30:59 Well, this is going to be different.

00:31:02 Even more different than you think.

00:31:04 I interpreted the reason for this meeting to try and stimulate a little discussion

00:31:10 and maybe some controversy.

00:31:12 So I thought all of my colleagues would probably be very positive

00:31:16 and promote the chemical industry,

00:31:18 so I'm going to focus on what I think some of the lost successes

00:31:22 and opportunities were over the last 50 years.

00:31:25 Some of these have already been brought up.

00:31:28 The first one for me is the loss of the positive public image

00:31:32 of the chemical industry, chemistry, chemicals, and chemists

00:31:35 over the last couple of decades.

00:31:38 Number two, failure in educating the public

00:31:42 of the great contributions of the chemical industry

00:31:45 and how they positively affected their lives.

00:31:49 Poor science education of non-major students in colleges and universities.

00:31:55 Declined enrollments in chemistry among the best and the brightest

00:31:59 were not attracting them to the great excitement of chemistry.

00:32:03 Failure to broadly educate the public in science and technology

00:32:07 so that scientific and technological governmental issues

00:32:11 can be addressed intelligently from a very good knowledge base.

00:32:16 Failure to achieve diversity in the chemical industry among women and minorities,

00:32:22 especially in leadership positions.

00:32:26 A couple of the challenges and opportunities I see in the next 50 years,

00:32:30 I'll just touch on a couple.

00:32:32 We're now in a revolution in information technology and biosciences,

00:32:37 biomedical sciences.

00:32:39 What is going to happen to the chemical industry as we know it now

00:32:43 in the next 50 years?

00:32:46 And as Dave just pointed out, what will the workplace environment be?

00:32:51 Sitting in front of a computer all day, either at work or at home?

00:32:57 And how is this going to affect the sociology and psychology of the human psyche?

00:33:03 Where will the innovators come from if we have such a poor public image in chemistry?

00:33:09 How are we going to attract them to do and be the innovators?

00:33:14 How is the chemical industry going to achieve diversity?

00:33:18 If you look at the population over the next number of years,

00:33:21 it's not going to be like the people in this room.

00:33:24 And what is chemical industry going to do,

00:33:27 and what methodology to really attract that diversity?

00:33:32 What role can chemical industry play in educating the broad public

00:33:36 on issues relevant to science and technology?

00:33:40 Scientists and people conversant with science are a small minority in administration,

00:33:45 government, business, and especially among the voters.

00:33:49 Will our litigious society further inhibit technological progress and innovation?

00:33:54 For example, the environmental activists and the great stir now about genetically modified foods.

00:34:00 That's about all I have to say. I hope it generates a little bit of discussion.

00:34:04 Thank you.

00:34:11 We're over the half way, Mark, so start getting your questions.

00:34:20 That's it.

00:34:23 I knew about the five minutes, but the session was over.

00:34:28 Two things to think about, two great philosophers.

00:34:33 The past is prologue, and the future ain't what it used to be.

00:34:40 The latter being Jordan Barrow.

00:34:43 I'd like to focus on two things briefly.

00:34:46 The people aspect of the business, and I'd like to touch on your response to the chair.

00:34:52 I did sabbatical through this industry for about 40 years,

00:34:56 and worked in another arena, and I won't go into those details.

00:34:59 There were very lovely people there.

00:35:01 But the thing that I missed, and it took me about six months to figure it out,

00:35:06 was the fundamental people I was dealing with,

00:35:09 and that was both in the industrial area and the research area and the manufacturing area.

00:35:15 This industry has been successful because prior to the war, and more importantly after the war,

00:35:24 it tended to attract the best and the brightest.

00:35:29 The government at some point thought they did, but they've brought that to a certain level, right?

00:35:34 But the best and the brightest were in this industry,

00:35:37 and the best and the brightest taught skill levels that were unique and innovations that were unique.

00:35:43 So one of the questions I worry about for the future,

00:35:47 as our societies become more complex, as technologies become much broader,

00:35:54 will we be able to attract, educate, and bring forth the people that can do the innovative work

00:36:02 that many of the people in this room have done?

00:36:05 So that's a concern.

00:36:07 I remember about 10 or 15 years ago, there was a great concern, for example,

00:36:12 about the number of doctoral students going into volunteer chemistry and into chemical engineering.

00:36:19 And the concern was, would we really have the forces and the kinds of people to enable us to move forward?

00:36:27 And we seem to have, but that's the one question I worry about on the people.

00:36:32 There's a corollary to the people side, too.

00:36:35 A very unique industry.

00:36:37 Unique in the sense that when you think about corporate America,

00:36:42 we sell to each other, we buy from each other, and we compete vigorously with each other.

00:36:48 Very unique.

00:36:49 There are very, very few other industries in America where your biggest competitor may well be your best customer.

00:36:56 It has brought a statesmanship to this industry that you don't find in many other places.

00:37:04 It has also, on occasion, brought us some antitrust suits, which we've never even heard of.

00:37:09 But it really has brought a level of statesmanship and sophistication to the management of these companies

00:37:16 that's very, very different.

00:37:18 Let me touch just for a minute on responsive care.

00:37:21 I guess about everybody in this room is familiar with it.

00:37:23 It certainly wasn't invented here.

00:37:25 It was started in Canada.

00:37:27 And I think it was started, I think I could honestly say, as a defensive move,

00:37:32 as the chemical industry came under greater and greater pressure.

00:37:36 As the Canadian industry began to embark on the responsive care program,

00:37:42 fortunately, many of our American colleagues had operations in Canada as we did.

00:37:47 But the point is that responsive care, in my mind, was successful.

00:37:53 It imported from Canada, developed, and then exported from here to Japan and Europe.

