Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 175
T E N
Recommendations
HIS REPORT HAS been about the future
contributions of chemical engineering
~ research to the national well-being, and
about emerging research frontiers of special
importance. Some of the implications of these
frontiers have already been explored in individ-
ual chapters. In this chapter the committee
draws together its principal recommendations
for action by policymakers in four sectors:
academia, industry, government, and profes-
sional societies.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACADEMIA
Education and Training of Chemical
Engineers
Chemical engineering undergraduate curri-
cula have traditionally been designed to train
students for employment in the conventional
chemical processing industries. The current core
curriculum is remarkably successful in this ef-
fort. Chemical engineers will continue to play
a major role in the chemical and petroleum
industries, but new areas of application as well
as new emphases on environmental protection;
process safety; and advanced computation, de-
sign, and process control will require some
modifications of the curriculum.
These modifications will not entail a massive
revision of the curriculum. Continued emphasis
is needed on basic principles (e.g., thermody-
namics, transport, separations, reaction engi-
neering, and design) that cut across many appli-
cations. A new way of teaching these principles,
though, is needed. Students must be exposed
to both traditional and novel applications of
chemical engineering. Emerging applications
should be highlighted and an expanded range
of process scales and chemistries should be
taught.
Chemical engineers of the future will not only
be interested in the transport and chemical
reactions of small molecules, they will also be
interested in large organic molecules, proteins,
polymers (both organic and inorganic), inter-
faces, surfaces, solids, and composite materials.
Each of these new areas of interest to the
extent that they are not now treated in depth
in the core courses of the curriculum will
require new emphasis in teaching. Core courses
such as separations (unit operations) should be
modified to cover new challenges. For example,
a separations course might be modified to ad-
dress challenges in bioprocessing and ultrapur-
ification by placing less emphasis on distillation,
absorption, and conventional extraction, and
more emphasis on examples of generating high
selectivity in separations.' Similarly, unit op-
erations laboratories and design courses in most
institutions are in need of rethinking and revi-
talization to accommodate new needs and op-
portunities.
Another important need in the curriculum is
for a far greater emphasis on design and control
for process safety, waste m~n~m~zat~on, and
minimal adverse environmental impact. These
themes need to be woven into the curriculum
wherever possible. The AIChE Center for
Chemical Process Safety is attempting to pro-
vide curricular material in this area, but a larger
§75
OCR for page 176
effort than this project is needed. Several large
chemical companies have significant expertise
in this area. They should do more to share their
insights and methods with academic researchers
and educators. (See "Recommendations for
Industry" below.)
Certain emerging specialties of chemical en-
gineering will require a deeper exposure of
engineering students to other disciplines. For
example:
· Students interested in biochemical engi-
neering will need to become familiar with the
language and concepts of the biosciences, par-
ticularly molecular biology.
· For those interested in advanced materials,
more in-depth knowledge of statistical and con-
tinuum mechanics than that provided in trans-
port and mechanics courses seems essential.
· Chemical engineering students interested
in electronic materials need to understand the
elements of electrical engineering and solid-
state physics in order to work productively with
colleagues in these disciplines.
· A greater emphasis on surface and inter-
facial phenomena is needed for all chemical
engineers interested in materials engineering.
It will not be easy to shoehorn all of these
elements into a 4-year program, and the initia-
tion of carefully delimited electives and options
for students is probably the best approach. The
committee applauds the recent action of the
AIChE to allow more flexibility in the choice
of science electives by undergraduates in ac-
credited departments. The development of such
electives and new course sequences is not a
casual undertaking. It will require greater in-
volvement by faculty in providing advice and
counsel to students at the sophomore and junior
level, who may not be prepared to make defin-
itive choices about specialization in their major.
The mix of industries into which chemical
engineers are being introduced is changing rap-
idly. Chemical engineers have always been
proud of their flexibility and willingness to rise
to new challenges. This characteristic will be
needed more than ever in the future, as diversity
within the processing industries greatly in-
creases. For example:
FRONTIERS I.\ ~L~Jr<~: E^~^lYEERING
· There will be a greater variety of products
and processes, increased demands for quality,
and a necessity to shift rapidly from one product
to another.
· Chemical engineers will be working with a
broader spectrum of colleagues; not just chem-
ists, but physicists, biologists, material scien-
tists, and electrical engineers.
