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 185
APPENDIX A
Detailed Recommendations for
Funding
CURRENT FUNDING PATTERNS
More than 18 separate federal agencies funded
chemical engineering research in FY 1985, the
most recent fiscal year for which actual ex-
penditure data are available for all government
agencies (Table A.11. Their support to all per-
formers of chemical engineering research-ac-
ademic, private, and federal exceeded $254
million. Much of this funding, though, was for
research in federal and private laboratories.
$120
$110
$100
$90
-
cn
o
._
._
-
o
Q
~= $60
co
c'
Cal
a)
on
a)
$80
$70
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
Industry Support ~ Other Support
~ .
jr :jr, ,.
./'.2jJ .
/'''//'~
P;:::::::::::::ir. :::::::::::::~..:::::::::::::~..:::::::::::
.,~,,..~.../,.../
:,:,:',:,:,:,: :,:,:,:',: :j*': :,:,:,:.:,j'. :,:,:,:,
.,.,.,/ ,;<,,.,.,,~,.2,'.~.
it. '.,','.:/2.,'.'.:~ ".2.2,2/...",.':
:::::::::::;~::::::::::::::;,~:.:::: :::,,::::::
.''.'X'"'X'.',.~..
..,,./,.'.~..,2,/.............
::~
'.".,,^.,',',":~2,'.2,2,:/2.'.'
:_}^
,.,..,,,./,,,.,/.,.,./,.,..:y,
,..: / :,:,:',:.: / :,:.:,:.:'< :':,:,:,: ~ :':
·: a:: :':':: a.':: :':':':~.: :':':': a.':':'::
.,,'.,.,, ////
/.""''/.2'.2''/.'.2'~ : /"..,'.',/"..2/.,.,.~.......
/ '.'"2.,./'''.''.'/ 2~',.',.'. .22'.'/ ',,2,',/ ',.',"~' ' )
_ ~ _ ~III`il'' 'it ''ll~illl '`
$0
1980 1982 1984 1986
.
Fiscal Year
FIGURE A.1 Industrial support of academic chemical engineering nearly
quadrupled from 1980 to 1986 and is the major factor behind growth in
academic funding in this period. Data from Council for Chemical Research.
185
Nearly 90 percent of federal support for aca-
demic basic and applied research came from
only two agencies: NSF and DOE. This narrow
funding base is not good for the health of
academic research, which is best served by
pluralism among funding sources. Neither is it
in the best interest of applied and developmental
federal programs that depend on chemical en-
gineering. As was observed at a recent confer-
ence on research and national priorities:
A good development man-
ager inevitably runs into fun-
damental problems requir-
ing a research solution. The
road to a solution is easier
if the manager has close ties
to the research community.
The way to maintain such
ties is through the mainte-
nance of an ongoing basic
research program in fields
underlying the development
activity. ~
This principle underlies indus-
try's support of academic chem-
ical engineering research. In the
last 6 years, industrial support
has nearly quadrupled; it has been
the main engine for funding
growth in academic chemical en-
gineering (Figure A. 11. Chemical
engineering now leads all engi-
neering disciplines in the pro-
portion of academic support
coming from industry and other
nonfederal sources (Figure A.21.2
Industry is often stereotyped as
OCR for page 186
~6
TABLE A.1 Federal Support for Basic and Applied Chemical Engineering Research
in FY 1985 (thousands of dollars)
Sponsoring Agency and Subdivision
-
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
Cooperative State Research Service
Department of Defense
Department of the Army
Department of the Navy
Department of the Air Force
Defense Agencies
Department of Commerce (NBS)
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services (NIH)
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Mines
Geological Surveys
Minerals Management Service
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Research and Special Programs Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Emergency Management Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
APPLE ~
Support to All Performers Support to Academia
TOTAL
3,267
2,353
26,689
24,790
1,673
126
1,660
136,625
4,264
500
200
341
60
18,026
200
674
32,606
80
c
c
254,134a
o
2,353a
1,072
414
332
250b
15,182
c
c
o
o
o
520b
N/A
674
27,957
N/A
48,754a
a Estimate.
b Academic data includes development as well as research.
c Data for chemical engineering not broken out from data for all engineering research or "engineering, not elsewhere
classified."
Includes the Office of Water Research and Technology.
SOURCE: National Science Foundation.3 4
being more oriented toward applications and
less interested in basic research than federal
agencies. Yet the chemical processing industries
have invested in academia in a very enlightened
manner, even during a major recession in the
early 1980s and several quarters of reduced
profits or slow growth. Presumably, they are
supporting basic research because they believe
it will yield insights essential to the long-term
profitability of their businesses.
