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 117
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering laboratories. If one focuses primarily on electrical energy, the R&D effort has traditionally been supplied by equipment suppliers and the federal government. Recently the U.S. utilities have considered playing a significantly more active role than they have in the past. A recent report by the Electric Research Council lays out a broad program for utilities, manufacturers, and government.11 The development of better, more reliable materials is an important theme in this report. A clear call is made for additional private, as well as federal, funding to support the work. Building Materials Many materials are used in the construction of buildings; these cover the whole spectrum of classes of materials, from low-technology materials, such as wood and concrete, to more sophisticated high-technology materials, such as plastics and composites. To identify materials needs and problems associated with buildings and construction technology, the following list provides a representative sampling of specific problems (prepared by experts in the National Bureau of Standards’ Building Research Division) of primary importance in this area. These are not in order of priority. Roofing Materials: There have been no recent innovations in this area. This may be partly due to the fact that no performance criteria or standards currently exist for roofing materials. This problem could be further complicated in the future, as there is a shortage of asphalt. It is estimated that 8×109 square feet of roofing material is used per year. Not enough use has been made of plastics or other substitutes. Plumbing Materials: Plastics are potential replacements for metals. However, here again we need performance criteria and standards for plumbing systems. Additional research is required in the area of plastic pipes and tubings. This problem in the plumbing area has been a subject for comment and criticism by at least one Congressional Committee. Joining Problems—Adhesives: Here much work is lacking in surface science and the science of adhesion. Adhesive manufacturers will not guarantee their products because not enough is known about the adhesive mechanisms. Current adhesives last only about four years as opposed to the desired 40 years. 11 Electric Utilities Industry R&D Goals Through the Year 2000, Report of the R&D Goals Task Force to the Electric Research Council, ERC Pub. No. 1–71, June 1971.
OCR for page 118
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering Sealants: These are used to provide more-or-less permanent joints between brick walls and ceilings or between marble slabs. Their main purpose is to exclude water and air. They require no structural properties, in contrast to adhesives, which bind one surface to another and must be capable of transmitting stress and strain. Better sealants are needed with greater imperviousness. Acoustic Materials: Generally speaking, materials with good acoustic absorption do not have good moisture-absorption properties and also present a potential hazard with respect to fire safety. The best acoustic materials are not satisfactory, and further R&D work in this area is necessary. Solar-Energy and Coating Materials: New materials are required for better solar-energy absorption, and coating transmission and reflectance properties. Current coating materials do not maintain these critical properties over a sufficiently long period of time. Gasket Problems: This is somewhat related to the sealant problem. However, the gasket is usually coupled into a moving fixture such as a sliding door and may be subject to periodic compression and expansion. The need is for new rubberlike materials with improved resiliency and durability. Moisture Effects: Moisture is a primary cause of deterioration in almost all classes of building materials, from concrete to metals. We need better materials that will resist the effects of moisture. Degradation of underground insulating materials due to moisture is a particularly serious problem. The corrosion of metals is another serious problem, particularly with respect to the corrosion of air-conditioning cooling towers.
OCR for page 119
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering MATERIALS EDUCATION AND RESEARCH IN UNIVERSITIES Introduction The marked diversity of the educational backgrounds of the professionals who work in the broad field of materials science and engineering has been emphasized earlier. It will be analyzed further in the final section on manpower of this chapter. The existence of this diversity, which had not been widely recognized hitherto, was identified early in the COSMAT study. Accordingly, it was concluded that a meaningful examination of university education and research in materials should take full account of such activities not only in those university departments that offer materials-designated degrees—such as in metallurgy, ceramics, polymer science, or materials science and engineering—but also wherever else such educational activities occur, i.e., in other university science and engineering departments and in interdisciplinary materials research laboratories. This section of Chapter 7 describes our examination of that educational scope. Two summary points arising from this examination will perhaps clarify for the reader the wisdom of that broader approach in developing a proper understanding of university activities in materials. First, in the area of education (Table 7.28) for professionals working in the materials field, while the varieties of degree programs and academic institutions are large, formal undergraduate curricula in materials are found to be confined largely to students in the materials-designated departments. Yet, graduates from such departments make up only a fraction of the professional manpower in the materials field. Indeed, in the engineering disciplines alone (almost all of the materials-designated departments are within schools of engineering), the materials-designated bachelor’s degrees are only some 2.5% of the total first-degrees in all fields of engineering, and the master’s and doctorate’s only some 3% and 8% respectively.12 Secondly, the materials research and the related graduate degrees from the materials-designated departments amount, in the early 1970’s, to rather less than half of the materials research and graduate degrees involving faculty and students from other departments, i.e., to less than one-third of the total. In 1971, research support going directly to the materials-designated departments (of which there are almost 100) totaled some $17 million, compared to about $51 million funded to interdisciplinary materials centers and their associated faculty. (Only about one-third was direct or “block” support to the centers; the remainder was direct support to individual faculty members.) Four million dollars of the block support was assigned 12 The data on which these figures are based are derived from the annual statistics on engineering degrees from the U.S. Office of Education, American Society for Engineering Education, and the Engineering Manpower Commission. The difficulties occasioned from the changing definitions “materials” degrees in these statistics have been discussed by Radcliffe (J.Metals (May 1969) 29–35).