00:37:59 I remember going both to see the Japanese Chemical Association and various European associations

00:38:05 to get the whole world focused on the fact that if this industry did not embrace a responsive care philosophy,

00:38:14 it would someday look like the Atomic Energy Commission and be regulated to an extent that it was stymied innovation.

00:38:22 Fortunately, I think, for our industry at the time it occurred,

00:38:27 total quality management was starting to sweep through American industry.

00:38:33 And certainly the chemical industry was as much in the forefront of that as anyone else was.

00:38:40 As I look back at my experience as a CEO at Olin, we could not have implemented responsive care

00:38:48 had we not been embarked on a total quality journey.

00:38:52 Because it is a quality to send people home at night, you know,

00:39:00 perhaps a little more tired, but no more.

00:39:04 And how we transfer it was what struck me.

00:39:08 I'll talk about 50 years later when somebody asks, and I'll then reflect back on Yogi Berra,

00:39:14 and I think in the spirit of things I'll say ciao.

00:39:17 Thank you.

00:39:34 I'm delighted to be here for this very happy occasion,

00:39:38 marking the grand opening of the Chemical Heritage Foundation.

00:39:42 Today, my comments are going to be focused on innovations involving heterogeneous catalysis.

00:39:48 This is the area that I worked in my whole time in industry.

00:39:53 About a century ago, early innovations in this area were responsible for the large-scale commercial manufacture

00:40:01 of some chemicals of very basic importance, sulfuric acid, ammonia, and nitric acid.

00:40:10 These innovations played a vital role in establishing the chemical industry.

00:40:15 We owe pioneers like Nietzsche, Oswald, Hopper, Bosch, and Mitkosch a very great deal.

00:40:26 In the 1930s, heterogeneous catalysis found very important applications in the petroleum industry.

00:40:33 This was the industry in which I worked.

00:40:36 The applications were in catalytic cracking and in a process originally known as hydroform.

00:40:42 The catalytic cracking process greatly increased the amount of gasoline that could be obtained from crude oil.

00:40:49 Moreover, it produced gasoline of better quality than could be obtained by a thermal cracking process.

00:40:58 The initial innovation by Houdry was the introduction of solid acid catalysts, actually clays.

00:41:05 to promote the cracking reactions.

00:41:08 At a later date, the clays were replaced by synthetic aluminum silicates.

00:41:14 A second important innovation was the introduction of fluidized bed reactors by Murphree and others in the early 1940s.

00:41:23 This improved the efficiency of the process enormously.

00:41:28 Still another major innovation occurred in the 1960s when Mobil Oil introduced zeolite catalysts

00:41:34 developed by Planck and Rosensky into their cracking units.

00:41:38 These new catalysts improved the yields and quality of the gasoline from cracking operations substantially.

00:41:47 The hydroforming process provided a way to obtain high-octane number aromatic hydrocarbons

00:41:53 from the alkanes and cycloalkanes in petroleum natural feedstocks.

00:41:58 The important innovations originally were a molybdenum catalyst and a hydrogen-rich recycle stream

00:42:05 to inhibit formation of carbon on the surface of the catalyst and thereby permit the catalyst to retain its activity.

00:42:14 After World War II, the hydroforming process gradually became known as catalytic reform.

00:42:20 By this time, the process was attracting much attention

00:42:23 for the production of high-octane number components for automobile gasoline.

00:42:28 The introduction of platinum catalysts by the Universal Oil Products Company in 1949

00:42:34 was a further innovation in the process.

00:42:37 Platinum catalysts improved gasoline yields and were used in new reforming units throughout the world

00:42:43 by the 1950s and 1960s.

00:42:46 Around the year 1970, there was another major innovation in reforming

00:42:51 associated with the introduction of bimetallic catalysts.

00:42:54 At that time, much concern had developed about the environmental effects of lead in gasoline.

00:43:01 The innovation was therefore a very timely one.

00:43:05 The new bimetallic catalysts and a subsequent ultra-low-pressure version of reforming

00:43:11 greatly improved the economic feasibility of lead-free gasoline.

00:43:15 An important contribution toward the preservation of our environment was thereby achieved.

00:43:22 The availability of lead-free gasoline was crucial for another environmental achievement

00:43:27 of heterogeneous catalysis, the use of catalytic converters in automobile exhaust systems.

00:43:33 My next speaker was very much involved in that.

00:43:36 As a result, the automobile catalytic converter has been a remarkably successful innovation

00:43:41 for minimizing the emission of pollutants and exhaust gases.

00:43:45 The examples of innovations that I've mentioned here are only a few of many associated with heterogeneous catalysis.

00:43:52 However, they are very important examples.

00:43:56 In the future, we can expect many other innovations involving heterogeneous catalysis.

00:44:01 They could emerge in fuel cells or in processes for the conversion of natural gas to liquid products.

00:44:09 They could also emerge in processes for the high-temperature partial oxidation of hydrocarbons.

00:44:15 They might appear in new catalysts for the removal of nitrogen oxide pollutants

00:44:19 and in improved processes for the cleanup of chemical pollutants in general.

00:44:25 In common with many other fields of importance in industry,

00:44:28 heterogeneous catalysis is one in which technology has generally been ahead of the science.

00:44:34 However, efforts to understand the scientific issues underlying a catalytic process

00:44:40 have frequently led to significant improvements in the process.

00:44:44 Sometimes, basic science efforts have led to major innovations in an existing process,

00:44:50 as in the case of bimetallic performing catalysts and zeolite cracking catalysts.

00:44:55 My experience in industry has convinced me of the value of fundamental science

00:45:00 in support of the technology of interest to a company.