Unfortunately, federal support of academic
chemical engineering has grown at only meager
rates in the last 6 years. Thus, among engi-
neering disciplines, chemical engineering has
simultaneously experienced the second highest
rate of growth in industrial support and the
lowest rate of growth in federal support (Figure
A.3~. This is a puzzling pattern to encounter at
a time when government support for basic
research is widely seen as a way of promoting
the international competitiveness of U.S. in-
dustry.
Balancing a portfolio of funding sources is
always a good idea, but it assumes even more
importance as chemical engineering depart-
ments seek to expand into new areas. This
appendix outlines initiatives for growth in fed-
eral programs to respond to the opportunities
facing chemical engineers. The initiatives at-
tempt to match research priorities with the
missions and purposes of each agency.
OCR for page 187
AlOpE^yDIX ~
TABLE A.2 Costs of Doing Frontier Research in Chemical Engineering
Annual Level of Efforta
JO
A B C D NSFb
Faculty summer salary (2 mo).
$4,500/mo
Postdoctoral, $27,000/yr
Graduate students, $11,000/yr
Supplies, $6,000/yr/FTE
Services or other personnel,
$3,500/yr/FTE
Equipment and small instru-
ments
Indirect costs (34%)
TOTAL
2 18.0
1 27.0
8 88.0
(g) 54.0
(9) 31.5
10.0
77.7
306.2
1
6
(7)
(7)
9.0
27.0
66.0
42.0
24.5
8.0
60.0
236.5
9.0
0.5 13.5
4 44.0
(5) 30.0
(5) 17.5
6.0
40.0
160.7
9.0
0.5
2
(3)
(3)
13.5
22.0
18.0
10.5
5.0
26.5
104.5
8.6
1.2
12.6
8.5
5.1
4.9
13.9
54.8
~ Under each level of effort are two columns. The first gives multipliers for each budget category, and the second gives
subtotals and totals in thousands of dollars.
b This column shows the breakdown of costs for the average grant in FY 1986 from the NSF Division of Chemical,
Biochemical, and Thermal Engineering (CBTE). The 506 grants made by CBTE supported 508 senior investigators for a
total of 95 man-years (2.25 months per investigator) at a cost of $4,340,340; 43 postdoctorate (0.085 per grant) for a total of
$622,322 of support; 722 graduate students (1.53 per grant) for a total of $6,396,492 of support; $2,567,871 of other personnel
costs; $2,451,796 of equipment and instrumentation; and $4,294,378 of other direct costs. The average indirect cost rate for
the CBTE grants was 34 percent.
SOURCE: NSF Directorate of Engineering.
THE COST OF FRONTIER RESEARCH
Before the detailed agency recommendations
are presented, some general comments will be
made about future research costs.
Pursuing the frontiers described in this report
will require more resources than have been
needed in the past. Problems of greater com-
plexity require larger research groups to make
optimal progress. Access to more sophisticated
instrumentation and facilities is costly. Table
A.2 presents a range of grant sizes that will be
required to perform frontier research efficiently
in the future. The estimates in this table for
stipends and salaries are reasonable estimates
of current costs in chemical engineering de-
partments at major universities. Estimates in
the table for costs of services, supplies, and
ordinary equipment are close to current NSF
averages in chemical engineering.
Four different levels of effort are shown,
along with the level of effort supported by the
current average grant from the NSF Division
of Chemical, Biochemical, and Thermal Engi-
neering (CBTE). Level A shows the costs of a
substantial cross-disciplinary partnership be
tween two research groups. Levels B and C
show the costs of large and moderate-sized
research groups led by single principal investi-
gators. A group that wants to tackle important
research problems at the frontiers of the disci-
p~line will probably need to be about the size of
Level D to maintain both vitality and continuity.
Throughout the following sections, the cost
figures in Table A.2 will be used to derive target
budgets for proposed initiatives. It should be
stressed, though, that the levels of effort shown
in Table A.2 are not meant to imply that there
are only four ways to organize a research effort,
or to suggest that an explicitly multitiered sys-
tem of support should be introduced. These
levels are meant only to be illustrative of the
resources needed today to conduct state-of-the-
art research in chemical engineering.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
The National Science Foundation is the larg-
est source of federal support for academic
chemical engineering research (see Table A.11.
Its support of the discipline comes through a
variety of programs and divisions (Table A.31.
OCR for page 188
188
These programs have a logical
role in each of the priority areas
spelled out in this report, and
increased support from NSF is
vital to the goal of expanding
chemical engineering into new
areas. The committee proposes
the following new initiatives for
the Foundation.