OCR for page 120
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering TABLE 7.28 Types of Education and Institutions from which Manpower in the Materials Field Is Derived TYPE OF EDUCATION PRINCIPAL ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED PRINCIPAL USER INSTITUTIONS FOR GRADUATES I. Terminal B.S. in State and private universities Production & development in materials producing and consuming industries. a) Met., Cer., Poly. Sci. and b) Mech. Eng., Ind. Eng., Civil Eng., Chem. Eng., Physical Sciences II. Preparatory B.S. in Mat. Sci., Met., Cer., etc. ? State and private universities involved in materials research + fraction of Physics, Chem., Main Eng. Disciplines ? All research universities Graduate schools a) Headed for advanced degrees in Materials Science. b) Headed for advanced degrees in related fields III. Terminal M.S. as in I Major state and private universities Development & research in moderate-to-large organizations IV. Ph.D.’s as in II a) Mat. degrees in many fields, esp. Mat. Sci. Selected universities esp. involved in materials Research & development in materials consumer and producer industries, government; university teaching b) All other related depts. V. 2-yr. Technicians State universities, community colleges, other institutions Producing industries
OCR for page 121
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering to faculty in the materials-designated departments for a total of approximately $21 million. The university materials centers, which were started in the early 1960’s with the formation of interdisciplinary laboratories (known as IDL’s) in 12 universities through the Department of Defense, have increased in number to about 28. In 1971, the original 12 universities received approximately two-thirds of the total direct federal support for all university materials R&D. The scale of the activities of the materials research centers and their associated faculty, as indicated by the foregoing, merits some discussion of how the centers came into existence, as a precursor to outlining the scope and rationale for the particular analysis of materials activities in the universities which was adopted by COSMAT. The materials-related disciplines were the focus of the first attempt on the American university campus to create a new style of research organization and to accelerate the processes of academic curricular change resulting from federal recognition of a specific national need. At the time that physical metallurgy and the physics of metals were the principal, and largely separate, areas of materials research at universities in the late 1930’s and 40’s, the concept of task-oriented, closely coupled, interdisciplinary research was being developed in a particular sector of U.S. industry: namely, the research laboratories of the major corporations related to the electronics, communication, and aerospace industries. Such industrial prototypes served as the models for governmentally inspired changes at the universities (although industry had little direct input into the actual formulation of the programs). The federal initiative in the materials research area stemmed from advisory reports which identified the need for increased manpower for such materials research but which also stressed that the university laboratories could not afford the sophistication of industrial research because of the large investments required in equipment and manpower. The Coordinating Committee on Materials Research and Development (CCMRD) proposed specific action to the Federal Council on Science and Technology in 1959. As a consequence, the Advanced Research Projects Agency of DoD developed programs in 12 universities for “Interdisciplinary Materials Research Laboratories.” The AEC supported analogous laboratories in 3 universities, and NASA followed with a smaller program. Subsequently, several universities established similar centers without special or continuing support, so that a total of some 28 materials centers now exist on U.S. campuses. The creation of this system of interdisciplinary materials research laboratories and the strong growth of many of the materials-designated and materials-related departments resulted from federal initiative and from investments of $300—$400 million during the ensuing decade. This effort in the materials field is probably the most widespread and longest established attempt at encouraging interdisciplinary concepts and practices within universities. It has over a decade of history, and now that other fields of similar scope are emerging, an evaluation of MSE in our educational institutions is especially timely for the use of both university administrators and federal officials concerned with research policy. From the above introductory discussion, it is apparent that an analysis of university education in materials requires a study of the following principal areas:
OCR for page 122
