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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.