Biotechnology and Biomedicine
Since publication of a prelim-
inary report by this committee
in 1984,5 NSF has increased its
support of biochemical engineer-
ing by putting in place a new
program in biotechnology in its
Division of Emerging and Criti-
cal [Engineering Systems, by
funding an Engineering Research
Center focused on biotechnology
processing, and by increasing
support to the CBTE program
on biochemical and biomass en-
gineering. The committee ap-
plauds this progress and strongly
encourages NSF to sustain the
growth and quality of its research
support in this area.
NSF Initiative I
The committee recommends that NSF include
biochemical and biomedical engineering in a
larger program of 5-year cross-disciplinary pi-
oneer awards (see Chapter 10 for a description).
The overall program would be open to candi-
dates from any other discipline with an interest
in chemical engineering, and a steady-state
program of 25 awards would be achieved over
5 years. The committee recommends that such
awards be funded at least at Level D (see Table
A.2) with the opportunity to grow to Level C
if warranted. This would mean an initial award
in the range of $100,000, and a program total of
at least $2.5 million at steady state. All candi-
dates for cross-disciplinary pioneer awards would
compete in one pool, regardless of their area of
interest within chemical engineering. It is likely,
however, that some of the awards would be
APPENDIX A
At! Engineering
Aero/Astro
Chemical
civil
Electrical
Mechanical
Other, n.e.c
~ Non-Federal Support
\\\\\\\\
K. .~. ~. X. .\ ~ X. .\ ~ ~ .\ ~ in. ., x .~.~. ~.x x.~.~.x \ ~
:
1
~\\\\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~
a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~
, ~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\\\\\\\\\4
1 1 1 1
0% 10% 20% 30%
1 1 1 1
140% 50% 60%
1
Fraction of Support AVER.
FIGURE A.2 Chemical engineering currently leads all engineering disciplines
in the fraction of its support coming from nonfederal sources. Data from
National Science Foundation.'
made to researchers with biological back-
grounds who are interested in chemical engi-
neer~ng.
Materials
For materials-related priority areas, the com-
mittee recommends small groups or cooperative
efforts among small groups as the preferred
mode of research organization. There are sev-
eral reasons for this:
~ Many of the frontier research questions
outlined in Chapters 4 and 5 can be profitably
attacked by adequately supported groups led
by a single principal investigator or by multi-
disciplinary collaborations between small re-
search groups.
~ Some important types of research questions
OCR for page 189
APP3ENDiX ~
~ Non-Federal Support ~ Federal Support
All Engineering ~\\\~\~\
1
Aero/Astro ~\\\\\~1
~1 1
l
1
Chemical
Civil
Electrical
Mechanical
Other, n.e.c
~\~\\~\\\\1
1 1
~ \//\//\//\/// 1'\\\~\\\\\:
1
:\\~\\\~: I
1
~\\\R~\\\~1
I//////////// 1
' ' ' '1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ , . . .
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%
1 1
aver. aver.
Percentage Growth FY 80 - 85
FIGURE A.3 Paradox. Among engineering disciplines, chemical engineering
enjoyed the second largest percentage growth in nonfederal support from FY
1980 to FY 1985. Dunng this same period, it also experienced the lowest
percentage growth infederal support. Data from National Science Foundation.'
require expensive instrumentation and equip-
ment that must be modified extensively by the
research team in order to perform its experi-
ments. In such cases, sharing even the same
type of equipment among groups with different
experimental objectives becomes impossible.
· Creating small groups or collaborations
among groups at institutions that have Materials
Research Laboratories (MRLs) can be a cost-
effective way to add chemical engineering ex-
pertise and insights to existing NSF-supported
efforts. There is a perception in the chemical
engineering community that the
MRLs are more directed toward
physics and perhaps not open to
significant participation by
chemical engineers. It may be
less expensive for NSF to inves-
tigate the reasons for this per-
ception and to facilitate access
by chemical engineers to existing
facilities at their home institu-
tions than to create new centers.
· There already is a significant
demand in the materials and elec-
tronics industry for chemical en-
gineers. These personnel needs
are likely to grow as future in-
ternational competition focuses
on materials processing. The ex-
isting and anticipated demand for
materials-oriented chemical en-
gineers will be most effectively
met by a broad-based pattern of
support, rather than one concen-
trated in a few large centers.
NSF Initiative 2
In FY 1986, there were only
15 NSF-supported chemical en-
gineering groups working on the
problems of electronic, pho-
tonic, and recording materials
and devices. Thirteen of these
were supported by the Directo-
rate of Engineering and shared a
total budget of $755,152. The
other two were in the Division of
Materials Research of the Direc-
torate of Mathematical and Physical Sciences.