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering Instructional activities related to MSE, including materials-designated degree programs and educational activities in disciplines related to materials. Materials research, as conducted in the materials research centers and academic departments. Institutional interactions, including the management of materials research and coupling between the universities and industry. Because the very grouping of activities entitled materials science and engineering is only somewhat more than ten years old, comprehensive statistics, data, evaluations, and even a definitive list of the departments or degree programs proved to be unavailable. Accordingly, several questionnaires were designed to obtain the necessary data on materials-related university research and educational activities. (In interpreting this information, care has been taken to try to recognize the inevitable shortcomings of data-gathering for a new area where common definitions are not yet adequately established.) The four questionnaires that were adopted and the relevant response characteristics were as follows: Questionnaire to all departments in the U.S. granting materials-designated degrees regarding their undergraduate and graduate teaching and research activities. The responses (72 out of 112 questionnaires sent) cover the institutions granting 95% of all doctorates in such departments. Questionnaire to all departments granting degrees in fields related to MSE, i.e., Chemistry (64%), Physics (70%), Geology (45%), Chemical Engineering (42%), Civil Engineering (33%), Electrical Engineering (53%), Mechanical Engineering (42%), which were listed in the top two categories of the Roose-Anderson report evaluating graduate departments.13 (Shown in parentheses are the percentage of responses in the various fields.) Questionnaire on the research activities of all the formally designated interdisciplinary materials research centers in the country. Twenty-eight such centers were located (100% response). Questionnaire seeking individual opinions of the effectiveness of materials centers from a set of senior university, governmental, and industrial representatives in the materials field. The set used was the membership of COSMAT, its panels, the membership of the National Materials Advisory Board, and the Chairmen (only) of the NMAB major committees for the last decade. (About 40% response) Samples of the questionnaires are provided in Appendix 7A. 13 K.D.Roose and C.J.Anderson, A Rating of Graduate Programs, American Council of Education, Washington, D.C. (1971).
OCR for page 123
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering Before proceeding with the analysis of the response data based on the above questionnaires, we shall sketch some historical highlights of materials education in the U.S. Some Historical Highlights of Materials Education in the United States A broad perspective of education in the materials field is aided by recognition of the sequence in which the use of the major classes of materials must have developed. If prehistoric times are considered, there is no doubt that man’s dependence on, and hence his concern with, polymeric materials (natural fiber and wood for clothing and shelter) far predates his use of any other type of material, including ceramics (Stone Age) and metals (Bronze Age). Formal education in the science and engineering of any of these materials could not, of course, develop until science and engineering themselves took form in comparatively recent times. Yet, it is interesting to note that many pure sciences were born out of applied science; materials technology was in many ways the precursor of much physical science just as the beginnings of chemistry were grounded in extractive metallurgy. The formation of disciplines within the materials family undoubtedly arose in an order dictated by many factors, but one may speculate that foremost among these were the complexity of the chemical manipulations required to isolate useful materials, and the urgency with which they were needed. If this is so, the reasons for the preoccupation of materials-science education with metals become clear. Most metals, as used, are nearly pure elements or relatively simple mixtures of them, at least up to very recent times. The processes needed to produce them from their naturally-occurring ores are also simple, again with some notable exceptions such as the electrolytic production of aluminum. The interest of the alchemists in precious metals must have contributed much to the early stages of the science of metallurgy. Additionally, the accessibility of metals, the relative ease with which they can be processed, and their serviceability in answering man’s needs for materials provided the impetus for the early development of the science and engineering of metals, which we now call metallurgy. Ceramics, on the other hand, are both more complicated chemically and much less tractable. The need for these materials was great in certain areas related to metals processing, such as the refractory materials used to line furnaces or molds. Therefore, a limited portion of the science and engineering of ceramics grew up concurrently with the rise of metallurgy. Other parts of the empirical approach to manipulating brick, clay, sand, and cement chiefly into construction materials developed as a specialized branch of chemistry or chemical engineering. However, the basic science of ceramics has been some two or three decades behind that of metallurgy, principally because of the greater variation of ceramic structures on the atomic scale. In striking contrast, organic polymers or macromolecules are materials of enormous chemical complexity, whose basic long-chain nature was still in doubt even in the 1920’s. Thus, polymer science and engineering has of necessity developed even more recently, and education in this field came after the systematization of metallurgy and ceramics.
