What would happen to innovation in chemical technology if we had a more intimate comingling of chemistry and the engineering sciences? What effect would there be on the stream of chemists graduating into the world if more schools had a chemical engineer on the chemistry faculty? Could a single engineer on the faculty actually make a difference in altering the direction of the boat a few degrees?
Why is such a change desirable? One way to change the trend of deindustrialization and economic repositioning of manufacturing out of North America is to stimulate innovation in the industrial sciences. To do this we can rely on business leaders individually to formulate strategic plans to upgrade plants and processes by way of step changes in technology. But for business leaders, the calculation for such a change must also take into account the alternative of moving production to another country. Many times it is easier and faster to move production to China rather than taking a gamble on the invention of better technology. A large amount of pharmaceutical manufacturing has been shifted to China, Mexico, and India for this very reason.
To rely on business leaders (top down) to ramp up innovation really means that one is relying on the market. While letting the marketplace drive the economics and distribution of manufacturing has a certain appeal to purists, the global marketplace is highly distorted by government and taxation. Letting “pure” market forces govern innovation as the sole driver is to bet all of your money on a horse that limps. Why not find ways to stimulate innovation with an improved stream of chemical innovators and a renewed urgency?
Universities do this all of the time. But it is my sense that other disciplines perhaps do this better. It is all too easy for we chemists to invent a reaction or composition, publish it, and then move on to the next outcropping of opportunity. We do this thinking that surely somebody will pick up the ball and run it to the end zone of commerce.
But for any given paper published in SynLett or JOC or ______, the likelihood of commercialization is low. It is not automatically the role of academic science to drive its work towards commercialization. That has been the role of engineering.
What has been lacking is more significant early overlap of the two disciplines. For a chemist to truly be a part of bringing a transformation to the manufacturing scale, the chemist has to begin thinking about how to prepare the chemistry for the big pots and pans. This is what the art of scale-up is about. And in scale-up, the practice of chemistry has to overlap with the practice of engineering.
Industry already provides for itself in this way by training chemists to do scale-up work. This kind of work has always been beyond the scope of academic training. But what if there were a course of study wherein chemistry faculty and students could more thoroughly address the problems of chemical manufacture? What if engineering concepts would be allowed to creep into the training of chemists?
Chemistry faculty would begin writing grants for process oriented research. Schools without engineering departments might start hiring the odd engineer or two in an effort to “modernize” the chemistry department. Gradually, a department might become known among recruiters and donors for producing a strain of BS, MS, and PhD chemists who are already adapted to process research.
It is important to stress that the goal is not to plop conventional engineering curriculum into the chemical course of study. That will not work. But what is possible is to build a minor in industrial chemistry applications. This pill will be easier to swallow for the P-chemists because in short order it would be apparent that chemical engineering is heavily loaded with physical chemistry.
I have tried to make a case that one way to make a positive influence in chemical innovation in North America is to begin a grass-roots effort to stimulate the culture of chemistry. I believe that providing an avenue of study that includes early exposure to engineering and process economics will stimulate many more students and faculty to make significant contributions to entrepreneurism and industry.
Lamentations on Chemistry 
nice article. thanks
For the cost of disposing one liter of university chemical waste in Southern California a lab bench in Canada can be rented for a week – all utilities, department spectrometries, and waste disposal included. Canada laughs at what Americans will pay to rent space. One would need be daft to convert raw material to product in America. It isn’t a science or engineering problem
Regulation feeds upon leisure and surplus. This year the American mid-west will not be growing much corn for the sustained wet, cold, foul weather (universal desiccation and incineration of Global Warming). Never before have food and fiat energy been so compromised together. One hopes bold new regulation is on the way. Maybe we can outsource agriculture, too – then invade to assure a bountiful inexpensive supply of food domestically.
What do we really mean with chemistry?
Let me expand on your excellent post:
Chemistry (from Egyptian kēme (chem), meaning “earth”[1]) is the science concerned with the composition, structure, and properties of matter, as well as the changes it undergoes during chemical reactions.[2] Historically, modern chemistry evolved out of alchemy following the chemical revolution (1773). Chemistry is a physical science related to studies of various atoms, molecules, crystals and other aggregates of matter whether in isolation or combination, which incorporates the concepts of energy and entropy in relation to the spontaneity of chemical processes.
Disciplines within chemistry are traditionally grouped by the type of matter being studied or the kind of study. These include inorganic chemistry, the study of inorganic matter; organic chemistry, the study of organic matter; biochemistry, the study of substances found in biological organisms; physical chemistry, the energy related studies of chemical systems at macro, molecular and submolecular scales; analytical chemistry, the analysis of material samples to gain an understanding of their chemical composition and structure. Many more specialized disciplines have emerged in recent years, e.g. neurochemistry the chemical study of the nervous system (see subdisciplines).
Great post and I agree greater exposure of chemists to industry/engineering is needed. Frankly I am not sure current education system prepares/trains chemists to be anything beyond a bench researcher and certainly not most industry positions. I had many friends in engineering in college but after 2nd year (P-Chem & Organic) we had separate course paths although I took a couple basic ChemE courses as electives. My impression is that EU countries do a little better in applications exposure but it would be useful to even have a lecture or two from a ChemE to upper level/grad school students so they know other horizons exists. Like many multiple discipline interactions just learning lingo translation is important. I have been fortunate to work with many good engineers in process development/manufacturing although quite a few have shifted to business end because better career pathways open.
Hey Gaussling!
I’m with CMC – why the engineering emphasis? Why not just require more faculty with real world experience?
Or, rather emphasize the importance of an internship in industry as a requirement for graduation. Then, acquaintance with chemists experienced in arts of the real world will reveal the need for business knowledge and other realities that await the student.
But really, while I understand your concerns, I am more concerned with other declines – especially in writing.
Not to bow down to its holy eminence, but, Harvard has been giving the undergraduate curriculum a once over recently. I believe that George Whitesides has weighed in on the subject with a well written essay available on the web that I will waste time looking for if you so ask.
as always-
Hi Genie, I would be interested to see what Whitesides has to say about writing. Whitesides is way out ahead of the pack in a number of areas. At least I think so.
I taught at a few schools that put a real emphasis on writing. Naturally some of the freshmen pissed and moaned about it, but for the most part you didn’t seem to hear alumni complaining. That is my recollection.
The purpose of this engineering education scheme is to stimulate the inventive brains of 20-something chemists so they can participate more effectively in a technological paradigm shift that I think needs to happen.
chemists rock!!! hahaha.. i’m college student taking chemistry and computer engineering.. that means im a fan of the science, hehe..
*chemists don’t die, they just reach equilibrium
kirk nortwirk
i used to work as a beer chemist before i entered the seminary. the best part of my job was the triangular taste test sessions. my education didn’t train me for it but the thought of having free beer during working hours and being paid to drink made me really really love my job.
the engineers? they’re the ones doing the dirty work (cooking, cellaring, filtering and bottling).
I agree substantially with your ideas, Gaussling. Here at the Non-Pharma Industrial Research Centre I’ve benefited from close interaction with some good chemical engineers and a versatile pilot plant on-site. It’s been eye-opening in some ways and I gather that this experience is somewhat unique (we never develop a process without consulting the engineers first).
A good way to integrate this with organic chemistry may be real-life “case studies” in pharma process chemistry that explain why much of what we learn in second-year organic is not used on large scales.
There is even a Wiley textbook on “industrial chemistry”, aimed for chemistry graduate students and undergrads.
Hey,
Re: stimulating a grassroots culture of chemistry and engineering, I have been working on a way to make a machine to produce biochemicals from scratch with limited material inputs (besides nucleic acids (“food”)) and hope that it can eventually be expanded into more industrial (but still “in the garage”) manufacturing:
http://heybryan.org/exp.html
– Bryan
Hi Bryan, I visited your site. It is very interesting. I need to spend some time there to follow the links in more detail.
Hi Jordan, I think you are right about the case study approach. Basically, solving problems in business is already structured as a case study, so that is a natural approach.