Their budgets totaled $211,200. Six of these 15
groups are led by Presidential Young Investi-
gators. A 5-year initiative should be put in place
to double the number of groups working in this
critical area. This is an achievable goal if the
best existing groups are allowed to expand in
size to produce more faculty candidates, if
existing chemical engineering researchers with
interests in this area are given the resources to
shift their programs, and if some researchers
from related disciplines elect to become cross
OCR for page 190
^~^~X ~
TABLE A.3 NSF Support of Chemical Engineering in FY 1986
(thousands of dollars
Directorate, Division, and Program
Total
Directorate of Engineering
Office of the Assistant Director
Electrical, Communications, and Systems Engineenng
Chemical, Biochemical, and Thermal Engineering
Kinetics and Catalysis
Biochemical and Biomass Engineering
Process and Reaction Engineering
Multiphase and Interfacial Phenomena
Separation and Purification Processes
Thermodynamics and Transport Phenomena
Thermal Systems and Engineering
Mechanics, Structures, and Materials Engineering
Design, Manufacturing, and Computer Engineering
Emerging and Critical Engineering Systems
Biotechnology
Bioengineering
Cross-Disciplinary Research
Engineering Research Centers
Industry-University Cooperative Research Projects
Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers
Directorate of Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Chemistry
Materials Research
TOTAL
247
54
2,841
2,731
3,248
2,156
2,870
4,322
2,381
1,125
377
2,667
15
3,638
243
508
425
3,133
32,981
a NSF support of chemical engineering research by all performers.
SOURCE: NSF Directorate of Engineering and NSF Directorate of Mathematical
and Physical Sciences.
disciplinary pioneers in chemical engineering
departments. An appropriate steady-state group
size for research in this area would be some-
where between Levels B and C. This might
result in an eventual production of about 40
Ph.D. researchers per year with expertise in the
broad range of materials and devices for infor-
mation storage and handling.
It is somewhat surprising that the average
size of the 13 Engineering Directorate grants in
this area is only about $58,000. The PYIs are
obviously getting industry co-funding, but the
total size of individual programs in this area
must still be below the optimum level. A min-
imum target for research support, apart from
special instrumentation and facilities, should be
about $6 million by the end of the proposed
initiative. Industrial co-funding could be re-
quired to obtain state-of-the-art equipment or
to upgrade facilities.
NSF Initiative 3
The chemical engineering of polymers or
composites was the subject of at least 34 grants
in the Directorate of Engineering in FY 1986
(totaling $2.37 million), 12 in the Division of
Materials Research of MPS (totaling $2.83 mil-
lion), and an Engineering Research Center grant
of $1.25 million. In contrast, there was virtually
no identifiable NSF support in FY 1986 for the
chemical engineering of ceramics. In addition
to continued growth in support for research on
polymers and polymeric composites, a major
new thrust is recommended in the chemical
engineering of ceramics. An initial thrust might
be to solicit proposals to establish a number of
university-based centers on the chemical engi-
neering of ceramics that could then lay the
foundation for a more broadly based research
effort. Cross-disciplinary interaction between
OCR for page 191
~ ~ ,! 6:,: I, ~ ~
chemists, chemical engineers, and ceramists
would have to be a key feature of these centers.
One could imagine such centers being about
twice the size of a Level A research group. If
six to eight such centers were set up over the
next 5 years, their steady-state cost (less special
equipment and instruments) would be in the
range of $4 million per year. In addition to
centers, cross-disciplinary pioneers should be
supported in this area.
Processing of Energy and Natural Resources
NSF Initiative 4
National Science Foundation programs in
catalysis; multiphase systems; separations; dy-
namics of solids transport and handling; and
methodologies for design, scale-up, and control
play a key role in supporting more applied
research on processing of energy and natural
resources. These NSF programs must be sus-
tained and nurtured.
A recent report from the National Research
Council recommends that the NSF Separation
and Purification Processes Program receive a
substantial increment in its budget over the next
5 years.6 The committee endorses those rec-
ommendations.
Environmental Protection, Process Safety,
and Hazardous Waste Management
NSF Initiative 5
The National Science Foundation should
strongly support growth in this research area,
with a special focus on engineering design and
control methodology for process safety and
waste minimization. In FY 1986, only three
chemical engineering groups working in this
area were supported by NSF, with combined
support of less than $240,000.
Computer-Assisted Process and Control
Engineering
NSF Initiative 6
Chemical process systems is one focus of an
Engineering Research Center at the University
of Maryland established in 1985. In FY 1986,
NSF support of the chemical engineering re-
search at this center was reported to be $2.24
million. However, this is the total support re-
ceived by that center in 1986, and only about
25 percent of the work being carried out is in
chemical engineering. In 1986, an Engineering
Research Center on design was established at
Carnegie Mellon University with an initial grant
from NSF of $2.0 million. Again, about 25
percent of the center's effort is in chemical
engineering. Thus, NSF has committed to an-
nually fund about $1 million in chemical engi-
neering research in design methodology over
the next few years through these two ERCs.