· The chemical processing industries will
increasingly have a global outlook. They will
require engineers with a greater understanding
of the global economy, knowledge of engineer-
ing research and advances occurring in other
countries, and appreciation for other cultures.
· These industries will be operating in a
complex regulatory environment. They will re-
quire engineers with a broad perspective on
economic and environmental policy.
· With the current emphasis on streamlined
management and lean staffing in the processing
industries, chemical engineers will have fewer
peers and fewer superiors; their ability to make
decisions will be tested early and often.
Chemical engineering faculty need to consider
these challenges in planning for tomorrow's
more broadly based curriculum.
The Future Size and Composition of
Academic Departments
How can chemical engineering departments
implement this broader curriculum as well as
aggressively respond to new research challenges
and opportunities? A bold step is needed. The
committee recommends that universities con-
duct a one-time expansion of chemical engi-
neering departments over the next 5 years,
exercising a preference for new faculty capable
of research at interdisciplinary frontiers.
This expansion will require a major commit-
ment of resources on the part of universities,
government, private foundations, and industry.
Can such a preferential commitment to one
discipline be justified, particularly at a time of
severe budgetary austerity? Each agency re-
sponsible for funding chemical engineering re-
search will have to answer this question for
itself, but the committee believes that the fol
OCR for page 177
RECO^~VE.~. TIONS
lowing arguments for expansion are worthy of
consideration.
· U.S. leadership in technology is under
challenge today as never before. Future markets
for biotechnology products, advanced mate-
rials, and advanced information devices will be
won by those who are best able to integrate
innovative product design with efficient process
design. Chemical engineers, the uniquely "mo-
lecular" engineers, have powerful tools that can
be refined and applied to these challenges. They
can make significant contributions to U.S. ca-
pabilities in these high-technology areas.
· The existing chemical processing industries
are high-technology enterprises too. Moreover,
the chemical industry is one of the most suc-
cessful U.S. businesses on world markets, with
a $7.8 billion trade surplus in 1986. The chemical
processing industries require a continuing sup-
ply of highly trained engineers armed with the
latest insights from the core research areas of
chemical engineering. Redirecting resources from
these established and vital research programs
to the emerging applications of the discipline
risks reducing the U.S. leadership position in a
large and very successful industrial sector. Is
this an appropriate course to take at a time
when industrial competitiveness and the large
U.S. trade deficit are such pressing national
concerns?
increasing the number of research groups and
the resource levels in chemical engineering
seems to be the most practical way of (1) moving
chemical engineers aggressively into the new
areas among this report's research priorities
while (2) maintaining the discipline's current
strength and excellence. The following recom-
mendations for universities are intended to en-
sure that such an additional investment would
be used most effectively.
· Chemical engineering departments should
use additional resources to appoint and en-
courage faculty to address the frontier areas
identified in this report. Many of these frontiers
will require more emphasis on interdisciplinary
research. The selected appointment of chemical
engineering faculty whose backgrounds are from
177
other disciplines should be encouraged. Cross-
disciplinary research partnerships between
chemical engineers and colleagues in other dis-
ciplines should be stimulated and rewarded.
(See sections on "Cross-disciplinary pioneer
awards" and "Cross-disciplinary partnership
awards" under "Recommendations for Gov-
ernment.")
· Academic institutions should make sub-
stantial commitments (e.g., cost sharing and
maintenance for instrumentation and facilities)
to make additional outside investments in chem-
ical engineering as effective as possible. This
will be particularly needed to justify additional
funding for advanced instrumentation and com-
puters needed for research and education.
· Academic institutions should take steps to
strengthen even further the long-standing ties
between chemical engineering departments and
the chemical process industries, with a partic-
ular emphasis on the flow of personnel between
academia and industry. Mechanisms for in-
creased interchange include appointing indus-
trial researchers as adjunct professors in aca-
demia; providing industrial sabbaticals for
university professors; inviting industrial re-
searchers as seminar speakers on campus; plac-
ing student researchers in industrial laborato-
ries; and expanding the number of masters
degree programs, evening continuing education
programs, and other short courses targeted to
industrial research personnel.
~ Chemical engineering departments should
use additional resources to promote greater
interaction with small process technology firms
in electronics and biotechnology. These firms
play an unheralded but key role in developing
industrial technology in these areas. (See section
on "Improvment of Links Between Chemical
Engineering Departments and Small Process
Technology Firms" under "Recommendations
for Government.")