00:45:03 I believe that a healthy respect for basic science will greatly enhance the ability of the chemical industry

00:45:10 to continue the impressive record of innovation that has already been compiled.

00:45:14 Thank you very much.

00:45:15 Thank you.

00:45:32 It's my pleasure to make a few comments on innovation.

00:45:37 I have my own interpretation as well.

00:45:40 What I decided to do is to look at what can we learn from the high-tech industries of innovation.

00:45:48 Progress in innovation has been exponential.

00:45:52 So by definition, most progress occurred in the recent past.

00:45:57 The high-tech community has generated massive technological innovation,

00:46:02 which resulted in unprecedented wealth.

00:46:05 So how did they do it? What can we learn from them?

00:46:08 That's what I set out to address today.

00:46:11 And you know, I thought quickly about some of the real fair quote here.

00:46:15 He says that you can observe a lot by watching, he said.

00:46:21 So I say, as we are watching innovation in the high-tech industry, what have we observed?

00:46:27 And indeed, they have developed some major insights, which I would like to enumerate for you.

00:46:33 One of them is they discovered that R&D is an investment, not an expense.

00:46:40 The investment view of R&D has many downstream applications

00:46:44 on how to simulate, evaluate, manage, and commercialize innovation.

00:46:51 Secondly, they discovered that R&D is probabilistic, not a deterministic exercise.

00:46:58 Implications include risk-reward-balance portfolios and projects,

00:47:03 probability-adjusted expectations, and management for return, not for postponement.

00:47:10 The third insight they have is to replace calendar time with the half-life of technology.

00:47:17 Deal with three half-lifes worth of technology.

00:47:21 Current one, strong replacement, and the horizon.

00:47:25 And as you know, high-tech has a very short half-life.

00:47:28 It's totally inverted, it's thinking.

00:47:30 People thought that the higher the technology, the fancier the research, the longer it should take.

00:47:36 It's the other way around in the high-tech industry.

00:47:40 Fourthly, the investment value of research, they discovered, decays exponentially with time taken for it.

00:47:48 There is a critical speed, similar to the speed of an airplane,

00:47:52 above which a project needs to move to succeed commercially.

00:47:58 Because of that, they have invented the massive processing of statistically designed experiments,

00:48:06 it's called combinatorial chemistry,

00:48:08 which increase the output of research not by 10% or 20% or 50%, but occasionally by 10 to the 4.

00:48:18 For that, massive automation of experimentation was needed.

00:48:24 The example is the human genome project,

00:48:26 which originally was forecast in the mid-80s to take more than 100 years,

00:48:31 and therefore it was labeled unfeasible.

00:48:34 If it had started today, as I read in the newspaper the other day, it could be done in a few months.

00:48:40 Number seven, ambitious staffing, discovery of cultural diversity, the notion of commerce UI,

00:48:49 the notion of let's adopt to brilliant people rather than let's ask the brilliant people to adopt to companies.

00:49:02 And number eight, epitaxy in business research interface,

00:49:07 that you basically eliminate the boundary between the two of them by making the interface one and the same.

00:49:16 And the last one I came up with is, use both technology push and market pull at the same time.

00:49:22 The high-tech people have discovered they are inseparable, so I'm sure there are more.

00:49:28 Can these ideas be applied to large companies, chemical irony?

00:49:33 Yes, indeed they can, and many of them are now becoming best practices in our industry.

00:49:40 Since innovation grows by an exponential roll, the near future will be even more promising than the near past,

00:49:48 which is a heavy circumstance upon it.

00:49:51 Thank you.

00:49:52 Applause

00:49:59 All right, I'll recapture the podium to direct traffic.

00:50:03 How about some questions or comments from the floor?

00:50:07 Silence is not an option.

00:50:12 Yes, sir.

00:50:15 Wait, can you wait for the mic, please?

00:50:18 Thank you.

00:50:22 I'm interested in our take on what we're doing to combat terrorism,

00:50:28 from people who have amassed, much to my surprise,

00:50:32 a considerable amount of capability in Israel.

00:50:38 Yeah, that's a subject we haven't touched on.

00:50:41 Do we have a brave soul on the panel who wants to address that point?

00:50:46 Silence

00:50:49 Laughter

00:50:52 Do we have a terrorist here?

00:50:53 No, excuse me.

00:50:54 Laughter

00:50:59 Yeah, let's have him repeat the question, please.

00:51:02 Bring him back to the mic.

00:51:03 Right back where you were.

00:51:04 Silence

00:51:07 He just wants to make sure he got the question right.

00:51:09 Is that right?

00:51:10 Right next to me, just one question again?

00:51:11 Are you ready?

00:51:12 Sir?

00:51:13 Are you ready to reply?

00:51:15 I can hear the question again.

00:51:16 Okay, real quick.

00:51:18 What are we doing to provide prevention against the amassment of terrorist stockpiles

00:51:26 in our somewhat unfriendly locations?

00:51:30 Silence

00:51:33 Right back.

00:51:34 Silence

00:51:35 Laughter

00:51:39 I don't know that I'm an expert in that area.

00:51:41 I would prefer to defer to my colleague.

00:51:43 Go ahead.

00:51:45 I don't know whether I'm right or not.

00:51:46 There have been some steps taken.

00:51:48 For example, there was great concern several years ago about nerve gas

00:51:54 and nuclear dental flushings.

00:51:56 And the, let's call it, we want civilized, not remote world,

00:52:01 put in some fairly sophisticated checks and balances

00:52:06 on who manufactures those products and how they're controlled

00:52:10 and how they leave our borders.

00:52:12 And there have been prosecutions in the last five years of violations of those rules.