Twenty-two other research groups in com-
puter-assisted process and control engineering,
six of which are led by PYIs, received $1.91
million in funding from NSF in FY 1986. While
the average grant size for this group of inves-
tigators (about $86,800) is much larger than the
average grant size for the CBTE Division, a
comparison with the levels of effort in Table
A.2 shows that in absolute terms these grants
still do not provide for a very substantial pro-
gram. The committee recommends a major
initiative for NSF: a 5-year pattern of growth
from the current 22 Level D grants to 35 Level
B grants. These groups will also need access to
state-of-the-art workstations, software, and
computer networks. Strong co-funding from
industry in addition to the NSF Level B grants
will help to meet this need, as well as the need
for periodic upgrades. At the end of 5 years,
the NSF investment in this area, exclusive of
the ERCs, should be at a total level of about
$8 million. At steady state, this initiative will
produce about 50 new Ph.D.s per year with
expertise in computer-assisted design, control,
and operations. They will have an immense
impact on chemical engineering education and
practice.
Surface and Interfacial Engineering
NSF Initiative 7
The National Science Foundation should ex-
pand its support to surface and interracial en-
gineering, focusing on surface chemistry, ca-
talysis, electrochemistry, colloid and interracial
OCR for page 192
192
phenomena, and plasma chemistry. State-of-
the-art research in these areas is very costly,
because- experimental apparatus must be tai-
lored to individual experiments. Expensive in-
struments ($200,000 to $500,000) are often ex-
tensively modified in the course of studies and
become, for all purposes, instruments dedicated
to a particular group. For such studies, there
are few financial savings to be realized from
assembling investigators into centers. The com-
mittee recommends that the NSF provide funds
for chemical engineering groups to acquire
sophisticated instrumentation for studying sur-
faces, interfaces, and microstructures.
The committee estimates that, in a given year,
somewhere between 10 and 25 of the active
groups in surface and interracial engineering
will need to acquire a major instrument for
adaptation and use. A funding level of $5 million
per year for major dedicated instrumentation
can meet most of these needs.
Research Excellence Awards
NSF Initiative 8
The committee recommends that a steady-
state program of 15 research excellence awards
in chemical engineering be achieved over 3
years. This new mechanism is described in
Chapter 10. Because these awards are intended
to fund speculative high-potential research, they
will probably work best in the milieu of a small
research group. Thus, the committee recom-
mends that they be funded at about Level D.
The steady-state cost of the initiative would be
$1.5 million.
Conclusion
The committee's recommendations for NSF
target about $22 million in growth over the next
5 years in six major initiatives, and a less
determinate amount of growth in the other two
initiatives. The six major initiatives would add
84 new research groups to chemical engineering
over 5 years, a 17 percent increase in the number
of groups funded. In terms of dollars, the
initiatives would amount to a rough doubling of
the amount that chemical engineering research
received from the CBTE Division in FY 1986.
AP~PENDIX ~
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The Department of Energy has wide-ranging
programmatic interests to which chemical en-
gineering can make important contributions.
These include familiar areas of fossil resource
production and processing, catalysis, separa-
tions, and nuclear energy. They also include
less familiar areas such as materials, process
design and control, and molecular biology.
In-Situ Processing of Energy and Mineral
Resources
DOE Initiative
The committee's prime initiative for DOE is
the support of research on fundamental phe-
nomena important for in-situ processing of hy-
drocarbon resources. (A related initiative for
the Bureau of Mines is discussed later in this
appendix.) The important fundamental prob-
lems in this area are outlined in Chapter 6. The
size and extreme complexity of the environ-
ments in which these phenomena occur will
require expensive, large-scale, prolonged field
experiments. Such large-scale research, though,
will be quite different from the demonstration
projects funded by DOE in the late 1970s and
early 1980s. Rather than demonstrating the
maturity of technologies and their readiness for
commercial application (an activity in which, it
has been argued, the federal government should
not be involved), the focus of large-scale fun-
damental research proposed for this initiative
would be to build a nonproprietary knowledge
base relating experimental results on the smaller
scales of test systems and equipment to results
obtained in the larger and more complex systems
found in the field.
A variety of support mechanisms for carrying
out such research could be envisioned that
would include sponsorship of individual re-
search projects in academia or federal labora-
tories, where appropriate; a DOE equivalent of
the NSF Engineering Research Centers, but
with more cooperative involvement from in-
dustry; and stimulation by DOE of industrial
consortia both to carry out joint research among
companies on nonproprietary topics and to
support relevant research in academia. The
OCR for page 193
APPENDIX ~
importance of this research is such that sub-
stantial interest in cooperative research might
be generated in industry if DOE took a lead
role in providing stimulus and partial funding.