OCR for page 124
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering Hence, it is not surprising that the first of the several materials disciplines to advance to the point where separate educational programs and curricula could develop was metallurgy. With the increased tempo of technological advances together with the proliferation of scientific and engineering knowledge, and the consequent need for specialization, formal education in MSE began in separate departments or subdepartments (often within chemistry or chemical engineering) or in schools of mining or mineral products in the early years of the present century. The early departments were also concerned to a lesser extent with nonmetallics, for the reasons cited above. The Morrill Act of 1862 establishing the Land-Grant Colleges for training to meet society’s obvious needs in “Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts” was a landmark which signalled the beginnings of the great State universities of the U.S. Because of their mandate to supply manpower to the developing materials-industrial base of the nation, these institutions were to produce a large percentage of the trained materials specialists of the country—from the Colorado School of Mines to the State Universities of Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Other early materials departments were closely associated with specific local industries in which their graduates expected to find employment. Thus, well-established departments of metallurgy grew up in the major centers of the steel and nonferrous industries (Lehigh in Bethlehem, Carnegie-Mellon in Pittsburgh, Case Western Reserve in Cleveland, Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago). In some of the earlier departments to be formed, the faculty took a national rather than local view of the industry which they were serving. They developed close associations with some of the major metal industries across the country. Notable in this group were Columbia and Yale. One of the few examples of a department being established because of the needs of a metals-consuming industry is that of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute near the main plant of the General Electric Company in Schenectady. Some of the early departments of metallurgy had some faculty who specialized in ceramics. As the science of ceramics developed, the subgroups within metallurgy departments which were concerned with this subject tended to expand and in some cases to separate themselves from the parent department. Before the Second World War, some 16–20 such groups existed. However, in those states where the refractory, whiteware, glass, and related industries were important, the ceramics section or departments tended to grow parallel to the metallurgy effort and sometimes in competition with it, e.g. at the Universities of Illinois, Ohio State, and Penn State. About a half-dozen institutions carried on a very large fraction of the nation’s education in ceramic science and technology (including, in the case of Alfred University, some work on the aesthetic and artistic development of these materials). The early educational efforts related to polymers were largely descriptive rather than scientific, since they predated the development of polymer science and engineering. Courses in the technology of polymeric materials were developed as long ago as 1908 for the paper industry, and subsequently in the 1920’s and 1930’s for the textile, rubber, and paint and varnish industries. Emphasis on plastics per se came later still, for these are largely synthetic materials whereas the above-mentioned industries were originally based entirely on naturally-occurring polymers. It was not until the late 1930’s that the research on polymerization, carried out
OCR for page 125
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering chiefly in industrial laboratories, provided a sound basis for the science of synthetic polymers. Organized curricula treating polymers as a science developed only after the Second World War, by which time the dependence of industry on polymeric materials was firmly established; for example, in electrical insulation for radar and television use, and rubbers for seals, gaskets, hoses, and tires. Most of these curricula have remained within the parent departments (again usually chemistry or chemical engineering) with a few notable exceptions. The first separate effort to achieve prominence was at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, with others formally organized more recently (chiefly after 1960) in the Universities of Akron, Case Western Reserve, and Massachusetts, and informally at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and at various industry-oriented institutions such as paper and textile institutes. In general, these departments or subdepartments concerned with polymeric materials have had little or no connection with the older metallurgy/ceramic departments. Starting in the 1960’s, however, departments which grew out of metallurgy and aspired to cover materials more broadly have added courses in ceramics and polymers to their curricula. The materials departments established before 1930 were often associated organizationally or conceptually with chemistry or chemical engineering and most of the faculty were drawn from those backgrounds. In a few places, the organizational link with chemical engineering has been maintained, as for example at Syracuse University. Yet, for the most part the academic development has not remained closely associated with the development of chemistry, and in some instances (e.g. at the University of Michigan), a long-standing link with chemical engineering has been severed. Once formed, the materials departments have tended to be little influenced by the parent chemical discipline. Moreover, after 1930 a major change occurred. The advances in solid-state physics started to exert a much greater influence on the content of curricula in materials. The flowering, first of metal physics and then of semiconductor physics, provided a great challenge for, as well as a great impact on, pedagogy in the materials field. Since 1960 the trend towards higher-bandgap materials has further emphasized physical inquiry on ceramic or semi-insulator materials. Most of the groups concerned with polymers also started, as stated earlier, in chemistry or chemical engineering departments; they, too, have been absorbing more from the discipline of physics in recent years. Developments within materials departments have also been influenced, to a large extent, by the changes in general attitude and approach to undergraduate and graduate education in engineering. All of the early programs were designed to produce a qualified and professional metallurgist or ceramist at the bachelor’s level. Many of the graduates of such programs went directly into industry and were expected to be useful engineers very shortly after graduation. The early graduate programs were designed to lead to the doctorate and from the beginning had a strong science orientation. One trend in engineering generally over the last ten years has been to push the primary professional qualification to the master’s level. The undergraduate degree has, therefore, tended to become a more general type of education and a suitable basis for further work in a variety of professions. To some extent, the development of materials-degree programs along these lines has lagged behind those in other areas or engineering; there remains a strong inclination