00:52:18 Now, that happens to be one small segment.

00:52:21 I think when you get into the so-called arms business, it gets much more complicated.

00:52:26 The other area in arms, which ironically the Army is opposed to,

00:52:32 is the use of tangents, particularly in munitions,

00:52:36 so that when they are found in their usual place, they can be traced back to the system.

00:52:41 So I think some steps are being taken.

00:52:44 But I think your question tends to be more of a governmental issue rather than an industry issue.

00:52:50 But I do think that the industry has been aware and has taken steps,

00:52:55 certainly to make sure when they point boundaries to their clients,

00:52:58 that they are controlling what they're doing.

00:53:02 And then cooperating when issues do occur,

00:53:05 such as the issue of automatic faucets and faucet-sized flooring,

00:53:12 for products like that that are precursors to munitions for NASA.

00:53:17 I would just add, and I don't mean to imply we're a long way down the road to success with regard to this issue,

00:53:24 but as the industry becomes more global and starts to coordinate more on a global basis,

00:53:30 we're seeing just tremendous change in the amount of cooperation, interaction,

00:53:35 and cooperation between industry and governments.

00:53:38 And I think ultimately that will begin to address some of these issues.

00:53:44 Yes, sir. Can you wait for the mic, please?

00:53:47 Right, this crowd's alive.

00:53:53 Well, I'd like to congratulate you on assembling such a superb panel

00:53:57 They're not only creative and innovative, they're articulate.

00:54:00 They certainly are.

00:54:01 Now, they pose the problem here that our general population doesn't understand chemistry and science.

00:54:10 I just wondered if any of them were currently teaching at a college level.

00:54:14 I think there would be some very fine instructors here giving chemistry to non-science, non-engineering majors.

00:54:22 All right, thank you.

00:54:23 Stuart, you're not allowed to answer this question, since that's where you live.

00:54:27 Anybody else want to comment on that?

00:54:29 Yeah, John.

00:54:30 I'll comment.

00:54:31 I'm not teaching, but I happen to be chairman of the board of my little college at State of New York,

00:54:36 that I went to when I couldn't be here.

00:54:41 That has forced, I use the word, it was in the 60s, sociology and science,

00:54:48 has put it back in the curriculum, majoring in photo science.

00:54:52 As a way, you know, if we're going to graduate college students at the baccalaureate level,

00:54:58 they have to have some understanding of science.

00:55:01 At least they have to understand what it's saying in the process.

00:55:05 I think that if you look at a lot of college curriculum,

00:55:08 you are finding that more and more of them are requiring the non-science majors,

00:55:13 at least one or two years, of something.

00:55:17 Geology, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, and environmental.

00:55:21 And ironically, that so-called curriculum forcing device has opened the eyes of some students

00:55:29 who take those courses in their first year and change their voices

00:55:33 and then decide to major in physical science or a lot of things.

00:55:39 Good. Other comments?

00:55:41 Let me pick up on that point, but in a little different way.

00:55:45 I think when we graduated from high school and then college,

00:55:50 a career in chemistry was clearly considered to be one of the preferred technology professions to join.

00:55:57 Today, there is intense competition from a variety of technologies,

00:56:07 electronics, biotechnology, environmental sciences, physics.

00:56:12 And so the chemical industry has to compete very, very diligently

00:56:19 to recruit the brightest and the best to our industry.

00:56:24 And we need to do that if we're going to sustain our high rate of growth of creativity.

00:56:33 And so there is a necessity on the part of the chemical industry

00:56:40 to get involved in encouraging high school students to take one or two courses in chemistry,

00:56:50 to encourage teachers who have the capability and interest in teaching science to teach science,

00:56:59 and to encourage our high schools to modernize their chemical laboratories

00:57:05 in order to give students a sense of what the creativity is all about.

00:57:10 And so we're in competition for the brightest and the best.

00:57:15 And we must win that competition if our industry is intended to grow and create and develop new products

00:57:23 and thereby create wealth for our nation.

00:57:27 Yes, Jim.

00:57:30 I'd like to raise another point here.

00:57:33 I think we in industry could help this along in another way.

00:57:37 One of the things that strikes me when younger people come to work in an industrial organization,

00:57:43 a lot of them don't hear the word science enough.

00:57:46 I mean, there's a lot of talk about the business.

00:57:49 That's important.

00:57:50 There's no question about that.

00:57:52 But we've got to emphasize that science is important for science itself.

00:57:56 And I think that message has to get out, too.

00:58:00 I think, for example, when we have presentations maybe by management of the company,

00:58:09 say, reviewing the year's activities,

00:58:12 I think it's not enough just to emphasize how much the business has succeeded.

00:58:17 That's very important.

00:58:19 But it's also very important to say, gee, we really like the science you people did.

00:58:24 We like that.

00:58:27 Lewis.

00:58:28 Yeah, we invite about 25 high school chemistry teachers to spend a week with us every summer.

00:58:38 They work in labs.

00:58:40 We set up experiments for them.

00:58:43 Our people work with them and try to come up with experiments of a nature that we can carry home back to their high school

00:58:50 and show to the students.

00:58:52 It works very well.

00:58:53 We have maybe five years' experience with this.

00:58:57 Very good.

00:58:58 Excellent.

00:58:59 I'll just tag one more comment on that.

00:59:01 We at Air Products are teaching the science component at an elementary school in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

00:59:08 And there is no elementary school teacher that I know of that had a great passion for science.

00:59:15 It was the sort of thing they touched the least, forgot the most, and wanted to stay away from it.

00:59:20 We have a wonderful relationship.

00:59:22 And after teaching these kids, first grade, second grade, third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade,

00:59:28 I was astounded recently to hear how much they have retained and how excited they are about science.