Liquid Fuels for the Future
DOE Initiative 2
A second research initiative for DOE centers
on facilitating progress towards the next gen-
eration of liquid fuels. This is a very broad
topic, encompassing many areas including ca-
talysis (see Chapter 9), solids processing, sep-
arations, materials development, and advanced
scale-up and design techniques. The Office of
Energy Research (OER) and the Office of Fossil
Energy should work together to coordinate
research in these areas. Some research areas,
notably solids processing, may require the same
type of large-scale fundamental research called
for in the previous research initiative. The
mechanisms proposed there for stimulating large-
scale research may be applicable here, as well.
Advanced Computational Methods and
Process Control
DOE Initiative 3
The Division of Engineering and Geosciences
in OER supports cutting-edge research in fluid
dynamics and process design and control. These
programs should be sustained as a vital part of
the balanced portfolio of support for these areas
within chemical engineering. Process design,
scale-up, and control have already been men-
tioned as important keys to in-situ processing.
The Office of Fossil Energy should consider
setting up a research program in this area that
would support fundamental process design and
control research that would be particularly ap-
plicable to large-scale projects.
Surface and Interfacial Engineering
DOE Initiative 4
193
program has been in the areas of catalysis and
separations. Given the broad range of energy
applications in which the structure and chem-
istry of interfaces is important, the committee
recommends that the Division undertake an
initiative in the chemical control of surfaces,
interfaces, and microstructures. This would in-
clude support of work by both chemists and
chemical engineers in the areas of surface chem-
istry, plasma chemistry, and colloid and inter-
facial chemistry.
Microstructured Materials
DOE Initiative 5
Materials in general, and ceramics in partic-
ular, are heavily emphasized in the DOE Divi-
sion of Material Sciences. Up to now, this
program has had relatively little involvement
from chemical engineers. Given that chemical
processing approaches to ceramics have a bright
future, both for structural applications and pos-
sibly for ceramic superconductors, the OER
should consider a major thrust in chemical
processing of materials, with a view towards
the more facile production of defect-free ce-
ramics for energy and energy-saving applica-
tions.
Biotechnology
DOE Initiative 6
Bioprocessing is of interest to the DOE Di-
vision of Energy Conversion and Utilization
Technologies (ECUTJ, which is concerned with
increasing the efficiency of energy conversion
and the use of renewable resources. A recent
report of the National Research Council pro-
poses a comprehensive program in this area for
ECUT, involving both chemical engineering and
the life sciences, and funded for 10 years at an
annual level of $10 millions The committee
endorses these recommendations and urges their
. .
Implementation.
... . . .NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
The Division of Chemical Sciences in OER
supports basic chemical research. The primary The National Institutes of Health is the pre
involvement of chemical engineers with this mier sponsor of health-related research in the
OCR for page 194
/^~4
'i;-
- ~ ~
United States. Its long-term support of the basic
biosciences is responsible for the advances that
have made biotechnology possible. Sophisti-
cated engineering will be needed, though, if
biotechnology is to make its full potential con-
tribution to the nation's health. NIH supports
a great deal of research aimed at elucidating
molecular processes in living systems; identi-
fying molecules of potential therapeutic value;
and developing potential routes to them, whether
via synthetic chemistry or recombinant DNA
organisms. It provides less support to the prob-
lem of turning these potential synthetic routes
into practical, economic processes. In part this
is because NIH has traditionally focused on
basic science, leaving commercialization of dis-
coveries to others. But there is a knowledge
gap in the basic engineering science for bio-
technology and biomedicine that is not being
filled by industry. This gap impedes the full
conversion of new biological knowledge into
products and therapies for improving human
health. There is a role for NIH, consistent with
its historical mission and philosophy, to (1)
expand the base of fundamental knowledge in
the chemical engineering of biological systems
and (2) train a new generation of chemical
engineers to be more conversant with the bio-
logical sciences. Both steps will allow chemical
engineers of the future to expertly apply engi-
neering principles to biological problems.
NIH Initiative 1
The committee recommends that NIH un-
dertake an initiative to bring chemical engi-
neering researchers into more effective contact
with biological and medical researchers. The
mechanism for accomplishing this would be
through cross-disciplinary partnerships in re-
search, with groups ranging upwards in size
from a traditional research project led by two
co-principal investigators one from chemical
engineering and one from the life sciences to
program projects and perhaps even centers
involving many investigators from engineering,
biology, and medicine. At the low end of this
spectrum, a level of funding similar to Level A
in Table A.2 would allow for a substantial
interdisciplinary effort.
