In view of the Supreme Court's recent
decision on the Obama Health Care Law, which I consider to be detrimental to our
country's progress, I thought I would take a look at what the Constitution has
to say about the Supreme Court.
Article III of the US Constitution
establishes the Supreme Court.
Section 1 says the justices shall be paid and that
their pay will not be reduced during their "continuance in office". Notice that
it doesn't say anything about a life-term. Keep that in mind for future
reference.
Section 2 covers the kind of cases the Supreme Court will
handle. Basically, it says that the Supreme Court must handle everything that
comes to them. Notice that it doesn't allow any option for the Supreme Court to
decline consideration of any case.
Section 2 makes a distinction between
cases. For those involving public officials or states, the Supreme Court will
have original jurisdiction. In all other cases, the Supreme Court has only
appellate responsibility. This is important, because in those "other cases"
Congress has the right to impose on the court "exceptions and
regulations".
Section 2 also says that all "other cases" shall be trial
by jury. Notice that it does not say the Supreme Court Justices are allowed to
make a judgment only by consideration among themselves, without resorting to a
jury. Notice also that this is a grand limitation to the practice in which the
US Supreme Court has engaged for many years.
Section 3, which is the last
of the three sections, only covers treason. We have no concern with this at the
present time.
A key point to me is that we can easily dispense with
life terms for Supreme Court justices and other federal judges, since that is
not part of the U.S. Constitution.
A second point is that Congress has
the right to control the Supreme Court activities in cases not involving public
officials or states. I expect in the next election, wherein we will have a
Republican-controlled House, Senate and Presidency, Congress will make new
regulations concerning Supreme Court activities, including the constitutionally
required trial by jury.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Marketing Green Technology
In the May 21 Issue of Chemical and
Engineering News, OH reports that the US
is promoting export of green technology.
The EPA and Commerce Department have joined to reveal a plan to promote the export of environment related technology, products, and services, in partnership with 2 trade associations.
The main problem with green technology is that it generally comes at a higher cost than standard technology, which reduces its sales appeal. Because of this, I suggest this is another boondoggle operation. If someone takes the time to follow it, I have little doubt that after two years, it will be found that the revenues gained from sale of green technology will be considerably less than spent on the promotion.
The EPA and Commerce Department have joined to reveal a plan to promote the export of environment related technology, products, and services, in partnership with 2 trade associations.
The main problem with green technology is that it generally comes at a higher cost than standard technology, which reduces its sales appeal. Because of this, I suggest this is another boondoggle operation. If someone takes the time to follow it, I have little doubt that after two years, it will be found that the revenues gained from sale of green technology will be considerably less than spent on the promotion.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Unnecessary Involvement of the Federal Government in Education
Andrea Widener has an article entitled,
"Guiding Science Education", in the March 19 Issue of Chemical and Engineering
News. The article is basically about what the federal government is doing with
respect to science education.
It is my contention that the government has no business being involved in science education or any other kind of education for the general public. The general public is quite competent in deciding its own educational needs, and it will do so based upon its available assets and its perceived opportunities as indicated by various forms of private enterprise.
Government involvement in education reduces the availability of assets for the general public and hinders its educational opportunities mostly through ill-conceived plans, which have no connection with reality. For example, the federal government is a proponent of a college education for all young people, which is a ridiculous notion, because many people can't afford it, without a redistribution of wealth by the federal government, which is then socialism. Alternatively, some do not want a college education. In many additional cases, college educations are a waste of time and money, because the educational programs are ill-conceived with respect to the reality of subsequent economic opportunities. If there's any doubt about the latter, consult the various college graduates who are saddled with tremendous student loans and have degrees in areas for which there is no economic capability, with respect to jobs.
However with the above off my chest, let's proceed to Andrea's article.
The federal government is proposing consolidation of public educational programs now being handled by 15 federal agencies. The consolidated program would start with a $3.4 billion plan development. For every US man, woman, and child, this would be an expense of $10, or $40 for a family of four involving husband-wife and two children. Keep in mind that this does nothing to improve education. It is only an expense to decide on a program.
In addition, we already have an annual federal expense of $340 billion for education. This is an expense of $1000 per person or $4000 per year for a family of four. Whether a family of four will immediately pay this amount is not significant. If it is paid by someone else through higher taxes, that is a redistribution of wealth or socialism and is also associated with all the detriments of socialism, including subsequent lack of incentive for anybody doing anything. If the $4000 per year is paid for by government borrowing, it eventually comes back to haunt the family.
One might say that $4000 per year is a relatively small amount of pay for education, but keep in mind that this is only the federal government portion of expense. Additionally, a large amount of the local real estate tax goes to schools.
The National Science Teaches Association (NSTA) and others in the educational community are strongly for the proposal of the $3.4 billion plan expenditure. And why not? Anytime there is more money available for education from the taxpayer, NSTA members will get a chunk of it.
It is my contention that the government has no business being involved in science education or any other kind of education for the general public. The general public is quite competent in deciding its own educational needs, and it will do so based upon its available assets and its perceived opportunities as indicated by various forms of private enterprise.
Government involvement in education reduces the availability of assets for the general public and hinders its educational opportunities mostly through ill-conceived plans, which have no connection with reality. For example, the federal government is a proponent of a college education for all young people, which is a ridiculous notion, because many people can't afford it, without a redistribution of wealth by the federal government, which is then socialism. Alternatively, some do not want a college education. In many additional cases, college educations are a waste of time and money, because the educational programs are ill-conceived with respect to the reality of subsequent economic opportunities. If there's any doubt about the latter, consult the various college graduates who are saddled with tremendous student loans and have degrees in areas for which there is no economic capability, with respect to jobs.
However with the above off my chest, let's proceed to Andrea's article.
The federal government is proposing consolidation of public educational programs now being handled by 15 federal agencies. The consolidated program would start with a $3.4 billion plan development. For every US man, woman, and child, this would be an expense of $10, or $40 for a family of four involving husband-wife and two children. Keep in mind that this does nothing to improve education. It is only an expense to decide on a program.
In addition, we already have an annual federal expense of $340 billion for education. This is an expense of $1000 per person or $4000 per year for a family of four. Whether a family of four will immediately pay this amount is not significant. If it is paid by someone else through higher taxes, that is a redistribution of wealth or socialism and is also associated with all the detriments of socialism, including subsequent lack of incentive for anybody doing anything. If the $4000 per year is paid for by government borrowing, it eventually comes back to haunt the family.
One might say that $4000 per year is a relatively small amount of pay for education, but keep in mind that this is only the federal government portion of expense. Additionally, a large amount of the local real estate tax goes to schools.
The National Science Teaches Association (NSTA) and others in the educational community are strongly for the proposal of the $3.4 billion plan expenditure. And why not? Anytime there is more money available for education from the taxpayer, NSTA members will get a chunk of it.
The US Supreme Court Missed the Point
I am disappointed in the recent action of the US Supreme Court on the Arizona immigration law SB 1070. Not because the court did not review the details of the Arizona law and pass judgment on its various components, but rather because it missed the main point. The main point is, What do you do when a president and administrative agencies do not enforce laws passed by Congress?"
When the House and the Senate pass a bill and submit it to the President, it becomes law when the President signs.
With respect to the now existing federal law on immigration, U.S.C. § 1302(a) says, "It shall be the duty of every alien now or hereafter in the United States, who (1) is fourteen years of age or older, (2) has not been registered and fingerprinted under section 1201 (b) of this title or section 30 or 31 of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, and (3) remains in the United States for thirty days or longer, to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before the expiration of such thirty days".