00:59:35 So we're trying to poison these little minds early to really get them enthused.

00:59:40 And it's amazing how you can begin to have an influence.

00:59:43 We have a question in the back, please.

00:59:45 Well, you addressed exactly what I was going to talk about.

00:59:49 Oh, I'm sorry.

00:59:50 And that is I don't think high school or college is early enough.

00:59:54 We have two problems from what you were talking about.

00:59:57 One is the way in which chemistry is viewed across the entire society.

01:00:03 I think that's because science isn't a comfortable part of anyone's new year, and it has to be in a technological age.

01:00:10 So I think that is definitely from two standpoints.

01:00:15 One, the general citizen has to be comfortable with science, but also if you start early enough,

01:00:21 then you produce a citizenry that understands science, but you also get them young.

01:00:27 And teach the basic benefits of it.

01:00:30 We have a question here.

01:00:31 Could you wait for the mic, please?

01:00:32 Sure.

01:00:35 I spent most of my career trying to explain the mysteries of fluid mixing to engineers.

01:00:41 But in later years, I looked at the curriculum of many courses that deal with older adults.

01:00:47 They're becoming a very important voting block in our society.

01:00:51 And so I developed a course that I call Science Made Simple.

01:00:55 And when I went to several of the people who were running these courses in various cities,

01:01:03 their first reaction was, well, can we sell a course like that to our prospective students?

01:01:08 So we tried a trial, and it's worked out great.

01:01:12 I'm teaching in person in Rochester, New York for two semesters, and one in down in Florida where I spend the winter.

01:01:18 And what I found you had to do was to think of what they really had to know.

01:01:24 They don't need to know the things about electrons and protons and things like that.

01:01:29 They didn't know really what chemistry does to their cars, to their homes, to their water supplies, and so forth.

01:01:35 And I think there's a tremendous – I didn't find in any city I looked at a course on chemistry.

01:01:41 The course is on yoga and dancing and literature and all sorts of things, calligraphy.

01:01:50 But I haven't yet found all night looking around different cities a course on science.

01:01:57 And one group that's nationwide is called Oasis.

01:02:00 You may have heard of that.

01:02:01 They're subsidized by the main company in St. Louis.

01:02:05 And they have, actually, a course in 25 cities that is largely subsidized.

01:02:12 And they're the ones that run Lorne Taylor and Kauffman and people like that.

01:02:18 But they've put themselves behind it.

01:02:20 In Rochester, we have the support of the Council on Aging.

01:02:23 We have several HMOs that are involved.

01:02:26 They want for people to know more about health and science.

01:02:29 So I think there's a tremendous opportunity for those of us who enjoy it.

01:02:33 Now, I enjoy teaching adults.

01:02:35 It's just fun for me to watch them suddenly realize the things they thought were very complicated are really very simple in their respects.

01:02:43 Anybody want to comment about that?

01:02:45 Yes, John.

01:02:46 I have one.

01:02:47 In response to this comment, there was a program on TV about 30 or 40 years ago called Continental Classroom.

01:02:55 And it was directed toward adults.

01:02:58 The very kind of thing you're talking about.

01:03:00 The only problem, I guess, was it was 6 a.m. in the morning.

01:03:03 I'm tall.

01:03:16 You can see me.

01:03:17 The panelist talked about or posed the question, what can the industry learn from the high-tech people?

01:03:27 And so my question to you is, some of the things that he mentioned, are they valuable to do?

01:03:35 And to what extent are the companies you're familiar with, are they being done?

01:03:41 Lewis, why don't you go ahead and start on that?

01:03:45 It's not exactly one-to-one.

01:03:56 They are different industries.

01:03:58 They are very capital-intensive.

01:04:00 Many of the management metals you have to use are more like steering tectonic plates rather than fighter aircraft.

01:04:09 But nevertheless, I think you can learn a great deal.

01:04:12 And those which I think are applicable, I listed for you.

01:04:15 And, for example, the whole idea is, out of research, you can make immense amounts of money.

01:04:24 And then you can look at it and see how they do it.

01:04:31 And, in fact, it can be perfectly well figured out.

01:04:34 Any other questions?

01:04:40 Anybody else like to comment on that question?

01:04:47 What we've learned from the high-tech industries and how we can benefit from it.

01:04:57 Okay, we'll move on.

01:04:58 We have a question over here.

01:05:03 It's actually related to the last topic.

01:05:05 I'm from the Chemical Educational Foundation.

01:05:08 And we have a slightly different focus than the Chemical Heritage Foundation.

01:05:11 We focus on chemical safety and all stages of the life cycle of the chemical,

01:05:16 as well as increasing chemical awareness and its benefits to everybody's everyday life.

01:05:21 And what's particularly interesting is that we also have found in our studies with educators

01:05:27 that you want to start at the elementary level.

01:05:30 We've produced a program called You Be the Chemist that's in elementary school levels

01:05:35 that teaches children about chemicals and chemical safety.

01:05:38 And what's particularly interesting is the feedback we've received from educators

01:05:42 saying that teachers at that level are not chemists and they were afraid to teach it.

01:05:47 But if you just give them the materials and you can show them how easy it is,

01:05:50 they're ecstatic about it.

01:05:52 And then you hear from the high school teachers that they can't believe when they get kids

01:05:56 that have come up into their class and already know the word chemistry

01:06:00 and the benefits of chemicals.

01:06:02 And I just want to say that many of the people sitting up there are sponsors of that program,

01:06:07 and we certainly thank you and we appreciate you.

01:06:10 Okay.