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INDUSTRY
The committee encourages decision makers
in the chemical processing industries to increase
their commitment to research in their companies
both to retain their world leadership in chemical
technology and to deliver to American society
OCR for page 178
178
the maximum benefit from its investment in
basic research. These industries should take
advantage of opportunities to leverage their
funds by working cooperatively in generic non-
proprietary areas, such as in-situ processing and
solids processing (see Chapter 6) and health,
safety, and environmental protection (see Chap-
ter 71.
Industry should also continue to commit re-
sources to academic research, for reasons that
go far deeper than the desirability of additional
funds. The development of any engineering
field, and particularly one as closely linked to
manufacturing as chemical engineering, needs
the intellectual guidance that can only come
from an industry with a stake in research out-
comes. Also, industry has to be linked to aca-
demia so that new laboratory results can be
rapidly transferred to product and process de-
sign. An industry committed to financial spon-
sorship and personnel exchanges with academia
will make sure that the crucial industrial intel-
lectual involvement needed for success exists.
Thus, the committee urges that:
· industry continue to expand its support of
academic chemical engineering research in each
of the priority research areas identified in this
report, and
· policymakers in industry facilitate the ex-
change of people across the interface between
industry and academia. A number of possible
mechanisms for such exchanges are listed under
"Recommendations for Academia." They will
be most effective if corporate culture and in-
centive structures promote their use.
One area where intellectual involvement from
industry is essential is in the area of process
safety. Several large chemical companies have
committed substantial resources to advancing
their understanding of this area. The generic
insights that have emerged from their work need
to be shared with academic researchers and
educators as well as with smaller chemical
companies. The AIChE Center for Chemical
Process Safety is one mechanism for such trans-
fer of knowledge. Others, including direct con-
tacts between academic and industrial research-
ers in this area, are needed.
`~'RONNER5 IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERIAG
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT
Balanced Portfolios
Maintaining the health of any research enter-
prise is a difficult undertaking. It requires the
recognition that future research advances are
unpredictable and may substantially reorder the
initial priorities assigned to particular areas of
investigation. It demands an appreciation that
researchers in different areas of science and
technology, or at different stages in their profes-
sional careers, have different requirements for
support. To maintain the vitality of chemical
engineering, and to enable its researchers to
make the greatest possible contribution to solv-
ing the problems facing society, a philosophy
of support for the field is needed that can be
described in terms of three "balanced portfo-
lios": one of priority research areas, one of
funding sources, and one of support mecha-
nisms.
The committee's balanced portfolio of priority
research areas has already been discussed in
the Executive Summary and the preceding chap-
ters of the report. A discussion of the portfolio
of funding sources is presented later in this
chapter and, more comprehensively, in Appen-
dix A. The following section discusses the
committee's views on a balanced portfolio of
support mechanisms.
Support Mechanisms in Perspective
Different research frontiers require different
mixes of support mechanisms. The appropriate
mix for a particular area depends on several of
factors, including the nature of the scientific
area; its requirements for expensive equipment,
instruments, or facilities; and the need for trained
personnel from that area in the broader econ-
omy.
Table 10.1 summarizes a range of possible
funding mechanisms for research. Many of these
mechanisms are well known and need no further
elaboration. Some of them, however, are new
mechanisms being proposed by the committee
and are briefly described below. The great
number of possible support mechanisms for
academic research should be placed in the
OCR for page 179
RECOMMENDATIONS
TABLE 10.1 Possible Support Mechanisms for Chemical
Engineering Research
Support Mechanism
Single Investigator Awards
Likely Applicants
Starter grants
Presidential Young Investigator
awards
Solicited project grants
Career development awards
Unsolicited project grants
Research excellence awardsa
Cross-Disciplinary Awards
Cross-disciplinary pioneer
awardsa
Cross-disciplinary partnership
awardsa
Equipment and Facilities
Equipment and instrumentation
grants
Regional and national equipment
facilities
Centers and Academic
Industrial Consortia
NSF Science and Technology
Centers
Engineering Research Centers
Other centers and consortiaa
Improving links to small high-
technology firmsa
New investigators
Extremely promising new investigators
Younger investigators
Extremely meritorious younger investigators
Meritorious midstream investigators
Extremely meritorious midstream and senior
investigators
Promising new investigators moving into
chemical engineering from other disciplines
Two or three co-pr~ncipal investigators from
different disciplines
One or more research groups with special
requirements
Researchers needing unique equipment or
facilities (e.g., synchrotrons or neutron-
scattering facilities)
Collaborative groups of principal investigators
Cross-disciplinary engineering research attacking
several aspects of a common problem area
Large research centers funded by industry at
academic campuses
Small process technology companies working
with academic investigators
a New mechanism discussed in the text.