OCR for page 126
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering for such departments to seek accreditation for their respective bachelor’s degrees as the first professional qualification. Let us now turn to describing the materials teaching and training activities associated with: Degrees carrying the formal designation of materials science and/or engineering, or any one of the material classes (metallurgy, ceramics, polymer science); and Degrees in all the materials-related sciences and engineering disciplines. Instructional Activities In every field of technology, the contribution of universities to society is educated manpower. Correspondingly, the field of materials draws on the products of the universities’ instructional activities from several disciplines and in two major categories: (a) those departments or degree programs which are formally designated as materials (i.e. materials science, solid-state science, materials engineering, metallurgy, ceramics, polymer science and/or engineering) and hence, are wholly dedicated to the field; and (b) the materials-related disciplines which also contribute in a substantial way to the development of the field, but each of which is only partly concerned with materials as such. Corresponding data from a wide variety of university and manpower statistics (from the National Science Foundation, Engineering Council for Professional Development, Engineering Manpower Commission, the National Academy of Sciences) have been analyzed in addition to the new data obtained from the COSMAT questionnaires in order to develop the following account. Materials-Designated Departments In Table 7.29 are listed 89 U.S. universities with their degree programs designated as in the materials area. The degrees include metallurgy, metallurgical engineering, ceramic engineering, metallurgy and materials science, solid-state science, materials science, and polymers. Of these 89, at least 45 have graduate or undergraduate programs with the word materials in the title, as part of a phrase such as materials science, materials engineering, solid-state science (taken to be equivalent to materials science). There are 31 programs with titles involving only metallurgy, though 8 of the 14 materials and solid-state science programs have evolved from those in metallurgy. In contrast, there are only 14 degree programs in ceramics and 4 in polymerics (not including degrees in chemistry with specialization in polymers), in spite of the current wide use of the latter materials. These program titles have changed significantly in the last decade; in 1960, there were virtually no programs with the word materials in the title. Table 7.30 lists the titles existing in 1964 and 1970 as simple evidence of this change.
OCR for page 127
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering TABLE 7.29 Materials-Designated Degree Programs+ G=Grad; U=Undergrad; B=Both; #=Also has interdisciplinary research center CERAMICS METALLURGY POLYMERICS MATERIALS (Departmental) *denotes hybrid title, usually with Met. MATERIALS (Interdiscip.) PART OF LARGER UNIT++ Akron # G Alabama B Arizona B Brooklyn Polytech. B Brown # B California, Berkeley # B California, Los Angeles B* California State Polytech. College B California, San Jose B Carnegie-Mellon B* Case Western # G B* Chicago # Cincinnati B Clemson B G Cleveland State B Colorado Mines B Columbia B Connecticut # B Cornell # B Delaware U Denver G* Drexel B Florida B* Georgia Tech B G
OCR for page 203
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering FIG. 7.41 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NUMBER OF FTE FACULTY IN MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS AND DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH SUPPORT
OCR for page 204
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering FIG. 7.42 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH SUPPORT PER FTE FACULTY MEMBER IN MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS AND DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH SUPPORT
OCR for page 205
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering but to level out at some $10,000 annually per faculty member when the departmental support exceeds about $1 million annually. The doctoral and publication outputs corresponding to the above research support are presented in Figures 7.43 and 7.44. The relationship between the average number of doctorates awarded annually by a department and the level of annual research support (Figure 7.43) again shows a wide variation—from less than $50,000 to more than $150,000 per year per doctorate. Likewise, the research output expressed as the number of publications per faculty member in relation to the number of graduate degrees awarded (Figure 7.44) also shows considerable spread, with the faculty output generally increasing (up to 4.5 to 5 papers per year) as a function of increasing number of graduate degrees awarded by the department. Research Interactions with Industry The evidence from the COSMAT survey indicates that there is relatively little interactive research in materials being done jointly by the universities and industry. Specific coupling efforts exist in only 4 of 5 materials groups in the country. The most active of these are in four universities with materials centers having no block-fund support, and in one center having such support. Although the industrial perception tended to be that the degree of this interaction was too small, the universities alone do not appear to be accountable for this state of affairs; industrial management seems to have been unimaginative in its approaches to utilizing the potential resources of the federally-funded basic research groups at the universities. A longer discussion of the problems and opportunities of industry-university coupling, including descriptions of the various programs, is given in Appendix 7D. Two basic patterns of coupling have been tried in the materials field: A: Industrial Coupling or Liaison Program between universities and industries alone; and B: the ARPA-coupled contracts and NSF experiments where the sponsoring agency serves a special role. Pattern A Lehigh University—“Industrial Liaison Program” —Materials Science Center with approximately a dozen companies. About 10 years old. Penn State University—“Industrial Coupling Program” —Materials Research Laboratory with approximately a dozen companies. About 10 years old. Stanford University—“Industrial Affiliates Program” —Chemistry and Chem. Eng. Departments with 13 companies. About 3 years old. U.C.L.A. —“Materials Affiliates Program” —Materials Division with six companies. 3 years old. Case Western Reserve University—“Industrial Coupling” —Macromolecular Institute and about a dozen companies. About 7 years old.