The above says what the alien (non-US citizen) must do. The next part, says additionally what an alien must do, the category of the crime if he doesn't do it, and the penalty involved. U.S.C. § 1304(e)(e) says, "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both." The obvious implication is that federal law enforcement must catch the alien, who appears to have committed a crime, and submit him to a federal court for prosecution.
When there is existing federal law, it is the responsibility of the President and various agencies to enforce the law. There are many agencies with this responsibility and enforcement in most of them has narrow boundaries, but collectively they cover all aspects of existing law. With respect to immigration and the prosecution of illegal aliens, which are those persons not adhering to U.S.C. § 1302(a) and U.S.C. § 1304(e)(e), the responsibility for enforcement is with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICC is the principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). ICE has 20,000 employees, and John Morton is the Director. When one goes to the Director's homepage on the Internet, one sees a list of the recent activities of ICE. They are: child exploitation, honoring ICE's fallen heroes, seizing fake merchandize, human trafficking, educating the Departments of Motor Vehicles about document and benefit fraud, commemorating 9/11, Hurricane Irene, Intellectual Property Rights, 9/11 Commission, visa application reviews, transnational organized crime, human rights violators, INS death investigation,
detainees in ICE custody, human trafficking organizations, gang enforcement, and secure the Southwest border.
The above list of activities goes back to items ICED reported on since February 2011, of the 17 items listed, note that only two were connected with immigration, which is insignificant with respect to ICE's major responsibility.
The President of the United States is the Chief Executive Officer of all agencies in the Executive portion of the Federal Government. He gives orders to the Agency Directors. The President of the United States is also Commander-In-Chief of all Military forces and gives orders to the Generals and Admirals. A number of agencies have guns, including the FBI and the Secret Service. The Military also has guns. If the President doesn't like the law passed by Congress and a previous President or a US Supreme Court judgment and decides not to enforce that law or to enforce it in only a cursory manner, who is to stop him?
I spent some time on the Internet investigating the question of non-enforcement of laws. I found nothing. Apparently, either this is a new concept or something which until now has had no significance.
Let's go back to Hitler. The German people elected him on the basis of his great oratory skill and his promise to take them out of a recession. He subsequently made his own laws and had the military and police force to back them up. Many of those laws were against the German people, but the people had no recourse. They had no guns or if they had, they apparently had no willingness to use them. Are we in the same boat, where Pres. Obama can do is he pleases with respect to existing laws and make up his own through Executive Orders? Perhaps I have not given Supreme Court enough credit for intelligence. It may very well be that it saw that the Executive branch of the federal government has not and is now not enforcing immigration law, but there's not much it can do about that. It has no guns.
When the House and the Senate pass a bill and submit it to the President, it becomes law when the President signs.
With respect to the now existing federal law on immigration, U.S.C. § 1302(a) says, "It shall be the duty of every alien now or hereafter in the United States, who (1) is fourteen years of age or older, (2) has not been registered and fingerprinted under section 1201 (b) of this title or section 30 or 31 of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, and (3) remains in the United States for thirty days or longer, to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before the expiration of such thirty days".
The above says what the alien (non-US citizen) must do. The next part, says additionally what an alien must do, the category of the crime if he doesn't do it, and the penalty involved. U.S.C. § 1304(e)(e) says, "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both." The obvious implication is that federal law enforcement must catch the alien, who appears to have committed a crime, and submit him to a federal court for prosecution.
When there is existing federal law, it is the responsibility of the President and various agencies to enforce the law. There are many agencies with this responsibility and enforcement in most of them has narrow boundaries, but collectively they cover all aspects of existing law. With respect to immigration and the prosecution of illegal aliens, which are those persons not adhering to U.S.C. § 1302(a) and U.S.C. § 1304(e)(e), the responsibility for enforcement is with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICC is the principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). ICE has 20,000 employees, and John Morton is the Director. When one goes to the Director's homepage on the Internet, one sees a list of the recent activities of ICE. They are: child exploitation, honoring ICE's fallen heroes, seizing fake merchandize, human trafficking, educating the Departments of Motor Vehicles about document and benefit fraud, commemorating 9/11, Hurricane Irene, Intellectual Property Rights, 9/11 Commission, visa application reviews, transnational organized crime, human rights violators, INS death investigation,
detainees in ICE custody, human trafficking organizations, gang enforcement, and secure the Southwest border.
The above list of activities goes back to items ICED reported on since February 2011, of the 17 items listed, note that only two were connected with immigration, which is insignificant with respect to ICE's major responsibility.
The President of the United States is the Chief Executive Officer of all agencies in the Executive portion of the Federal Government. He gives orders to the Agency Directors. The President of the United States is also Commander-In-Chief of all Military forces and gives orders to the Generals and Admirals. A number of agencies have guns, including the FBI and the Secret Service. The Military also has guns. If the President doesn't like the law passed by Congress and a previous President or a US Supreme Court judgment and decides not to enforce that law or to enforce it in only a cursory manner, who is to stop him?
I spent some time on the Internet investigating the question of non-enforcement of laws. I found nothing. Apparently, either this is a new concept or something which until now has had no significance.
Let's go back to Hitler. The German people elected him on the basis of his great oratory skill and his promise to take them out of a recession. He subsequently made his own laws and had the military and police force to back them up. Many of those laws were against the German people, but the people had no recourse. They had no guns or if they had, they apparently had no willingness to use them. Are we in the same boat, where Pres. Obama can do is he pleases with respect to existing laws and make up his own through Executive Orders? Perhaps I have not given Supreme Court enough credit for intelligence. It may very well be that it saw that the Executive branch of the federal government has not and is now not enforcing immigration law, but there's not much it can do about that. It has no guns.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Continued Pressure to Confiscate and Redistribute Private Property in the Chemical Field
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is part of the Bill Of rights,
and is therefore considered part of the Constitution. It says in part, "[No
person] shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation."
Therefore, it is government's responsibility to protect the private rights of individuals from confiscation either by itself or by others.
I started this essay with the above quote from the Constitution, because of its applicability to an article by Cheryl Hogue entitled, "Protecting Trade Secrets", in the March 19 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News. Before we proceed, we also need to understand that a company or corporation is legally regarded as an individual or person.
Cheryl's article refers to the procedure by which the EPA gives approval to an individual or company for the manufacture or use of a new chemical substance and processes by which it is manufactured. This comes about through the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), from which the EPA has administration responsibility. When a company now desires to manufacture a new product, it submits an application to the EPA. At its discretion, the EPA may immediately give approval or request certain data, usually with respect to health and safety. When the EPA gives its approval, it places a substance on its TSCA Inventory list. That means the substance has been approved for manufacturing/use, but it does not indicate what the substance is, who will manufacture/use it, or what data has been presented. The reason for the secrecy is that the company requesting listing has spent considerable time and capital in developing the product for commercial use, and in some cases a large expanse for determining health/safety. Congress recognized the right of private property, when it activated TSCA, and included a limitation that the EPA must not publicly reveal and and must hold confidential information which the submitting company considers trade secrets.
The justification for trade secrets confidentiality is the basic right of private property. The submitting company has gone to considerable research expense in developing a new chemical substance, which it anticipates will have market value. The right of private property ownership is that it should not be made available to others, including the general public in its usual socialistic ideology. The EPA is starting to take issue with that concept.
There are three aspects of private property ownership and the need for secrecy in this context. If a company's name is revealed, that usually is a help to competitors in determining what new product is coming to market and will help in the competitors sales strategy. The second aspect is that if the chemical substance is identified by name and structure, a potential competitor can immediately shorten his research effort to obtain modified chemical substances which likely would still be useful and yet outside patent limitations of the original inventor. The third aspect is that if the EPA makes available health and safety data to competitors, those competitors have then been given a significant time and cost advantage.
A complicating factor is that environmental and health groups do not trust the judgment of the EPA by a blanket approval for manufacture/use of a new chemical substance, and there is likely some justification for that, which is the basis of the Freedom of Information Act.
I propose that the confidentiality of know-how can be maintained, while simultaneously satisfying the health/safety concerns of the public and related organizations. When a company submits a request for approval to manufacture/use a new chemical substance, the EPA should assign a consecutive number to the substance and the consecutive letter to the company. Related health/safety data should then be connected only to the substance number and the company's letter number. Whereas the EPA may require health/safety data in fine detail, such as who performed the work and the dates over which the work was performed and other details connected with the technique of data generation, it should be allowed to reveal only the conclusions. For example, it might say that the substance is not explosive when mixed with air, or no noticeable affect on breathing capacity down to a limit of some indicated parts per million in air, etc.. The Manufacturer Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) is a good guide on what basic information could be revealed. If a second company desires to register a compound which might be identical to a substance already having a number on the TSCA Inventory List, EPA should not reveal that information and should require the second entry company to supply all basic health/safety data as it did for the first company. In addition, EPA should be required to notify the original registering company of the competitors application and ask whether it desires to negotiate with the second entrant on sale of the basic health/safety data.
Cheryl's article also mentions that in addition to the EPA's apparent desire to socialize private property, a similar effort is being done globally. The Third International Conference on Chemicals Management will be held in Nairobi, Kenya in September and there will be a proposal to endorse sharing chemical information among all "stakeholders". The definition of stakeholders is not included, but I suspect that this will be another effort internationally to confiscate and redistribute private property.
Therefore, it is government's responsibility to protect the private rights of individuals from confiscation either by itself or by others.
I started this essay with the above quote from the Constitution, because of its applicability to an article by Cheryl Hogue entitled, "Protecting Trade Secrets", in the March 19 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News. Before we proceed, we also need to understand that a company or corporation is legally regarded as an individual or person.
Cheryl's article refers to the procedure by which the EPA gives approval to an individual or company for the manufacture or use of a new chemical substance and processes by which it is manufactured. This comes about through the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), from which the EPA has administration responsibility. When a company now desires to manufacture a new product, it submits an application to the EPA. At its discretion, the EPA may immediately give approval or request certain data, usually with respect to health and safety. When the EPA gives its approval, it places a substance on its TSCA Inventory list. That means the substance has been approved for manufacturing/use, but it does not indicate what the substance is, who will manufacture/use it, or what data has been presented. The reason for the secrecy is that the company requesting listing has spent considerable time and capital in developing the product for commercial use, and in some cases a large expanse for determining health/safety. Congress recognized the right of private property, when it activated TSCA, and included a limitation that the EPA must not publicly reveal and and must hold confidential information which the submitting company considers trade secrets.
The justification for trade secrets confidentiality is the basic right of private property. The submitting company has gone to considerable research expense in developing a new chemical substance, which it anticipates will have market value. The right of private property ownership is that it should not be made available to others, including the general public in its usual socialistic ideology. The EPA is starting to take issue with that concept.
There are three aspects of private property ownership and the need for secrecy in this context. If a company's name is revealed, that usually is a help to competitors in determining what new product is coming to market and will help in the competitors sales strategy. The second aspect is that if the chemical substance is identified by name and structure, a potential competitor can immediately shorten his research effort to obtain modified chemical substances which likely would still be useful and yet outside patent limitations of the original inventor. The third aspect is that if the EPA makes available health and safety data to competitors, those competitors have then been given a significant time and cost advantage.
A complicating factor is that environmental and health groups do not trust the judgment of the EPA by a blanket approval for manufacture/use of a new chemical substance, and there is likely some justification for that, which is the basis of the Freedom of Information Act.
I propose that the confidentiality of know-how can be maintained, while simultaneously satisfying the health/safety concerns of the public and related organizations. When a company submits a request for approval to manufacture/use a new chemical substance, the EPA should assign a consecutive number to the substance and the consecutive letter to the company. Related health/safety data should then be connected only to the substance number and the company's letter number. Whereas the EPA may require health/safety data in fine detail, such as who performed the work and the dates over which the work was performed and other details connected with the technique of data generation, it should be allowed to reveal only the conclusions. For example, it might say that the substance is not explosive when mixed with air, or no noticeable affect on breathing capacity down to a limit of some indicated parts per million in air, etc.. The Manufacturer Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) is a good guide on what basic information could be revealed. If a second company desires to register a compound which might be identical to a substance already having a number on the TSCA Inventory List, EPA should not reveal that information and should require the second entry company to supply all basic health/safety data as it did for the first company. In addition, EPA should be required to notify the original registering company of the competitors application and ask whether it desires to negotiate with the second entrant on sale of the basic health/safety data.
Cheryl's article also mentions that in addition to the EPA's apparent desire to socialize private property, a similar effort is being done globally. The Third International Conference on Chemicals Management will be held in Nairobi, Kenya in September and there will be a proposal to endorse sharing chemical information among all "stakeholders". The definition of stakeholders is not included, but I suspect that this will be another effort internationally to confiscate and redistribute private property.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
EPA's New Computational Toxicology Tool
Cheryl Hogue has a two-page article entitled, "New Tools For Risk Assessment", in the June 11 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
Cheryl describes a new (to me) term, "Computational Toxicology". Cheryl says, "It brings together molecular biology, chemistry, and computational science and relies on high throughput testing methods". This doesn't tell me much, except from its title, it appears to use computers in handling data relating to toxicology. Unless it's something different than this, I agree completely with its use and also add that it should have been used all along.
Most of Cheryl's article involves applications, which is said to be investigation of various chemicals associated with the registration of new chemicals, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide, Act, Drinking Water Act, and others.
The EPA has an Office of Research and Development (ORD). Robert Kavlock is Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science. He said, "Computational Toxicology information will not be used for regulatory decisions until it meets the goals [of being rational, scientific, and conforming to the legal mandates of federal environmental laws]". In some ways this is obvious, since all new tools have to be tested for applicability. However, we don't want to engage in testing beyond a reasonable point, if the new tool is found to have good advantage for its use.
I congratulate the EPA for this forward step in the use of computational science to more efficiently perform its duties of regulating chemicals to safeguard the health of the public. I have been critical of the EPA in the past, primarily because some of the actions it has taken, particularly with respect to control of carbon dioxide emissions and other regulations detrimental to the economy, have had a political ideological flavor. If EPA now concentrates solely on chemical regulations to protect the public, it has my complete support.
Cheryl describes a new (to me) term, "Computational Toxicology". Cheryl says, "It brings together molecular biology, chemistry, and computational science and relies on high throughput testing methods". This doesn't tell me much, except from its title, it appears to use computers in handling data relating to toxicology. Unless it's something different than this, I agree completely with its use and also add that it should have been used all along.
Most of Cheryl's article involves applications, which is said to be investigation of various chemicals associated with the registration of new chemicals, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide, Act, Drinking Water Act, and others.
The EPA has an Office of Research and Development (ORD). Robert Kavlock is Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science. He said, "Computational Toxicology information will not be used for regulatory decisions until it meets the goals [of being rational, scientific, and conforming to the legal mandates of federal environmental laws]". In some ways this is obvious, since all new tools have to be tested for applicability. However, we don't want to engage in testing beyond a reasonable point, if the new tool is found to have good advantage for its use.
I congratulate the EPA for this forward step in the use of computational science to more efficiently perform its duties of regulating chemicals to safeguard the health of the public. I have been critical of the EPA in the past, primarily because some of the actions it has taken, particularly with respect to control of carbon dioxide emissions and other regulations detrimental to the economy, have had a political ideological flavor. If EPA now concentrates solely on chemical regulations to protect the public, it has my complete support.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Chinese Monopoly on Rare Earths
An occasionally used business strategy to maximize profits is to create a monopoly. This can be accomplished by buying out competitors or eliminating them through a price war on the products which each produce. For example, if General Electric makes and sells electric turbines and its competitor is Westinghouse, General Electric can eliminate Westinghouse as a competitor by buying the company. General Electric could also price turbines at such a low level that Westinghouse could no longer compete. The latter would be a capital war and the winner would be the one which lasts the longest. When the other company is out of business, the winner would then drastically raises its prices to recoup its losses and subsequently go on to a high-profit business.
An alternative procedure to create a monopoly is for two or more competitors to agree on limiting supplies of a product or controlling its pricing..
Whatever the method of creation, a monopoly is the altering of a product's availability and price, which is detrimental to prospective product buyers. Prospective buyers could be limited, such as with electric turbines, or in some cases can be the general public. For this reason, Congress many years ago created antitrust (monopoly) laws. The Department of Justice, in cooperation with the Federal Trade Commission, has the responsibility to observe business activities in the US to avoid creation of monopolies and to destroy and penalize those responsible, wherever a monopoly is found.
On an international basis, there are no antitrust laws, and monopolies are used by countries or groups of countries against other countries. An example of a well known international monopoly is OPEC, which controls supplies and prices of crude oil on the world market.
More recently China has engaged in a monopolistic practice on rare earth's. Rare earths are a group of chemical compounds which are mined and subsequently used in the manufacture of most electronic products, such as telephones, computers, etc. Deposits of rare earth's exist in the United States and some years ago there were several companies actively engaged in the mining, processing and supply of these materials to other manufacturers. China also has deposits of rare earths and the ability to supply processed materials. Several years ago, China apparently decided on a monopolistic program to control world supplies and prices of rare earths. China followed the traditional route of dropping prices to very low levels and drove American producers out of business. China then limited to supplies and raised prices drastically. The US electronics industry now has a limited supply of a critical raw material and available only at high price.
Meanwhile, the US government, and particularly Congress, has taken no action in attempting to control international monopolies, which are obviously detrimental to US economic health and development. OPEC still reigns a strong hand in controlling crude oil supplies and prices in the US, and now China is doing the same on rare earths.
The most obvious way to control a Chinese international monopoly is through import duties. Applying an import duty (tax) on rare earths coming into the United States would only exacerbate the rare earth availability/price problem, but an import duty could be applied on other imported products which are not necessarily essential to the American economy. Such duty would in effect be a retaliatory or countervailing duty.
Reference: Chemical and Engineering News, April 2, 2012, page 14.
An alternative procedure to create a monopoly is for two or more competitors to agree on limiting supplies of a product or controlling its pricing..
Whatever the method of creation, a monopoly is the altering of a product's availability and price, which is detrimental to prospective product buyers. Prospective buyers could be limited, such as with electric turbines, or in some cases can be the general public. For this reason, Congress many years ago created antitrust (monopoly) laws. The Department of Justice, in cooperation with the Federal Trade Commission, has the responsibility to observe business activities in the US to avoid creation of monopolies and to destroy and penalize those responsible, wherever a monopoly is found.
On an international basis, there are no antitrust laws, and monopolies are used by countries or groups of countries against other countries. An example of a well known international monopoly is OPEC, which controls supplies and prices of crude oil on the world market.
More recently China has engaged in a monopolistic practice on rare earth's. Rare earths are a group of chemical compounds which are mined and subsequently used in the manufacture of most electronic products, such as telephones, computers, etc. Deposits of rare earth's exist in the United States and some years ago there were several companies actively engaged in the mining, processing and supply of these materials to other manufacturers. China also has deposits of rare earths and the ability to supply processed materials. Several years ago, China apparently decided on a monopolistic program to control world supplies and prices of rare earths. China followed the traditional route of dropping prices to very low levels and drove American producers out of business. China then limited to supplies and raised prices drastically. The US electronics industry now has a limited supply of a critical raw material and available only at high price.
Meanwhile, the US government, and particularly Congress, has taken no action in attempting to control international monopolies, which are obviously detrimental to US economic health and development. OPEC still reigns a strong hand in controlling crude oil supplies and prices in the US, and now China is doing the same on rare earths.
The most obvious way to control a Chinese international monopoly is through import duties. Applying an import duty (tax) on rare earths coming into the United States would only exacerbate the rare earth availability/price problem, but an import duty could be applied on other imported products which are not necessarily essential to the American economy. Such duty would in effect be a retaliatory or countervailing duty.
Reference: Chemical and Engineering News, April 2, 2012, page 14.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
No Globalization of Chemical Substances Control
Alex Scott has a four-page article entitled, "Seeking Chemical Safety for All", in the June 11 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
The essence of the article is a discussion on the merits of possible techniques to globalize regulations for the control of chemical substances.
In the US, we have the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA's purpose is to protect human health and the environment from unreasonable risks presented by the manufacture and use of chemicals. All chemicals used in manufacturing must be on the TSCA Inventory. EPA maintains the TSCA Inventory of chemicals, which have been approved for use
There are over 90,000 existing “chemical substances” on the TSCA Inventory. New or additional chemicals can be placed on the TSCA inventory by a manufacturer petitioning the EPA. No new chemicals or an existing chemical not on the TSCA Inventory can be used, unless EPA is given 90 days advance notice of intent to manufacture or use. The EPA has 90 days to evaluate a chemical and decide whether to regulate it; include it in the TSCA inventory. The EPA will consider submitted physical and toxicological data, which may present hazards in its manufacture or intended use. If the new chemical will present an unreasonable risk, or if there is insufficient information, the EPA can prohibit or limit use of the chemical until such data is supplied.
The European Union (EU) has a similar system known as the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, & Restriction of Chemical Substances (REACH).
The subject of Alex Scott's article is a discussion on the merits of hazardous chemical control regulations being applied on a global basis. The EU is proposing that this should be done and should be based on REACH. The US does not seem to have made a proposal that TSCA should be used as the global standard, but several major US chemical companies appear to favor globalization, on the basis that uniformity in export/import, manufacturing and use regulations would be an efficient way to proceed. Alex's article presents various reasons for and against use of REACH on a global basis, but all arguments seem to neglect one key point. That is, the technical data necessary for registration and approval. For either TSCA or REACH approval, technical data must be supplied by the company interested in registration/approval and obtaining such data can be quite costly.
With the many chemicals approved by TSCA and REACH, technical data has historically been supplied by the companies originally intending to manufacture and or use the chemical substance. This information is on file at TSCA and REACH, and apparently is available to anybody desiring to manufacture or use the chemical. This seems inherently unfair to me. It is basically a socialization concept, wherein the secondary manufacturer/user, can profit on the work of others, with the support of government. It is not clear to me how the system works, but I know how it should work. For any new manufacturer/user to involve itself with a particular chemical in the TSCA Inventory, EPA should require submission of independent technical data. The new entrant then would have the option of generating its own data or obtaining, through the usual technology transfer negotiations, the same data used by the original company in its registration. This comes at some cost to the new entrant, and is obviously more fair than allowing him a free ride.
Geert Dancet is the Executive Director of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). He is a proponent of allowing REACH data to be used by all free riders. This is not an unusual approach for someone in the socialistic EU.
Michael Walls is Vice President of Regulatory and Technical Affairs for the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The ACC is strongly opposed to such globalization. V.P. Walls says the ACC favors regulations that," promote innovation and protect proprietary interests". To me, "protecting proprietary interests" means that technical data supplied to the EPA should be regarded as confidential "know-how" and should not be available to secondary users without their going through the process of technology transfer negotiation with the original data generator. If that's what V. P. Walls means, hooray for the ACC and capitalism is still alive.
Other than the socialistic/capitalistic controversy there is also the problem of national autonomy. Traditionally, the world has operated on the basis of each nation being allowed the right of self determination. More recently, attempts have been made to modify that through United Nations actions and the meddling of other countries, such as the US in Iraq.
There is a logical basis for national autonomy, in that countries differ from one another, through a variety of elements, such as geography, culture, religion, economy, etc.. Many countries are what we consider "undeveloped", in that the inhabitants have a lower standard of living than "developed" countries, or even a global average. One of the ways to give an undeveloped country an opportunity for development is through manufacture and use of chemicals. The socialistic approach of REACH would appear on the surface to be advantageous to such countries, but in all likelihood would actually be a detriment. REACH limitations would be simultaneously imposed, and because of their detrimental applicability to the particular situation would kill the project.
Considering both the negative aspects of socialization and the detriment to undeveloped countries, I am a strong proponent of not globalizing chemical substance regulations. Each country should develop opportunities and restrictions most adaptable to it. There should be no free availability of technical data from either TSCA or REACH. Each of those organizations should conclude that technical information supplied to them by manufacturers/users is confidential proprietary information and not available to others for use in obtaining registrations. That technical information should be available to newcomers through the standard market action of technology transfer.
The essence of the article is a discussion on the merits of possible techniques to globalize regulations for the control of chemical substances.
In the US, we have the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA's purpose is to protect human health and the environment from unreasonable risks presented by the manufacture and use of chemicals. All chemicals used in manufacturing must be on the TSCA Inventory. EPA maintains the TSCA Inventory of chemicals, which have been approved for use
There are over 90,000 existing “chemical substances” on the TSCA Inventory. New or additional chemicals can be placed on the TSCA inventory by a manufacturer petitioning the EPA. No new chemicals or an existing chemical not on the TSCA Inventory can be used, unless EPA is given 90 days advance notice of intent to manufacture or use. The EPA has 90 days to evaluate a chemical and decide whether to regulate it; include it in the TSCA inventory. The EPA will consider submitted physical and toxicological data, which may present hazards in its manufacture or intended use. If the new chemical will present an unreasonable risk, or if there is insufficient information, the EPA can prohibit or limit use of the chemical until such data is supplied.
The European Union (EU) has a similar system known as the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, & Restriction of Chemical Substances (REACH).
The subject of Alex Scott's article is a discussion on the merits of hazardous chemical control regulations being applied on a global basis. The EU is proposing that this should be done and should be based on REACH. The US does not seem to have made a proposal that TSCA should be used as the global standard, but several major US chemical companies appear to favor globalization, on the basis that uniformity in export/import, manufacturing and use regulations would be an efficient way to proceed. Alex's article presents various reasons for and against use of REACH on a global basis, but all arguments seem to neglect one key point. That is, the technical data necessary for registration and approval. For either TSCA or REACH approval, technical data must be supplied by the company interested in registration/approval and obtaining such data can be quite costly.
With the many chemicals approved by TSCA and REACH, technical data has historically been supplied by the companies originally intending to manufacture and or use the chemical substance. This information is on file at TSCA and REACH, and apparently is available to anybody desiring to manufacture or use the chemical. This seems inherently unfair to me. It is basically a socialization concept, wherein the secondary manufacturer/user, can profit on the work of others, with the support of government. It is not clear to me how the system works, but I know how it should work. For any new manufacturer/user to involve itself with a particular chemical in the TSCA Inventory, EPA should require submission of independent technical data. The new entrant then would have the option of generating its own data or obtaining, through the usual technology transfer negotiations, the same data used by the original company in its registration. This comes at some cost to the new entrant, and is obviously more fair than allowing him a free ride.
Geert Dancet is the Executive Director of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). He is a proponent of allowing REACH data to be used by all free riders. This is not an unusual approach for someone in the socialistic EU.
Michael Walls is Vice President of Regulatory and Technical Affairs for the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The ACC is strongly opposed to such globalization. V.P. Walls says the ACC favors regulations that," promote innovation and protect proprietary interests". To me, "protecting proprietary interests" means that technical data supplied to the EPA should be regarded as confidential "know-how" and should not be available to secondary users without their going through the process of technology transfer negotiation with the original data generator. If that's what V. P. Walls means, hooray for the ACC and capitalism is still alive.
Other than the socialistic/capitalistic controversy there is also the problem of national autonomy. Traditionally, the world has operated on the basis of each nation being allowed the right of self determination. More recently, attempts have been made to modify that through United Nations actions and the meddling of other countries, such as the US in Iraq.
There is a logical basis for national autonomy, in that countries differ from one another, through a variety of elements, such as geography, culture, religion, economy, etc.. Many countries are what we consider "undeveloped", in that the inhabitants have a lower standard of living than "developed" countries, or even a global average. One of the ways to give an undeveloped country an opportunity for development is through manufacture and use of chemicals. The socialistic approach of REACH would appear on the surface to be advantageous to such countries, but in all likelihood would actually be a detriment. REACH limitations would be simultaneously imposed, and because of their detrimental applicability to the particular situation would kill the project.
Considering both the negative aspects of socialization and the detriment to undeveloped countries, I am a strong proponent of not globalizing chemical substance regulations. Each country should develop opportunities and restrictions most adaptable to it. There should be no free availability of technical data from either TSCA or REACH. Each of those organizations should conclude that technical information supplied to them by manufacturers/users is confidential proprietary information and not available to others for use in obtaining registrations. That technical information should be available to newcomers through the standard market action of technology transfer.
Capitalism Alive
In the April 9 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Britt Erickson reviews the hundred-year history of Research Corporation. The corporation was originally started by an inventor named Frederick Cottrell and in the hundred years mutated to a technology transfer company and a traditional foundation. It has been responsible for the development of various new technologies and the career development of many notable scientists through grants.
Dr. James Gentile is the current President. The most notable point of Britt's article is the following statement by Pres. Gentile,, "My goal was to bring in external money [for grants], not federal money." Hooray for Dr. Gentile and the Research Corporation. Apparently, capitalism is still alive.
Dr. James Gentile is the current President. The most notable point of Britt's article is the following statement by Pres. Gentile,, "My goal was to bring in external money [for grants], not federal money." Hooray for Dr. Gentile and the Research Corporation. Apparently, capitalism is still alive.
Monday, June 18, 2012
UN Doom & Gloom on the Planet's Environment
The environmental doom and gloom mongers are still at work in the United Nations.
Cheryl Hogue has an article entitled "Little Progress in Saving the Planet", in the June 11 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
In the article, Cheryl discusses a United Nations report which mentions a number of items related to the ecology. I actually find this UN report and Cheryl's review pleasantly interesting and challenging, because I can respond with a simple application of common sense and experience rather than having to investigate the scientific data and technical details, as is necessary in most of my writing. Here we can take one item at a time.
The article contains a picture of a pile of junk with a beautiful mountain in the background. The pile of junk bothers my sensibilities. I like things neat and consistent. I appreciate pictures of nature, and I don't like nature adulterated with contaminants which I feel are intrusive. Solution to the situation in this picture: Bury the junk.
The UN says freshwater lakes and estuary ecosystems could collapse because of contamination by fertilizer runoff. The possibility of this happening is extremely remote. First of all, farmers do not want fertilizers disappearing from the areas that they intend to fertilize. It would be wasteful. Secondly, contamination would be very variable depending upon the size of the water reservoir. For example, a small pond on a farm may achieve heavy contamination from fertilizer runoff. The likelihood of the Great Lakes being contaminated by fertilizer runoff is remote.
The UN says that rapid melting of the Arctic ice sheet, caused by accelerated global warming, presents a problem. What problem? Higher levels of ocean water? Baloney! Shell is postponed oil drilling off Barrow in northern Alaska because the ice is thicker now than it has been in the past 10 years. But, even if there is Arctic ice sheet melting, this could be an advantage to opening the Northwest Passage to more regular maritime shipping. The stated "accelerated global warming" implies man-made activity of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels. We have already debunked this theory. Any global warming which occurs will be the result of natural forces, over which we have no control.
The UN abhors plastic entering the ocean. I do too. It's a waste of good plastic and poor housekeeping. Other than that, there are no significant disadvantages. The occasional report of fish being caught in discarded fishing nets is anecdotal and not significant. Much plastic is already recycled and the remainder, which is not economically recyclable, should be buried in a landfill, where it may be mined at some future date. We should stop ocean dumping of plastic, because it is poor housekeeping and a long-term uneconomical practice.
The UN report also uses a broad brush in stating that [somebody] should be improving the ability of developing countries to manage industrial chemicals. What developing countries are producing industrial chemicals? Congo, Nigeria, Chad, Egypt? Let's be specific. Let's also be specific about what the problem is with industrial chemicals? Chances are these chemicals are being produced because somebody wants them to do a job. Are the developing countries not handling the chemicals properly, so that they are contaminating the environment? Which environment; local or global? What is the nature of the contamination? If local health hazard, that is the responsibility of local government. The bottom line is that the UN should not be involved in anything less than global problems involving health hazards caused by activities in one country carrying to victims in another country.
The UN reports that governments can change "troubling trends" by strengthening environmental-related policies, restriction of subsidies for fossil fuels, and international cooperation to disseminate energy-saving technologies. I agree completely, and I have no doubt that every significant government on Earth already knows this.
The UN reports that for sound management of chemicals and wastes more attention needs to be paid to chemical hazards. I agree completely, but again, that is the responsibility of individual governments, where chemical producers are located. Realistic controls on emissions and potentials for explosion, which could adversely affect public health, are the responsibility of local government.
Cheryl Hogue has an article entitled "Little Progress in Saving the Planet", in the June 11 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
In the article, Cheryl discusses a United Nations report which mentions a number of items related to the ecology. I actually find this UN report and Cheryl's review pleasantly interesting and challenging, because I can respond with a simple application of common sense and experience rather than having to investigate the scientific data and technical details, as is necessary in most of my writing. Here we can take one item at a time.
The article contains a picture of a pile of junk with a beautiful mountain in the background. The pile of junk bothers my sensibilities. I like things neat and consistent. I appreciate pictures of nature, and I don't like nature adulterated with contaminants which I feel are intrusive. Solution to the situation in this picture: Bury the junk.
The UN says freshwater lakes and estuary ecosystems could collapse because of contamination by fertilizer runoff. The possibility of this happening is extremely remote. First of all, farmers do not want fertilizers disappearing from the areas that they intend to fertilize. It would be wasteful. Secondly, contamination would be very variable depending upon the size of the water reservoir. For example, a small pond on a farm may achieve heavy contamination from fertilizer runoff. The likelihood of the Great Lakes being contaminated by fertilizer runoff is remote.
The UN says that rapid melting of the Arctic ice sheet, caused by accelerated global warming, presents a problem. What problem? Higher levels of ocean water? Baloney! Shell is postponed oil drilling off Barrow in northern Alaska because the ice is thicker now than it has been in the past 10 years. But, even if there is Arctic ice sheet melting, this could be an advantage to opening the Northwest Passage to more regular maritime shipping. The stated "accelerated global warming" implies man-made activity of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels. We have already debunked this theory. Any global warming which occurs will be the result of natural forces, over which we have no control.
The UN abhors plastic entering the ocean. I do too. It's a waste of good plastic and poor housekeeping. Other than that, there are no significant disadvantages. The occasional report of fish being caught in discarded fishing nets is anecdotal and not significant. Much plastic is already recycled and the remainder, which is not economically recyclable, should be buried in a landfill, where it may be mined at some future date. We should stop ocean dumping of plastic, because it is poor housekeeping and a long-term uneconomical practice.
The UN report also uses a broad brush in stating that [somebody] should be improving the ability of developing countries to manage industrial chemicals. What developing countries are producing industrial chemicals? Congo, Nigeria, Chad, Egypt? Let's be specific. Let's also be specific about what the problem is with industrial chemicals? Chances are these chemicals are being produced because somebody wants them to do a job. Are the developing countries not handling the chemicals properly, so that they are contaminating the environment? Which environment; local or global? What is the nature of the contamination? If local health hazard, that is the responsibility of local government. The bottom line is that the UN should not be involved in anything less than global problems involving health hazards caused by activities in one country carrying to victims in another country.
The UN reports that governments can change "troubling trends" by strengthening environmental-related policies, restriction of subsidies for fossil fuels, and international cooperation to disseminate energy-saving technologies. I agree completely, and I have no doubt that every significant government on Earth already knows this.
The UN reports that for sound management of chemicals and wastes more attention needs to be paid to chemical hazards. I agree completely, but again, that is the responsibility of individual governments, where chemical producers are located. Realistic controls on emissions and potentials for explosion, which could adversely affect public health, are the responsibility of local government.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Returning Scientific Research to Honesty
There is a 2-page article entitled, "Restoring Respect For Research" by Andrea Widener in the April 23 issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
Three years ago, in January, Pres. Obama issued a call to "restore science to its rightful place". The main responsibility was given to John P. Holden, Director of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP). The process is now essentially complete. Director Holden recently said, "This process has been time-consuming but exceedingly important. Through it all, the prime importance of scientific integrity -- the need to ensure that Americans can trust the results of federally supported science -- has been has been elevated and made explicit in numerous ways."
Perhaps, but I doubt it. Simply because it runs contrary to human nature.
Human beings operate primarily on the basis of serving self. Whether they are independent businessmen or employees of private companies or government, that aspect still holds. As a government employee, any person is interested primarily in holding his job to maintain his salary and where possible to improve his position of power in order to gain further salary benefits, as well as the feeling of power. This applies to clerks, as well as research scientists in government employ at the various agencies. The net result is that scientists follow the stated and implied desires of their bosses. If their bosses are pushing electric cars, scientists will do everything they can to do the same, because it is to their potential benefit in their careers, and working contrary to the ideology would likely have them lose their jobs. This is not to say that government scientists will change data to be consistent with the "program", but they will be able to adjust the scientific activity and concentrate on interpretations which will be "program" favorable. The result is that I always question government scientific reports, because they are a mixture of true science, as performed by the scientific integrity of an individual, and modified according to the ideology of the system.
At one time, scientific research from universities could be held in high esteem of relevance of scientific documents, without modification by ideology, unless some small aspect of that seeped in through the personal preference of the researcher. However, that has changed, with the influx of tremendous amounts of money to University research through grants by various federal agencies. The receivers of these grant monies then have the same position as previously described for government research employees. They know where their bread is buttered and they know how to come up with the "right answers".
How can we then bring science research back into a state of integrity? Because of the above human characteristics, it is almost impossible to do so. However, we can make improvements. It cannot be done by talk, although so claimed by Pres. Obama and Director Holdren, and improvement of government scientific research is almost impossible. Conversely, there is hope that we can bring University research back into a position of research with a minimum taint of ideology by eliminating federal research grants. The implication is that this would doom research, but it existed prior to government support, and it can do so again. Universities can support research through University funding and through private grants. One might say that private grants will again introduce painting by ideology, and that is possible. However, grants from private companies have less chance of ideology contamination than grants from foundations. Private companies usually work with universities on specific projects which tend to be closely associated with the company's business. This usually involves new products or new aspects of the business in which the company is interested. The only ideology available in that case is the company's desire to improve its product line and make a profit. Some of us find this to be not particularly obnoxious.
In summary, it is my belief that talk about improving scientific integrity in government is a waste of time. The only hope for honest science research is back to the universities, without the tainting influence of government funding.
Three years ago, in January, Pres. Obama issued a call to "restore science to its rightful place". The main responsibility was given to John P. Holden, Director of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP). The process is now essentially complete. Director Holden recently said, "This process has been time-consuming but exceedingly important. Through it all, the prime importance of scientific integrity -- the need to ensure that Americans can trust the results of federally supported science -- has been has been elevated and made explicit in numerous ways."
Perhaps, but I doubt it. Simply because it runs contrary to human nature.
Human beings operate primarily on the basis of serving self. Whether they are independent businessmen or employees of private companies or government, that aspect still holds. As a government employee, any person is interested primarily in holding his job to maintain his salary and where possible to improve his position of power in order to gain further salary benefits, as well as the feeling of power. This applies to clerks, as well as research scientists in government employ at the various agencies. The net result is that scientists follow the stated and implied desires of their bosses. If their bosses are pushing electric cars, scientists will do everything they can to do the same, because it is to their potential benefit in their careers, and working contrary to the ideology would likely have them lose their jobs. This is not to say that government scientists will change data to be consistent with the "program", but they will be able to adjust the scientific activity and concentrate on interpretations which will be "program" favorable. The result is that I always question government scientific reports, because they are a mixture of true science, as performed by the scientific integrity of an individual, and modified according to the ideology of the system.
At one time, scientific research from universities could be held in high esteem of relevance of scientific documents, without modification by ideology, unless some small aspect of that seeped in through the personal preference of the researcher. However, that has changed, with the influx of tremendous amounts of money to University research through grants by various federal agencies. The receivers of these grant monies then have the same position as previously described for government research employees. They know where their bread is buttered and they know how to come up with the "right answers".
How can we then bring science research back into a state of integrity? Because of the above human characteristics, it is almost impossible to do so. However, we can make improvements. It cannot be done by talk, although so claimed by Pres. Obama and Director Holdren, and improvement of government scientific research is almost impossible. Conversely, there is hope that we can bring University research back into a position of research with a minimum taint of ideology by eliminating federal research grants. The implication is that this would doom research, but it existed prior to government support, and it can do so again. Universities can support research through University funding and through private grants. One might say that private grants will again introduce painting by ideology, and that is possible. However, grants from private companies have less chance of ideology contamination than grants from foundations. Private companies usually work with universities on specific projects which tend to be closely associated with the company's business. This usually involves new products or new aspects of the business in which the company is interested. The only ideology available in that case is the company's desire to improve its product line and make a profit. Some of us find this to be not particularly obnoxious.
In summary, it is my belief that talk about improving scientific integrity in government is a waste of time. The only hope for honest science research is back to the universities, without the tainting influence of government funding.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Stop Government Grants to University Research
In a May 29th issue of Chemical and Engineering New s, Linda Wang reports on ACS members lobbying Capitol Hill for more federal research support. One of the lobbyists said, "the vast majority of academic research is supported by federal grants".
The basis of the ACS lobbying effort is that there is within the federal government an effort to reduce the federal budget, and this would adversely affect the funds for research in academia. When people's incomes are cut, they tend to get excited.
Of course, the basic problem is that there never have been government funding of academic research in the first place. However, government has been able to use academia as a political tool. For example, when Obama wants to foster the development of economic vehicles, he issues instructions to various agencies to allow grants to universities for the study of such things as the decline of the sand lizard in West Texas and the resultant need to limit oil drilling. There also may be a grant to study the economics of battery production. Some of these research grants obviously have no significance in an open-market society. Others are on subjects important for study, but should not involve taxpayer funds through government. For example battery economics could best be studied in the research departments of battery manufacturers. Companies can also farm out part of their research of the research to academia by issuing private grants.
I am not proposing that universities give up research. I am proposing that university research can be done under the expense of the university itself and various supporting private companies, as was standard practice many years ago. It is completely unreasonable and unnecessary that taxpayers need to be footing the bill for a political football.
The basis of the ACS lobbying effort is that there is within the federal government an effort to reduce the federal budget, and this would adversely affect the funds for research in academia. When people's incomes are cut, they tend to get excited.
Of course, the basic problem is that there never have been government funding of academic research in the first place. However, government has been able to use academia as a political tool. For example, when Obama wants to foster the development of economic vehicles, he issues instructions to various agencies to allow grants to universities for the study of such things as the decline of the sand lizard in West Texas and the resultant need to limit oil drilling. There also may be a grant to study the economics of battery production. Some of these research grants obviously have no significance in an open-market society. Others are on subjects important for study, but should not involve taxpayer funds through government. For example battery economics could best be studied in the research departments of battery manufacturers. Companies can also farm out part of their research of the research to academia by issuing private grants.
I am not proposing that universities give up research. I am proposing that university research can be done under the expense of the university itself and various supporting private companies, as was standard practice many years ago. It is completely unreasonable and unnecessary that taxpayers need to be footing the bill for a political football.
The National Research Council Should Not Be Telling University Professors How to Teach
In the May 28th issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Andrea Widener reviews a report from the National Research Council (NRC) concerning science teaching practices for undergraduate students.
The NRC report says that college and university professors are not keeping up with technology changes which would make the teaching of science more efficient and understandable. They say, for example, that students across disciplines have trouble understanding graphs, models or other important depictions of science.
While that may be, the teaching of science is complex and undoubtedly some professors tend to use old-fashioned methods. I also have no doubt that professors in general are interested in teaching to the best of their ability and use new technology, wherever they feel if is appropriate.
I also suggest that the National Research Council has no business involving itself in such subject. Taxpayer money should not be spent on telling colleges and universities how they should teach. We have the best higher education system in the world, although I disagree with many of the socialistic concepts being taught in non-science courses and the use of taxpayer money for grants on subjects that need not be investigated.
The NRC report says that college and university professors are not keeping up with technology changes which would make the teaching of science more efficient and understandable. They say, for example, that students across disciplines have trouble understanding graphs, models or other important depictions of science.
While that may be, the teaching of science is complex and undoubtedly some professors tend to use old-fashioned methods. I also have no doubt that professors in general are interested in teaching to the best of their ability and use new technology, wherever they feel if is appropriate.
I also suggest that the National Research Council has no business involving itself in such subject. Taxpayer money should not be spent on telling colleges and universities how they should teach. We have the best higher education system in the world, although I disagree with many of the socialistic concepts being taught in non-science courses and the use of taxpayer money for grants on subjects that need not be investigated.
Women's Wages Relative to Men's
Pres. Obama has been talking recently about equalizing men's and women's wages. As I recall the discussion, the complaint seems to be that women receive on average only 70% of the wages received by men for the same jobs.
The question is whether this wage difference is a discrimination based on sex or whether there are market forces at work. I propose that it is only the latter. I believe most people would agree that while women have attributes similar to those of men, there are differences not only in their reproductive apparatus, but also in their psychologies. Women tend to be more nurturing, while men tend to be more aggressive. Traditionally these differences are recognized in the development of different roles. Men have been the traditional hunters, while women have been keeping the home fires burning. Basically, women are much more inclined to be family-oriented. This psychology difference carries through into the outside world of economics. Men have traditionally looked to a career as the most consuming item of their existence, with family details as secondary. That is not to say that men are not basically interested in family. They are. Family is their number one priority, but it must not interfere with their employment and wages to guarantee the support of the family. This is the hunter-supply aspect
Contrarily, in the nurturing mode, women are much more interested in the details of family, such as all of the various aspects of raising children.
When a company hires an employee, it does so on the basis of expected long-term service. The employee is expected to learn his job and create stability and devotion to the progress and future of the organization. For example, if the company decides that it needs an employee at a different work location than the one to which he has previously been assigned, the organization expects that that employee will move with his family to do the job to which he has now been assigned. In such circumstances, wives occasionally object, but almost all will usually go along with the program. Conversely, if the wife is employed and assigned to a different location, it is generally unlikely that a man would be willing to follow the geographical change. He would object strongly, and this causes problems with the company. In many such situations, the wife will be inclined to refuse the employment move. Because of this, it is apparent that generally companies do not obtain as full value concerning dedication and company stability from a woman employee as from a man employee. Therefore, the woman employee is worth less to the organization. This difference is usually demonstrated in lower salary for a woman.
Difference in psychology also has an effect on the company day-to-day operations. In the family of husband and wife, it is usually the wife who will be inclined to take off from work in order to handle the doctor or dentist requirements for the children. It is not that women are less reliable than men, it is only that women have a different sense of priorities, which generally works against value to a company. Under these circumstances, I believe that the market may be reasonably correct in paying women on average 70% of the salary for men at the same job. This is not to say that there are not many exceptions to women who have pursued careers in preference to family needs, but the average in our society seems to be that the 70% consideration might be about right.
Working against the fundamental natures of men and women and against the efficient operations of companies, Pres. Obama may be on the wrong track in trying to equalize men's and women's salaries.
The question is whether this wage difference is a discrimination based on sex or whether there are market forces at work. I propose that it is only the latter. I believe most people would agree that while women have attributes similar to those of men, there are differences not only in their reproductive apparatus, but also in their psychologies. Women tend to be more nurturing, while men tend to be more aggressive. Traditionally these differences are recognized in the development of different roles. Men have been the traditional hunters, while women have been keeping the home fires burning. Basically, women are much more inclined to be family-oriented. This psychology difference carries through into the outside world of economics. Men have traditionally looked to a career as the most consuming item of their existence, with family details as secondary. That is not to say that men are not basically interested in family. They are. Family is their number one priority, but it must not interfere with their employment and wages to guarantee the support of the family. This is the hunter-supply aspect
Contrarily, in the nurturing mode, women are much more interested in the details of family, such as all of the various aspects of raising children.
When a company hires an employee, it does so on the basis of expected long-term service. The employee is expected to learn his job and create stability and devotion to the progress and future of the organization. For example, if the company decides that it needs an employee at a different work location than the one to which he has previously been assigned, the organization expects that that employee will move with his family to do the job to which he has now been assigned. In such circumstances, wives occasionally object, but almost all will usually go along with the program. Conversely, if the wife is employed and assigned to a different location, it is generally unlikely that a man would be willing to follow the geographical change. He would object strongly, and this causes problems with the company. In many such situations, the wife will be inclined to refuse the employment move. Because of this, it is apparent that generally companies do not obtain as full value concerning dedication and company stability from a woman employee as from a man employee. Therefore, the woman employee is worth less to the organization. This difference is usually demonstrated in lower salary for a woman.
Difference in psychology also has an effect on the company day-to-day operations. In the family of husband and wife, it is usually the wife who will be inclined to take off from work in order to handle the doctor or dentist requirements for the children. It is not that women are less reliable than men, it is only that women have a different sense of priorities, which generally works against value to a company. Under these circumstances, I believe that the market may be reasonably correct in paying women on average 70% of the salary for men at the same job. This is not to say that there are not many exceptions to women who have pursued careers in preference to family needs, but the average in our society seems to be that the 70% consideration might be about right.
Working against the fundamental natures of men and women and against the efficient operations of companies, Pres. Obama may be on the wrong track in trying to equalize men's and women's salaries.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Public Safety Risks of Chemical Industry Origin
The May 7, 2010 issue of Chemical and Engineering News has three-page article by Glenn Hess concerning the balance between the public's right to know about major chemical hazards to itself and how this information will also help terrorists.
As chemical companies reveal hazard information, there's no doubt that terrorist organizations will also profit from the release and use the information to formulate plans of destruction. However, that risk is small considering the fact that terrorist organizations are quite adept at unearthing profitable hazard information on their own, and the likelihood that a public release of information would be helpful to them is rather remote.
Conversely, chemical industry accidents occur periodically, and a public release of chemical industry hazards will foster corrections and will undoubtedly decrease the accident rate, particularly on the more serious risks. Let's all remember the Bhopal incident in India, where thousands of citizens were killed or permanently injured as a result of an accident having nothing to do with terrorism. A reconstruction of the facts at the time indicates that this accident could have been avoided and would likely have been avoided, if the public had prior knowledge of the risk.
The chemical industry has a right to control its property and its technology. But where the public can also be seriously affected by an accident, a chemical company has a responsibility to inform the public of any substantial risk, and also inform the public of what action ii is taking to minimize the risks.
As chemical companies reveal hazard information, there's no doubt that terrorist organizations will also profit from the release and use the information to formulate plans of destruction. However, that risk is small considering the fact that terrorist organizations are quite adept at unearthing profitable hazard information on their own, and the likelihood that a public release of information would be helpful to them is rather remote.
Conversely, chemical industry accidents occur periodically, and a public release of chemical industry hazards will foster corrections and will undoubtedly decrease the accident rate, particularly on the more serious risks. Let's all remember the Bhopal incident in India, where thousands of citizens were killed or permanently injured as a result of an accident having nothing to do with terrorism. A reconstruction of the facts at the time indicates that this accident could have been avoided and would likely have been avoided, if the public had prior knowledge of the risk.
The chemical industry has a right to control its property and its technology. But where the public can also be seriously affected by an accident, a chemical company has a responsibility to inform the public of any substantial risk, and also inform the public of what action ii is taking to minimize the risks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