following perspective. Academic chemical en-
gineering research has traditionally taken place
in the milieu of the small research group. Led
by a single principal investigator, the small
research group enjoys the advantages of decen-
tralization and freedom to move in new direc-
tions as opportunities unfold. The environment
of a small group, where individual students take
responsibility for significant parts of the group's
work, also facilitates the training of independ-
ent-minded researchers. Much of the vitality of
chemical engineering over its history can be
traced to innovative and exploratory research
groups led by individual principal investigators.
179
Because of these advantages, and because
many of the most exciting research problems
in chemical engineering lend themselves to the
scale and environment of the small research
group, grants to individual academic investi-
gators should continue to remain the mainstay
of the portfolio of support mechanisms for
research.
In this context, how can interdisciplinary
research on the frontiers of the discipline be
best conducted? There is an obvious role for
large assemblages of researchers in centers of
various types. The committee also believes that
the special needs of interdisciplinary research
OCR for page 180
180
areas can be met by creating two new funding
mechanisms modeled on the best features of
the small group model.
· Cross-disciplinary partnership awards. The
first mechanism is designed to encourage two
or three small research groups to submit joint
applications. Such a partnership would allow
researchers to begin to communicate across
disciplinary lines without necessitating the cre-
ation of large and formal entities. Cross-disci-
plinary partnership awards should be considered
in a variety of research areas where interdisci-
plinary cooperation is vital, and particularly for
research areas associated with the emerging
technologies described in Chapters 3 through 5
of this report. A case in point would be bio-
chemical engineering where more effective links
in research and training are needed between
chemical engineers and life scientists.
~ Cross-disciplinary pioneer awards. The
second proposed interdisciplinary funding
mechanism would encourage top-quality young
researchers trained in other disciplines (e.g.,
molecular biology, chemistry, materials sci-
ence, and solid-state physics) to accept tenure-
track faculty positions in chemical engineering
departments at leading universities. The com-
mittee believes that these departments would
be enriched by the judicious appointment of
young faculty who are at the cutting edge of
disciplines important to chemical engineering
frontiers. Some appointments of this type are
already being made, but these "pioneers" face
considerable obstacles in making the transition
from the area in which they were trained to
another discipline. These include the difficulties
of immersing oneself in a new intellectual area
while trying to start a new research program
that, absent a track record of success, might
not appeal to proposal reviewers (whether from
the pioneer's initial or newfound field) who
have the more traditional perspectives of estab-
lished disciplines. The proposed award would
provide start-up research funding for up to 5
years. It would allow cross-disciplinary pioneers
the opportunity to engage themselves fully in
chemical engineering research so that they can,
by the end of the award, contribute to the
intellectual life and teaching of their department
£~4~51~/~'i~5 I.\ 4~iC4t ElYGilVEER*iNG
and compete with other researchers on an eq-
uitable basis in the peer-review system.
Another type of individual award that belongs
in the balanced portfolio is the type of ''research
excellence award" exemplified in the industrial
world by the IBM Fellows program. These
awards would choose extremely meritorious
investigators for research support on the basis
of the creativity, productivity, and significance
of their recent work, rather than on the basis
of a project proposal. They would be provided
funding for themselves and one or two associ-
ates to pursue topics entirely of their own
choosing for a few years. The result is that a
select group of the very best researchers would
receive the opportunity to explore more spec-
ulative and high-potential research ideas. An
experimental program of this type, with no more
than 15 such awards active at any given time,
might leaven the entire field of chemical engi-
neering as well as provide an award that would
represent the pinnacle of individual personal
achievement in chemical engineering research.