OCR for page 206
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering FIG. 7.43 ANNUAL NUMBER OF DOCTORATES FROM MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS IN RELATION TO DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH SUPPORT
OCR for page 207
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering FIG. 7.44 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLICATION RATE AND GRADUATE-DEGREE OUTPUT OF MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS
OCR for page 208
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering Pattern B Washington University (St. Louis) —Monsanto (continuing) All with ARPA support (about 8 years old) Case Western Reserve University—Union Carbide (terminated) University of Denver—Martin Marietta (terminated July 1, 1973) American University, Carnegie-Mellon, Georgia Tech., Lehigh University Boeing—Naval Research Laboratory (terminated) Carnegie-Mellon University—“Processing Research Institute” —Mechanical, Chemical, and Materials Engineering Departments. (Just starting) With NSF support Seven Universities—Ultrahard Materials Program with 30–40 companies in cutting tool and grinding materials area. The ARPA approach was aimed very specifically at advancing selected areas of technology, on the basis of the following criteria: It must be of major DoD interest. It must be lacking in sufficient commercial interest unless stimulated by adequate DoD support. The field must be small enough that support of the order of a million dollars per year is enough to permit a laboratory operation to attain close to world leadership. The area must be large enough that it is not intellectually confining, so that good people will find a wide enough assortment of problems to attract and maintain their interest. It should be a field in which there is on-going work at present, “since we do not wish to attempt to build from scratch a large program that we then have to feel responsibility for.” The ARPA experiment was basically not an attempt to innovate in interinstitutional interaction, but rather a program to accelerate science-technology transfer. The principal active model, which emerges for the other and longer-lived programs, is of a small (10–15) list of companies, specifically associated in a formal manner with a particular laboratory. A key common feature is that the area of specialization of the university laboratory be of specific and particular interest to the companies involved. This is the crucial distinction
OCR for page 209
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering from the generalized university-wide “industrial associates” programs which many distinguished universities have developed since the War. Thus, among the examples given, it will be seen that the Lehigh program attracts chiefly metals companies, while that at Penn State University chiefly attracts electronic materials and ceramics companies. For the most part, interaction with industry was not a primary purpose of the federally block-funded materials research centers. Nevertheless, some of the block-funded centers have had wide-ranging, but informal, interactions with materials and local industries, and have participated in materials problems of practical interest. These interactions have occurred via informal discussions, by members of the centers acting as consultants to industry, by the participation of members in national problem-solving study groups such as the ARPA Materials Research Council, and by industrial research administrators serving on the visiting committees of materials centers. Some General Aspects of Materials Science and Engineering at Universities A variety of organizational units within the universities make a contribution to the science and engineering of materials. In the educational area, about 90 formally-designated materials degree programs of all kinds (including materials science, solid-state science, materials engineering, metallurgy, ceramics, and polymer science—alone or in various combinations) produce some 1000 B.S., 450 M.S., and 300 Ph.D. degrees per year. These constitute roughly 3%, 4%, and 8% of the corresponding numbers for all of engineering. In addition, several hundreds of bachelor’s and advanced degrees are granted to students who enter the wider field of materials science and engineering; in that group of disciplines, physics, chemistry, electrical engineering, etc., some 500 Ph.D. degrees are awarded annually in university materials-related programs. Educationally, MSE has a relatively weak presence on the campus as a disciplinary activity—having some impact on the engineering curricula and essentially none on science departments. Of the 250 or so engineering schools, only about 65 have departments of materials. In part, this state reflects the stage of development of the field. At many universities, materials as a field is new enough to be considered in an “interdisciplinary” phase. Materials research is conducted within interdisciplinary centers, materials departments, and a wide variety of related departments. A particularly important development during the last decade in university research administration has been the emergence of the materials center and its block-funding concept. Nevertheless, a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding appears to exist as to the current character and state of that area, even among those closely connected with the field. From the COSMAT analysis, the principal facts may be summarized as follows: There are some 28 interdisciplinary materials research centers of various kinds existing as formal units at institutions in the U.S. They receive about $51 million annually (FY ’71) from all external sources to support their research.