I/ ~,~ 1 FIT Jay r T? ~
NIH Initiative 2
The National Institutes of Health could also
play a vital role in shaping the biological chem-
ical engineers of the future by using Institutional
National Research Service Awards to provide
biochemical engineering graduate students with
a greater exposure to the life sciences. A sig-
nificant limiting factor in expanding the graduate
curriculum in this way is the problem of sup-
porting students for an additional year prior to
their immersion into grant-supported research.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
The chemical engineering research frontiers
of most relevance to the Department of Defense
are in materials. Faster electronic devices, more
reliable communication systems, and stronger
structural components are all needed by DOD
in order to fulfill its mission. Chemical process-
ing is a valuable tool to tailor these materials
for specific military uses.
A special strength of the DOD research in-
frastructure is its vertical integration from basic
research, through applied and exploratory re-
search, to advanced testing and evaluation of
technologies in the field. The committee rec-
ommends that DOD exploit this strength by
formulating integrated initiatives around topics
where advances in chemical processing can
exert leverage. The development of more secure
signal and communication systems might be one
such topic. Chemical processing plays an im-
portant role in the manufacture of both glass-
based and polymer-based optical fibers. The
latter are more easily fit to connectors and
attached to one another. They might be most
appropriate for defense systems requiring trans-
mission of data over short distances (measured
in meters) rather than long distances. An initi-
ative to develop practical polymer-based com-
munications systems would require a significant
basic research effort in polymer chemistry and
chemical engineering to resolve materials chal-
lenges to low-loss optical transmission in poly-
mers, a significant effort in chemical engineering
to provide the fundamental insights needed to
fabricate optical-quality polymer lenses, split-
ters, and connectors, as well as research in
related disciplines (e.g., electrical engineering)
OCR for page 195
PPEl~iD~: ~
to develop overall system concepts and design
and to produce a system that could be integrated
into existing hardware. The potential payoffs of
success in this initiative would be enormous,
both in terms of national security (e.g., secure
optically based communications systems cheap
enough to install nationwide) and in terms of
society's need for rapid, efficient transmission
of data (e.g., optically based local telephone
systems and local area networks capable of
simultaneously transmitting enormous quan-
tities of digitized voice and data signals).
This is just one example of several such DOD
initiatives that might be built around scenarios
that assume that basic chemical problems in
materials could be solved by concentration of
resources on fundamental research. One can
just as easily imagine other initiatives, such as
the following:
· The high strength of Kevlar'¢ fibers is due
to the way in which they are processed, rather
than their intrinsic chemical composition. If
processes could be found that were capable of
creating in other materials the highly ordered
structure seen in Kevlar~, it might be possible
to fabricate extremely durable treads for use in
modern infantry vehicles and tanks. Such a
practical focus might be used as an organizing
focus for a substantial program of fundamental
research on polymer processing for high strength
and toughness.
· Most composites used in aircraft must be
"laid up" by hand, because a reliable manufac-
turing technology for composites has yet to be
discovered. Chemical processing combined with
textile engineering could be used to achieve
major advances in the manufacture of reliable
composites for major structural components of
aircraft.
· Another composites problem is joining and
repairing these materials. Unlike metals, where
patches can literally be bolted onto a system
without substantially degrading performance,
performance in composites is very sensitive to
the means by which composite components are
joined to each other, or repaired. The practical
problem of repairing the composite aircraft of
the future could be the focus of a significant
fundamental chemical engineering effort to elu
cidate joining and repair on the molecular level,
and to integrate new insights from the molecular
level into the contributions that would be made
on the systems level by other disciplines (e.g.,
materials, mechanical, and aerospace engineer-
ing).
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA Initiative 1
The Environmental Protection Agency needs
a strong basic research program, especially in
chemical science and technology. The commit-
tee urges EPA to revitalize its research grant
program in the Office of Exploratory Research.
As part of this revitalization, EPA should seek
to fund the best chemical engineering research
groups investigating important ongoing chal-
lenges to environmental quality:
· fundamental chemical processes important
in the generation and control of toxic substances
by combustion,
~ chemical processes involved in the trans-
port and fate of hazardous substances in the
environment, and
~ design methodologies that could result in
waste and process hazard minimization in chem-
ical manufacturing plants.
These areas all promise substantial advances in
improving our environment, but will not yield
that promise in an atmosphere of on-again, off-
again funding. 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.
EPA Initiative 2
The EPA should consider establishing a na-
tional Center for Engineering Research on En-
vironmental Protection and Process Safety
(CERES), modeled on the National Center for
Atmospheric Research. Chemical and process
engineering researchers would benefit from a
special collection of state-of-the-art laboratory
facilities and computational resources dedicated
to research on environmental protection, pro
OCR for page 196
cess safety, and hazardous waste management.