Like other fields where the small research
team is still a vital and appropriate funding
mode (e.g., chemistry, solid-state physics, bi-
ology, and materials science), the cost of con-
ducting cutting-edge research in chemical en-
gineering is growing rapidly. The complex
problems of the future will require groups that
are larger than today's. The cost of state-of-
the-art instrumentation and computational fa-
cilities will continue to grow. It is important
that agencies funding chemical engineering re-
search ensure that their investment is made
most effective by realistically estimating the
research costs of groups at the frontiers of the
field. In Appendix A (Table A.2), the committee
provides its own estimates of appropriate levels
of support for groups of different sizes. Partic-
ularly in a time of budgetary stringency, re-
search effectiveness is maximized by funding a
smaller number of excellent projects ade-
quately, rather than funding a large number of
projects inadequately.
Funding agencies with vital programs of sup-
port for small research groups may also want
to consider implementing one of the following
two mechanisms:
OCR for page 181
RECOMMENDA TIONS
· Improvement of links between chemical
engineering departments and small process
technology firms. There is an important problem
in some key emerging technologies that is not
addressed by existing programs in funding agen-
cies. It deals with the generation and transfer
of expertise and ideas from the research labo-
ratory to the production line in biotechnology
and process technologies for electronic, pho-
tonic, and recording materials and devices. In
these areas, a key role in generating new process
concepts and equipment is played by a large
number of relatively small firms. These firms
are capital-poor but rich in problems that would
benefit markedly from the insights of academic
chemical engineers. The United States could
significantly boost its competitive position in
these areas by facilitating information transfer
between academia and this segment of industry.
The problem for funding agencies with an in-
terest in promoting U.S. capabilities in this area
is how to create incentives for academic and
industrial researchers to seek out and forge
links with one another.
Since the partnerships that the committee
would like to see fostered will be individualized
to the particular needs and interests of the
participants, it recommends that any program
allow for a wide range of proposed activities.
Examples of the sort of initiatives that might
be funded include the following: (1) Grants to
provide special instrumentation and facilities to
be shared by researchers from chemical engi-
neering departments and high-technology firms.
The facilities or instrumentation would be lo-
cated at a university, but available for use by
researchers at the high-technology firms. (2)
Sabbatical awards for academics at smaller firms
that are not likely to be plugged into a large
university-based center. (3) Starter grants for
industrial liaison programs in chemical engi-
neering departments. A key feature of any of
these programs would have to be significant,
ongoing person-to-person contact between ac-
ademic and industrial research groups.
· Large research centers and consortia. Cen-
ters are a common mechanism of support to
stimulate cross-disciplinary interactions among
researchers, or to facilitate cooperation among
181
researchers from academic, industrial, and gov-
ernment laboratories. The most ambitious pro-
gram of support for cross-disciplinary centers
is the NSF Engineering Research Centers (ERC)
Program. The cross-disciplinary character of
many of the frontiers discussed in this report
makes them fruitful areas for center-based re-
search, a reality that has already been recog-
nized by the establishment of ERCs in biopro-
cess engineering, compound semiconductors,
composite materials, hazardous waste manage-
ment, and computer-assisted design. Chemical
engineering plays an important role in nearly
all these centers.
Federal agencies should try to stimulate in-
dustrial interest in consortia to bolster U.S.
industrial competitiveness in technology. DOE
should foster interest in consortia to address
macroscale energy and natural resource pro-
cessing research. Here, the experiments that
need to be carried out are large in size and
costly. Generic research could be carried out
in such a way as to (1) allow for fruitful inter-
change of ideas between industrial and academic
researchers, and (2) improve the research effi-
ciency of the energy processing industries while
leaving each individual energy company free to
develop its own proprietary processes and tech-
nologies.
Another area where the large-scale approach
might be appropriate is in research related to
environmental protection and process safety.
Again, this is an area where cooperation on
generic research among companies, as well as
between industry and academia, focused on
generic research problems, could lead to sig-
nificant research advances. EPA should stim-
ulate such arrangements to expand the amount
of research needed in this area.
Recommendations for Specific Federal
Agencies
National Science Foundation
The NSF has a logical role in each of the
following frontier research areas.
· Biotechnology. NSF should sustain the
growth and quality of its existing research sup
OCR for page 182
port. This area should be targeted by NSF for
new support to cross-disciplinary pioneers,
partnerships, instrumentation and facilities, and
incentives to improve links between academia
and small high-technology firms.
· Electronic, photonic, and recording mate-
rials and devices. The committee recommends
a 5-year pattern of budgetary growth to achieve
30 groups funded at an aggregate level of $6
million per year. This area should also be
targeted for new support to cross-disciplinary
pioneers and improved links between academia
and small high-technology firms.
· Polymers, ceramics, and composite mate-
rials. In addition to continued growth in support
for research on polymers and polymeric com-
posites, a new thrust is recommended to estab-
lish six to eight centers for the chemical engi-
neering of ceramic materials and composites
over the next 5 years, funded at a total annual
level of $4 million per year. Cross-disciplinary
pioneers should also be supported in this area.
· Energy and natural resources processing.
NSF should sustain its support of basic research
in complex behavior in multiphase systems,
catalysis, separations, dynamics of solids trans-
port and handling, and new scale-up and design
methodologies.
· Environmental protection, process safety,
and hazardous waste management. NSF should
strongly support continued growth in this area,
focusing on engineering design methodology for
process safety and waste minimization. In FY
1986, only three chemical engineering groups
working in this area were funded by NSF, with
total support of less than $250,000.
· Computer-assisted process and control en-
gineering. The committee recommends a 5-year
pattern of growth to a program supporting 35
groups with access to state-of-the-art worksta-
tions, software, and computer networks, in
addition to the existing ERCs related to this
topic. These smaller groups should receive total
NSF support of $8 million per year as a target,
keyed to additional industry support.
· Surface and interracial engineering. NSF
should expand its support in this area, with
emphasis on acquisition by chemical engineers
of state-of-the-art instrumentation for surface
AS lIv CH£1~L E^I~1/~G
and interface studies. The need for such dedi-
cated instrumentation can be met at a funding
level of about $5 million per year.
To make its most effective contribution to
these areas, NSF should consider the following
new support mechanisms for chemical engineers.
~ Cross-disciplinary pioneer awards. The
committee recommends that a steady-state pro-
gram of 25 awards in the three areas identified
above be achieved over 5 years, at an average
level of $100,000 per award per year.
· Research excellence awards. The commit-
tee recommends that a steady-state program of
15 awards be achieved over 3 years, at an
average level of $100,000 per year per award.
~ Improvment of links between chemical en-
gineering departments and high-technology firms.
NSF should create a program to provide incen-
tives for partnerships between academic chemical
engineers and researchers in small process tech-
nology firms in biotechnology and electronics.
Department of Energy
The committee proposes major new initiatives
for the Office of Fossil Energy and the Office
of Energy Research (OER) to support in-situ
processing of resources and the development
of tomorrow's liquid fuels for transportation.
New initiatives are also proposed for these two
offices for the chemical engineering of advanced
materials and the development of computational
methods and process control the Division of
Engineering and Geosciences in OER should
continue and expand its support of fundamental
research while the Office of Fossil Energy starts
a new program on applications to design and
scale-up of large-scale technologies. An initia-
tive is recommended for the Office of Energy
Utilization in chemical and process engineering
for biotechnology applied to renewable sources
for chemical feedstocks. Surface and interracial
engineering should be a strong focus for initia-
tives in the OER (e.g., catalysis and colloid
science and technology) and in Office of Energy
Utilization (e.g., corrosion science and electro-
chemical engineering).
OCR for page 183
RJECOMMExEJA TI0NS
National Institutes of Health
The committee recommends that the National
Institutes of Health undertake an initiative to
support basic research in chemical and process
engineering science for ultimate application to
biotechnology and biomedical devices. Such an
initiative should be targeted towards (1) en-
couraging the submission of proposals from
cross-disciplinary partnerships between chem-
ical engineers and life scientists and (2) shaping
the biochemical engineers of the future by using
Institutional National Research Service Awards
to facilitate the expansion of graduate course
requirements in biochemical engineering to in-
clude greater exposure to the life sciences.
Department of Defense
For the Department of Defense (DOD), the
main relevant thrust of this report is in the area
of materials. The committee recommends that
DOD formulate integrated initiatives (i.e., from
basic research to testing and evaluation) on
problems where improvements in chemical pro-
cessing is the key to enhanced performance
(e.g., polymer-based optical fiber and compo-
nents; processing for high-strength, high-mod-
ulus fibers; manufacturing process technology
for composite materials; and joining and repair
science for complex materials systems based
on polymers, ceramics, and composites). At the
basic end of the research spectrum, these would
translate into major initiatives for support of
molecular science and engineering.
Environmental Protection Agency
The Environmental Protection Agency should
revitalize its research grant program in its Office
of Exploratory Research and substantially in-
crease its support to chemical engineers inves-
tigating important challenges to environmental
quality. Stability in the EPA research program
over several years is needed to attract the best
scientific and engineering research talents to
these problems and to allow them to work
efficiently on their solution.
The EPA should also consider creating a
national "Center for Engineering Research on
Environmental Protection and Process Safety"
that would provide both unique state-of-the-art
laboratory facilities and computational re-
sources to chemical and process engineering
researchers from academia, federal laborato-
ries, and industry.
National Bureau of Standards
The small NBS program in chemical engi-
neerin~ should receive substantially greater
funding to fulfill critical needs for evaluated
data and predictive models. The committee
supports NBS plans to focus on data needs in
emerging technology areas such as biotechnol-
ogy and advanced materials.
Bureau of Mines
The committee recommends that the Bureau
fund a modest number of university-based cen-
ters focused on in-situ processing of dilute
resources. This initiative would complement the
one proposed for DOE.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Every constituent part of the American In-
stitute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) jour-
nals, committees, local sections, divisions, and
student chapters' should take up the challenge
of examining the frontiers presented in this
report and, in the context of their mission and
purpose, seek out ways of rejuvenating the
profession of chemical engineering. The AIChE
should set the goal of attracting to its meetings
and journals significant numbers of researchers
from other disciplines who are working on
problems closely related to those at the cutting
edge of chemical engineering. The AIChE should
provide awards that recognize the achievements
of chemical engineering researchers in frontier
areas. The Institute should continue to promote
reforms in chemical engineering education that
would ensure that students would be prepared
OCR for page 184
184
for new challenges. Finally, the AIChE should
undertake cooperative efforts with other orga-
nizations to advance the interests of the disci-
pline.
American Chemical Society
Over 12,000 chemical engineers are members
of the American Chemical Society (ACS), and
ACS meetings, journals, and abstracting ser-
vices support chemical engineering research in
important ways. The findings and recommen-
dations of this report should be of interest and
concern to the ACS. In fact, many of the
recommendations for the AIChE could be prof-
itably implemented by the ACS Divisions of
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Colloid
and Surface Chemistry, Environmental Chem-
istry, Fuel Chemistry, Microbial and Biochem-
ical Technology, Polymer Chemistry, and Pol-
ymeric Materials: Science and Technology. The
ACS is a natural partner for the AIChE in joint
undertakings to benefit chemical engineering,
and the committee recommends that both or-
ganizations pursue opportunities for future joint
undertakings.
O , , , O
Council for Chemical Research
The Council for Chemical Research is not a
professional society, but it deserves mention in
this report because it provides a unique forum
for interactions between chemists and chemical
engineers and between academic and industrial
researchers. It should be credited for building
effective bridges among these groups and high-
lighting the complementary character of chem-
istry and chemical engineering. The committee
recommends that the Council continue to pro-
mote these interactions, focusing on the fron-
tiers in this report that are of mutual interest to
chemists and chemical engineers.
FRONTIERS IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
CONCLUSION
Chemical engineering is a discipline that in-
tegrates the research advances of a number of
scientific areas. Paramount among these is
chemistry, but fields such as applied mathe-
matics, biology, computer science, condensed-
matter physics, environmental science and en-
gineering, and materials science also provide
important insights that chemical engineers use.
This report has highlighted chemical engineering
accomplishments and frontiers in a number of
areas touched on by these disciplines. It is
important that these other disciplines remain
vital, too.
Two years ago, the National Research Coun-
cil published a report on research frontiers and
needs in chemistry entitled Opportunities in
Chemistry, and known colloquially as the "Pi-
mentel Report" after its chairman, George C.
Pimentel. That report identified many of the
same areas discussed in this report and focused
on how chemists contribute to them. This com-
mittee endorses the recommendations contained
in Opportunities in Chemistry, and urges their
implementation in addition to the recommen-
dations contained in this volume. The two
reports, like the two disciplines, should be seen
as complementary, not competing. A vital base
of chemical science is needed to stimulate future
progress in chemical engineering, just as a vital
base in chemical engineering is needed to cap-
italize on advances in chemistry.
NOTE
1. More detailed suggestions for education and train
in~ in separations are contained in Separations
and Purification: Critical Needs and Opportunities
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1987.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
engineering departments