OCR for page 210
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering Eighteen of these are block funded, with the amounts varying from $250,000 to $7 million annually. Ten are not block funded, but a few of these are as large and diverse as several of the block-funded institutions. Taken as a group these centers constitute a major national resource for sophisticated education and research in MSE. There is general agreement in the universities that block funding on campuses is a desirable and workable arrangement. However, there is a wide spread in all the quantifiable measures of the actual performance of such centers. Within the materials community, considerable diversity of opinion exists on the effectiveness of block funding as a whole with respect to the costs for producing research and training students, the degree of interdisciplinarity achieved, innovation in education, and interactions with government or industry. Research in the materials-designated departments is funded at about $20 million annually, followed in funding by materials research in departments of physics, chemistry, and electrical engineering. Coupling of the university materials programs to industrial research has been modest. Generally speaking, the coupling experiments by ARPA do not seem to have left a major mark. Five formally organized programs coupling a materials center or unit to a group of industries exist, all save one at nonblock-funded universities. The adopted patterns have similar features, and provide a valuable starting point for other attempts. The last ten years have been an era in which the conceptual and industrial aspects of the science of materials have been developed and refined, along with a burst of activity in the basic sciences. The next decade should see the test of the validity and utility of these concepts with thrusts toward the more applied areas. A study of the objectives of the materials centers and of the important novel characteristics of the materials science/engineering field suggest certain criteria which may serve usefully in future evaluations of the materials-center programs, particularly in relation to national concerns. These criteria are: Effectiveness of materials center management. Outputs per dollar of support, development of unique central facilities to aid materials research across the whole campus, graduate degrees, publications. Quantity and quality of research and graduate students in both materials-designated and materials-related areas. Degree of interdisciplinarity achieved. Balance between basic and applied orientations and among different classes of materials. Balance between individual idea-pursuit and work on coherent areas.
OCR for page 211
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering In addition to evaluating the center as an organization for research, the question of the effectiveness of the block-grant mechanism of funding requires attention. That the potential benefits of block funding fall into two categories may not have been clearly recognized: Benefits automatically accrued: Longevity. Stability of research planning, hence ability to tackle long-range, more basic problems. Creativity. Major savings of faculty time in not writing proposals and in minimizing related administration. Flexibility. Availability of funds to get new faculty going, for acquisition of major pieces of new instrumentation, starting new areas as the ideas arise, etc. Benefits which may be achieved: Genuine Interdisciplinarity. Can be developed by propinquity, joint research programs, writing of joint papers, etc Coherent Programs. Focused research is made possible on larger and applied problems. Central Facilities. Major equipment items and services can be developed and utilized by large numbers of faculty from different departments. When evaluated against these criteria, it is seen that the main areas where the materials center concept can be regarded as successful include: It drew attention to the emergence of coupled materials science and engineering as a new interdisciplinary focus of activity in a way which could not have been achieved otherwise: the development on several campuses of a true intellectual center of materials research, with a building, central facilities, key faculty members and their graduate students interacting with each other, and (occasionally) with government and industry. These institutions now constitute a national resource of vast importance. It demonstrated that block funding is perfectly feasible on a campus. The support led to several excellent research groupings of faculty members, the building-up of a reputation and attraction for good students, and the training of first-rate materials scientists, physicists, chemists, and other professionals. Another unique benefit was in efficiency through faculty saving their time in writing proposals and seeking support, and the agency officials likewise saving a great deal of administrative time.