01:06:11 I would also add if you not only gave the teachers the materials,

01:06:15 find a willing engineer or scientist to go and demonstrate a few very simple

01:06:21 little ah-hahs that bring chemistry to our everyday life,

01:06:27 these kids will remember it forever.

01:06:30 It's just exciting.

01:06:31 Yes, in the far back.

01:06:33 I just want to piggyback on something that John Johnstone said several minutes ago.

01:06:38 The need to put science back in general curriculum.

01:06:43 The other side of that coin is the need to put English, plain English,

01:06:49 in the curriculum, the science curriculum.

01:06:51 And I was once on a panel, this was years ago, dealing with the innovation process.

01:06:57 The title of my remarks was Plain English, the Most Significant Problem in Innovation.

01:07:02 So I think this gets at some of the things that we've all been talking about.

01:07:06 Stuart Churchill might want to comment on that.

01:07:10 Do you have any communications courses that are tied to that?

01:07:15 Well, the problem is that students in engineering and science

01:07:19 are not motivated to study other things in the same way that other people

01:07:25 are not motivated perhaps to study science and engineering.

01:07:29 I think it's much more successful to teach these things in context.

01:07:33 That is, if teachers can be bothered to correct every report

01:07:38 and to give students lots of time to make oral presentations and correct them,

01:07:44 then I think we can do something effective.

01:07:47 But if you just teach a course on rewriting your English,

01:07:52 students start out with a negative attitude about it to begin with.

01:07:56 It's much better, the motivation is much better if they're writing about what they're doing.

01:08:03 Can I comment on this?

01:08:05 If we're talking about Ph.D. chemists, the biggest deficiency I've seen over the decades

01:08:13 is the inability to write so that someone can understand it.

01:08:19 Speaking is fine, but you've got to practice giving seminars in graduate school.

01:08:24 And what we did is we've had two different courses.

01:08:29 One of them was called the murder course, and it pointed out 39 mistakes in wordings.

01:08:35 It said the problem with informative writing as opposed to recreational order.

01:08:42 One of the prototypes is that there are too many words there.

01:08:46 And they give you catchy names for some of them that helps you to recognize what you're doing.

01:08:54 One that was called a bang-bang paraphrase.

01:08:59 I'll give you an example.

01:09:01 There's a sale this weekend.

01:09:03 There's a once-in-a-lifetime sale this weekend at Joe's in East Carlisle.

01:09:10 Once you stick a name on it, you don't even have to know what the subject is.

01:09:18 You can go in and clarify reports, simplify them, cut out the wordings.

01:09:23 But I've talked to people at universities about it, and it's all been impossible.

01:09:30 They say it should have been done in high school, and they passed the buck.

01:09:35 Okay, we have a question up front here.

01:09:39 I guess the editors are out of the gate.

01:09:41 Pat taught me most of what I know.

01:09:44 What concerns me is we're talking about talking and communicating, and yet we're not doing a very good job ourselves.

01:09:51 Let me ask the panel this.

01:09:54 Differentiate for me between innovation and invention.

01:09:59 Differentiate for me the difference between science and technology.

01:10:04 I'm afraid that what we're teaching in science is not what the public wants.

01:10:10 I'm afraid when we talk about innovation, we're confusing it with invention.

01:10:13 I think this happens a lot in governmental bodies.

01:10:16 So perhaps folks can define for me what they mean when they say innovation, what they mean when they say invention or discovery,

01:10:23 what they mean when they say science, and what they mean when they say technology.

01:10:29 Any one of the panelists want to take a crack at that?

01:10:33 Science versus technology.

01:10:36 Innovation versus invention.

01:10:38 Professor?

01:10:39 I can read it to you.

01:10:41 I cut out what I was going to say if I could find it here.

01:10:49 In the preface of Poetics of Music, Stravinsky says,

01:10:56 Innovation presupposes imagination, but should not be confused with it.

01:11:01 For the act of invention implies the necessity of a lucky find, and of achieving full realization of this find.

01:11:09 What we imagine does not necessarily take on a concrete form, and may remain in a state of virtuality,

01:11:17 whereas invention is not conceivable apart from its actually being worked out.

01:11:23 Well, he said this about music, but I think it's also applicable to chemistry and engineering as well.

01:11:31 I wonder if I can do this with some of you.

01:11:38 In my mind, innovation tends to be the idea, and how the idea is developed and worked.

01:11:50 The next step, I think, then you have an invention.

01:11:53 First you have to have an idea, then you have an invention.

01:11:57 So I think innovation tends to be on the idea side, and invention carries it that next step further towards something of Poetics of Music.

01:12:06 That's a liberal arts educated definition.

01:12:14 Any other?

01:12:16 To give a bigger term, it has to be novel, non-obvious, and useful.

01:12:22 Innovation is not burdened by necessarily pioneering.

01:12:29 You can do something which is not novel, but yet innovative.

01:12:33 Not patentable, but still innovative.

01:12:37 A classic example of an innovation is Edison had the idea of a light bulb,

01:12:46 but he had to try, I think it was over 200 different wires that would illuminate without being combusted.

01:13:03 And so the process of trying and trying and trying, and learning from each failed effort,

01:13:10 what it took to make a tungsten fiber illuminate in a vacuum or in an argon atmosphere,

01:13:22 that process is taking science and applying it towards a solution of an idea, is the innovation process.

01:13:33 Do we have a question in the back?

01:13:35 Yes.

01:13:38 I am very interested in this question of early education that was brought up before.

01:13:43 For about 40 years I've been working to develop chemical and mechanical polishing in semiconductors.

01:13:50 And I have two granddaughters and they ask me what I've done, I mention it, and they turn blank.

01:13:56 Of course there are only three and a half and four and a half.

01:13:59 But in the last half year I've been taking them regularly to the Hagley Museum.

01:14:05 And there's so many fun things to do there that I think they now turn on to chemistry,

01:14:10 chemical engineering, and all these good things.

01:14:13 So I just want to stress to the panel that education starts from the womb.

01:14:19 And as such, we all ought to consider taking our grandchildren, because I see myself with gray hairs here,

01:14:25 take our grandchildren to the museums and get them interested early on, because they can relate to that.

01:14:30 They certainly can't relate to the palatability of that.

01:14:33 And concerning invention and innovation, I'm very fortunate when I teach the executive MBA program at the University of Delaware,

01:14:39 and I raise that question, invention, innovation, strategy, stratagem,

01:14:45 and I find that my students just bury me with all kinds of ideas with respect to it.

01:14:51 So it's one of these contentious things that I can't solve with even the brightest students in Delaware.

01:14:56 Thank you.

01:14:57 Okay. Anybody want to comment on that?

01:15:00 Got a question down here in front?

01:15:03 Comment? Go ahead.

01:15:08 Just to switch gears a little bit, I want to ask about business-government relations.

01:15:14 Setting aside the question of environmental regulations, which seems to get the most attention,

01:15:21 and taking this long perspective of the last half century, which I think is wonderful,

01:15:27 I wonder if you could talk about how you see the relationship between the chemical industry and the government or the state

01:15:37 in terms of either helping or hindering the industry to be more competitive globally.

01:15:46 Who would like to take a crack at that?

01:15:49 I think the global aspect.

01:15:53 I'll say I'm on the end of it, if you like.

01:16:04 The chemical industry does not produce products for itself.

01:16:10 It produces products for the general use of the public as a whole,

01:16:17 whether it's genetically produced foods, whether it's synthetic fibers,

01:16:23 whether it's replacement for metals using plastic materials.

01:16:30 And so the chemical industry really is an industry that serves the other industry's needs.

01:16:41 Lightweight automobiles, more efficient gasoline, oxygenated fuels.

01:16:49 And so our role, as I see it, is to make other industries improve their productivity and their efficiency through the use of our products.

01:17:02 Take an example that's very close to my mind.

01:17:06 The magnetic resonant imaging system, the most modern diagnostic tool that is available,

01:17:17 requires high-energy magnets that can be only cooled with liquid hydrogen or liquid helium.

01:17:30 These diagnostic tools are all over the world.

01:17:36 Our product ships liquid helium in super-insulated containers of a very, very high-technology design.

01:17:49 And we ship those to places in northern China or to Cape Town in South Africa.

01:17:57 And so the chemical industry is making medicine, diagnostic tools, work more effectively for the well-being of other people.

01:18:10 And so that's the role that I see as playing, to be an enabler of other uses and other industries to help them succeed in their task.

01:18:23 With electronics, you cannot produce a semiconductor chip unless it is produced on an atmosphere of pure nitrogen that is pure to one part per billion in purity.

01:18:40 So the industrial gas industry makes it possible for the semiconductors and microprocessors to be produced.

01:18:48 John, do you want to add to this?

01:18:58 I think if you – and maybe this is where the past might be a prologue in some sense,

01:19:04 but if you step back in time, certainly when I started in the 1950s, the role of government was quite benign in the perspective of industry.

01:19:15 There were legal laws and things of that nature, but the role of government was relatively benign.

01:19:21 The incidences of, for example, what can now, in a great fashion, galvanized Congress, as many of us know,

01:19:32 and when he was out of session in the past year or so, that created really a significant,

01:19:38 but not necessarily a block between the industry and government.

01:19:45 And I think in the period of the late 70s, early 80s, it was becoming even more and more adversarial.

01:19:57 I mean, if you were running a company and the employer kept extending more and more regulations and more and more regulators, it was very frustrating.

01:20:05 And I think, again, I would come back to the responsive care concept.

01:20:09 I think when we got into the responsive care program, we began to realize if we didn't find a way to manage government

01:20:20 or attempt to manage government, if government did manage us and regulate us to an extent, as I said earlier,

01:20:27 that would completely reduce innovation and our ability to produce the kinds of products and goods that the world needs.

01:20:35 And so I think that – and I can tell you, I was on both sides of the street.

01:20:39 I can remember just speaking about government as just something that was wrong for me.

01:20:44 But that wasn't doing very much good.

01:20:47 And I think during that period, particularly at CMA, we began to talk about the regulatory process

01:20:56 and the fact that we needed, as an industry, to take strong positions with good science

01:21:03 and not necessarily just take strong positions without any science, because we were finding in some cases that that was not.

01:21:12 There's no question in our societies as we move forward that the type of industry we are in will continue to be regulated.

01:21:23 And to the extent that we manage our affairs more effectively, at the extent that responsive care, in its very, very broad sense,

01:21:32 becomes more universal and our performance becomes better, over time, our relationship with government will change.

01:21:41 And I would hope in the future, in 50 years from now, that the government doesn't look on us as an adversary,

01:21:48 because we employ over a million people.

01:21:52 Three or four years ago, we were a major effect in the balance of trade.

01:21:59 And government sometimes loses sight of those kinds of things.

01:22:04 And a lot of us spend a lot of time in Washington trying to educate legislators and the White House as to the value we bring.

01:22:11 We're just not there to create problems.

01:22:14 I do think that the industry has taken a more enlightened role.

01:22:20 You go back in time, 50, 60 years ago, the kinds of folks that ran the companies that we know to be very successful,

01:22:27 these were pretty tough guys.

01:22:29 And they didn't put up with government very much.

01:22:32 And, you know, really, you think back.

01:22:35 I mean, and that's what created the antitrust laws, for example, because the practice is that way.

01:22:41 And I do believe as we go forward, as we recognize that we have to have a dialogue with government,

01:22:48 and they're going to be a necessary part of what we do, that there are ways for us to do things together

01:22:54 and to understand each other's positions and to be able to do many things outside the court.

01:23:00 Lucy, do you want to comment on that?

01:23:03 The question was, you know, how the part of the question was how government regulations affect the competitiveness of the industry.

01:23:12 One very interesting example is the auto sales situation,

01:23:16 that the American Automobile Commission laws that required electric gasoline and gasoline converters

01:23:24 took up to 10 years in the United States earlier than in Europe.

01:23:28 But many of these technologies, which are now used in every country practically in the whole world,

01:23:34 in fact, came from the U.S.

01:23:36 And it appears to me they give some advantage to the American industry to start at this early age

01:23:43 and have all the most advanced technology.

01:23:47 Very good point.

01:23:49 We have time for one more question in the back here.

01:23:52 Please stand.

01:23:54 I'm not a scientist, but I've been married to one for all my life, it seems.

01:24:01 And he just went out to move the car.

01:24:04 Well, we'll have to have time for Trevor if I let you finish.

01:24:08 But I remember when he was president of a national chemical organization,

01:24:13 he had to go to Washington every year to speak with an advisor to the president on scientific matters.

01:24:24 And came back disappointed in each case because the advisor tried to sell him on what the government wanted

01:24:32 rather than these brilliant scientific minds suggesting to the government what might be needed.

01:24:41 I've been concerned about that ever since.

01:24:45 And I wonder if there is a concerted, thoughtful means by which the scientific world

01:24:57 and the scientists within the United States can, instead of representing their own organization, for instance,

01:25:09 represent science as such for the good of the people.

01:25:15 I don't see just somebody lobbying from Dow or somebody lobbying from DuPont

01:25:22 for something that may be for their financial advantage to be the whole answer.

01:25:30 I'm concerned about the good of the people.

01:25:34 And when we do such strange things which make no sense for the health of people

01:25:41 and the betterment of their lives, because of government regulations,

01:25:47 I wish that we had a more effective way for the scientific community to speak to them.

01:25:54 Who would like to comment on that?

01:25:56 That's not a bad idea.

01:26:01 I only know of one engineer and one scientist that's in that conversation today.

01:26:05 I think there's a possible response in the center of the room.

01:26:08 If you would please.

01:26:11 To get back to Yogi Berra, I believe he said,

01:26:17 A thousand attaboys, a white belt, I won.

01:26:22 Oh, shut up.

01:26:25 And I think that's something that we sort of have to keep in mind.

01:26:31 You know, we've done a lot of good things.

01:26:35 But we've goofed a couple of times.

01:26:40 And our response, quite often, is not really what the public would like to hear.

01:26:46 For comments.

01:26:53 We're going to go right.

01:26:56 There is a group of about 200 scientific organizations that every April go up to the Hill.

01:27:03 And they mainly lobby for an increase.

01:27:06 Recently, they've been lobbying for an increase, doubling the R&D budget.

01:27:10 An R&D budget, not individual companies' interest, over the next ten years.

01:27:16 And there is now both a bill in the Senate and a bill in the House to try and address this.

01:27:22 One other thing, I have a mic in front of me.

01:27:25 It's about the Edith planning.

01:27:27 It's concerned about diversity.

01:27:29 The American Chemical Society has a minority affairs committee.

01:27:34 And part of that is a scholarship program.

01:27:36 The reason we have that is we realize that the minority is going to turn into a majority.

01:27:42 And if you're going to have enough good scientists, you're going to have to get some of them from diversity.

01:27:49 And recently, companies have come to us.

01:27:52 We've had two programs, $5 million for four years.

01:27:55 We've just repeated it.

01:27:56 And now companies are coming to us and saying, we want to be part of that scholarship program.

01:28:01 Because we realize that a lot of our scientists are going to come from here.

01:28:06 Okay.

01:28:07 I know we could probably carry on here for another couple of hours.

01:28:11 But I'm going to have to bring this to a close.

01:28:14 I know this has been a very stimulating session.

01:28:17 I think we've had an outstanding, very active audience as well as an outstanding panel.

01:28:23 You always learn something at these sessions.

01:28:25 I mean, I didn't realize until today that Yogi Berra was required reading in the chemical department of most universities.

01:28:33 But I gather he is very widely read in this industry.

01:28:36 And I want to go upstairs and look in the archives and see if we've got a couple of his volumes up there.

01:28:42 Because that's actually essential reading.

01:28:45 Would you please join me in not only congratulating yourselves but our fine panelists on a wonderful reception.

01:28:51 And now I'd like to ask you to join me and all of us to go upstairs to the general reception on floor three.

01:29:05 I'm getting the word.

01:29:07 Yes, third floor.

01:29:10 Third floor.

01:29:16 Thank you all.

01:29:24 I'm trying to save you these beta tapes.

01:29:54 Did you hear it?

01:30:54 Thank you.

01:31:24 Thank you.

01:31:54 Thank you.

01:32:24 Thank you.

01:32:54 Thank you.

01:33:24 Thank you.

01:33:34 Thank you.

01:33:44 Thank you.

01:33:54 Thank you.

01:34:04 Thank you.

01:34:34 Thank you.

01:34:44 Thank you.

01:34:54 Thank you.

01:35:14 Thank you.

01:35:34 Thank you.

01:35:54 Thank you.

01:36:04 Thank you.

01:36:14 Thank you.

01:36:34 Thank you.

01:36:54 Thank you.