As a centralized facility, CERES could serve a
coordinating role to enhance cooperation in
research across institutional boundaries and to
diffuse rapidly into industry research advances
made in academic and other laboratories. The
specific tasks and possible organization of such
a center, as well as its potential relationship
with a new NSF center on hazardous waste
management, should be the subject of an in-
depth study by EPA and any competition for
siting and operating this center should be open
to the most meritorious proposal, whether it
originates from a university, a federal labora-
tory, the nonprofit sector, or some combination
of the three.
NATIONALBUREAU OF STANDARDS
The National Bureau of Standards has a
unique role to play in supporting the field of
chemical engineering. It should be the focal
point for providing evaluated data and predictive
models for data to facilitate the design, the
scale-up, and even the selection of chemical
processes for specific applications.
Despite the plethora of data in the scientific
literature on thermophysical quantities of sub-
stances and mixtures, many important data gaps
exist. Predictive capabilities have been devel-
oped for problems such as vapor-liquid equilib-
rium properties, gas-phase and less accu-
rately liquid-phase diffusivities, and solubilities
of nonelectrolytes. Yet there are many areas
where improved predictive models would be of
great value. An accurate and reliable predictive
model can obviate the need for costly, extensive
experimental measurements of properties that
are critical in chemical manufacturing process
es.
Particular attention should be given by NBS
to data needs in the emerging technology areas
served by chemical engineering (i.e., biotech-
nology and materials). In the area of biotech-
nology, the NBS is attempting to identify and
assign priority to the thermophysical properties
of greatest importance to scale-up and com-
mercialization, and to identify promising theo-
retical approaches that could lead to generic
predictive models for the types of complex
APPEiV~\ ~
mixtures found in bioprocessing systems. The
committee endorses this effort and encourages
the NBS to provide the needed level of funds
for an optimal effort. In the materials area, the
need for international standards for advanced
materials, such as polymer blends and ceramics,
is acute. Again, the NBS has started an effort
in this area as part of the international Versailles
Project on Advanced Materials and Systems
(VAMAS). Currently, about 100 U.S. research-
ers are involved in VAMAS-related research,
in both industry and academia. The amount of
federal funding for this effort, though, is less
than $500,000. This type of project is extremely
important to the rapid worldwide development
of advanced materials, and should be funded at
a level more commensurate with that impor-
tance.
BUREAU OF MINES
The Bureau of Mines, within the Department
of the Interior, funds a substantial amount of
chemical engineering research in its in-house
laboratories, particularly in the area of hydro-
metallurgical separation processes. The U.S.
minerals industry is currently in a depressed
state typified by diminished research efforts
within industrial laboratories and, in some cases,
wholesale termination of research operations.
As a result, new researchers have bleak pros-
pects for industrial employment. At the same
time, the United States cannot afford to lose a
professional generation of research personnel
in an area that would be of critical importance
if foreign supplies of certain metals were inter-
rupted.
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
major one proposed for DOE. Such centers
should explicitly focus on generic themes, such
as separations from highly dilute solutions,
multiphase flow though porous media, or the
development of sensors and other instrumen-
tation. The goal of the centers program would
be to stimulate fresh ideas and insights in metals-
related processing research and to train a new
generation of research engineers flexible enough
OCR for page 197
APPE.,J~IX ~
either to move into a revitalized minerals in-
dustry or to find employment in the broader
sector of process industries.
NOTES
National Academy of Sciences, Government-Uni-
versity-Industry Research Roundtable. What Re-
search Strategies Best Serve the National Interest
in a Time of Budgetary Stress? Report of a
Conference. Washington, D.C.: National Acad-
emy Press, 1986.
2. National Science Foundation, Division of Science
Resources Studies. Academic SciencelEngineer-
ing: R&D Funds, Fiscal Year 1985. Washington,
D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1986.
3. National Science Foundation, Division of Science
Resources Studies. Federal Funds for Research
and Development, Fiscal Years 1985, 1986, and
1987, Volume XXXV (Detailed Statistical Tables).
Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation,
1986
4. National Science Foundation, Division of Science
Resources Studies. Federal Support to Universi-
ties, Colleges, and Selected Nonprofit Institu-
tions, Fiscal Year 1985. Washington, D.C.: Na-
tional Science Foundation, 1987.
5. National Academy of Sciences-National Academy
of Engineering-Institute of Medicine, Committee
on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. "Re-
port of the Research Briefing Panel on Chemical
and Process Engineering for Biotechnology," in
Research Briefings 1984. Washington, D.C.: Na-
tional Academy Press, 1984.
6. National Research Council, Committee on Sepa-
ration Science and Technology. Separation and
Purification: Critical Needs and Opportunities.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1987.
7. National Research Council, National Materials
Advisory Board. Bioprocessing for the Energy-
Efficient Production of Chemicals. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press, 1986.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
nsf initiative