OCR for page 212
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering A large number of students were trained in an excellent environment for advanced degrees. Conversely, criticisms or questions about the materials-center programs arise with respect to the following: Why is there so little evidence for the special impact of a $25–30 million/year program on advanced-degree production? The increase in the materials degrees shows no evidence that this increase was any more than the normal growth curve of U.S. science. The development of any special administrative mechanism for centralization or other effective sharing of facilities, etc., is not particularly marked in at least half of the centers. The dollar support associated with the output of research (publications) and with numbers of advanced degrees show a large variability. Allowing for all the factors which might affect these values, changes neither the fact nor the magnitude of the wide range in cost at universities which are otherwise very similar. Whether the differences are attributable to particular management or accounting patterns, or actually to more effective work, merits attention, if the universities are to make best use of their resources in the future. The degree of interdisciplinarity has developed only modestly compared with industry, although better than in the traditional departments. Coherent-area research was almost non-existent up to the date of the COSMAT survey (1971). Taking into account the fact that the block funding of materials centers included many schools with the best faculty and reputations, the question that recurs is: “What was achieved by block funding for the materials centers that would not have been achieved by funding the faculty directly?” Specific points that raise this question are: There is little or no correlation between magnitude of block funding and development of the institution as a “materials school.” (i.e., a university with an excellent physics department receiving a block grant for materials research would have been expected to acquire some “materials” reputation outside of physics.) There is only modest correlation between the availability of block funding and the existence of specialized laboratory buildings, or central facilities, or their scale. There is a negative correlation between existence of block funding and interaction with industry.
OCR for page 213
Materials and Man’s Needs Materials Science and Engineering: Volume III The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering There is no correlation between large block grants and degree of interdisciplinary interaction. Excellence was achieved at many of the block-funded centers in the very same areas, while other important areas were neglected. For example, all the major polymer-research centers came into existence outside the block-funded schools. On the question of what has been achieved by block funding which could not have been achieved otherwise, one of the most significant management developments has been the parallel emergence of strong university groups without the benefit of block funding; that is, the entree of block funding stimulated equivalent efforts without block funding. Case studies of such experiences might tell even more about the requirements for effective interdisciplinary work on campus. During the 1960’s there was a rapid coalescence of the materials field, so that what were separate degree programs in metallurgy, ceramics, and, to a lesser extent, polymer science, were being brought together both by the logic of a common science of materials and by administrative fiat. Yet, while there has been a great deal of discussion about the development of “materials science” degrees, the changes have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary. A total of only ten departments call themselves “materials science and/or engineering” without a qualifier. This includes no more than 4 or 5 entirely new Ph.D. degree programs in what may be called materials science, and only one or two of those have produced any appreciable numbers of Ph.D.’s. Many of the major metallurgy departments have introduced solid-state subject matter and have adopted the title (substituting or adding) “materials science.” However, rarely does the degree program provide much exposure to ceramics or polymers, or new conceptual frameworks, or applied courses dealing with several classes of materials. This appears to be due, at least in some measure, to the fact that the educational programs themselves have not been supported by federal funding but simply reflect the existing departmental structures or new research emphases. Private institutions have not fared significantly better than their public counterparts in this respect. There is still some question as to whether or not a new academic discipline of materials science or of materials engineering will emerge. An unresolved issue on this point is the extent to which polymer science can be integrated into the rest of materials science. There is as yet no example of a well-known polymer-oriented Ph.D. curriculum sharing a basic core with other materials science students. Either such a new materials discipline with metallurgy, ceramics, and polymer science becoming branches or subfields within it (more or less like chemistry and its division into physical, inorganic, organic, etc.) will develop, or increasingly what may appear is a group of materials sciences affiliated loosely with each other. Indeed, the solution presently adopted by some of the largest departments points in the latter direction. These departments may offer three or four options in ceramics, metals, polymers, and a more basic undifferentiated materials science, which is an arrangement that allows a degree of specialization but simultaneously provides a common foundation. At present, there are real difficulties in achieving genuine intellectual innovation on curricular
Representative terms from entire chapter: