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 17
Exploring Opportunities in Green Chemistry and Engineering Education: A Workshop Summary to the Chemical Sciences Roundtable 4 Where Do We Go from Here? During the first day of the workshop, the discussion centered on current green chemistry education accomplishments. During the second and final day of the workshop, the participants brainstormed about the future direction of green chemistry education. Workshop organizer Paul Anastas stated that this session aimed to capture the best thoughts, strategies, and tactics about green chemistry education capabilities and motivations. The session began with talks by four main speakers, followed by five panel speakers. MAIN SPEAKERS The first main speaker in this session was Dr. F. Fleming Crim from the University of Wisconsin. Dr. Crim has multiple perspectives since he is a college professor, chair of the Chemical Sciences Roundtable, which was the birthplace of this workshop, and a member of the American Chemical Society’s Committee on Professional Training (CPT). Crim first presented his CPT perspective and the role CPT can play to facilitate green chemistry into curricula. The general goals of the CPT are: The promotion of excellence in chemistry education and in professional training of chemists; The gathering and dissemination of information that maintains and improves the quality of chemistry education beyond the secondary level; The facilitation of refinements and changes in chemistry education that reflect the modern and evolving face of the discipline; and The maintenance and enhancement of an effective approval procedure for undergraduate chemistry programs that benefits the programs, students, and employers by providing the greatest return on their efforts and those of the committee and staff. Since CPT plays a role in the ACS approval program for chemistry undergraduate programs, CPT would like to facilitate bottom-up change to implement the use of green chemistry in undergraduate curricula. CPT’s role in bottom-up change would first be to define an excellent green chemistry education program and then let the community respond. Crim mentioned that there are a few details to note about a curriculum development process. First, there are many good competitive ideas in the marketplace and green chemistry is competing with nanoscience, chemical biology, and others. Therefore, more publicity and advocacy for green chemistry may be needed to bring it to the forefront of other ideas. Crim emphasized faculty acceptance as another issue. He said that most faculty members seem to be receptive to green chemistry in the curriculum but are overwhelmed with an already full curriculum. Because CPT is working on integrating more flexibility into the curriculum, Crim encourages advocates of green chemistry to become involved in the CPT process. According to Crim, the three most important things to make changes occur are materials, materials, and materials. Crim suggested that if infusing green chemistry into the curriculum broadly is the preferred approach, low-entry barrier and bite-sized increments are needed to appeal to overwhelmed faculty. On behalf of CPT, Crim offered the CPT newsletter as a forum to provide green chemistry examples or links to green chemistry materials to the community. Crim spoke next from the R1 perspective. According to Crim, there are a few things that the community could do to change the opinions of R1 institutions. Again, providing materials is essential since R1 faculty do not feel that they have time to create new materials. Second, highlighting intellectual opportunities within green chemistry and advocating funding for green chemistry research is needed because both funding and intellectual opportunities drive R1 re
OCR for page 18
Exploring Opportunities in Green Chemistry and Engineering Education: A Workshop Summary to the Chemical Sciences Roundtable search. Third, Crim thought that “teaching the organizing principles of chemistry, science, and physical science within the context of green chemistry is extremely important and also appeals to people who are not necessarily in the mainstream of green chemistry.” He said that when advocating for green chemistry, the argument should be presented in a fashion that suggests that green chemistry rests on the core organizing principles of chemistry. Fourth, Crim pointed out that some factions of the community perceive green chemistry as soft science. Crim suggested this may come from advocating that green chemistry and engineering is socially responsible. This perspective may not appeal to those at the “core” of chemistry. Talking about the organizing principles and the intellectual opportunity of green chemistry may also be more appealing to those who reject the social argument. The next speaker in this session was Dr. Cliff Davidson from Carnegie Mellon University’s Environmental Institute. Davidson divided his talk into four topic areas: (1) skills and attitudes that future engineers will need; (2) environment across the curriculum initiative; (3) case studies in green engineering; and (4) center for sustainable engineering: A three-university consortium comprising Carnegie Mellon, University of Texas at Austin, and Arizona State University. Davidson believes that to move green engineering forward, engineers need to “go beyond reductionist thinking, where each part of a complex system is considered separately—emphasize the emergent properties of the whole.” The skills and attitudes future engineers will need are: Sensitivity to the environment—Exposing engineering students to issues of the environment is becoming of increasing importance. Environmental engineers ponder whether education can transform students who are not environmentally sensitive or whether it is the responsibility of the environmental engineering community to proactively recruit students that are environmentally sensitive into engineering. Sensitivity to human needs—Educating students about sustainable engineering to increase humanist interests is not the norm but may need to be taken into consideration in engineering education. An ethical foundation—According to Davidson, the engineering practice lacks a strong environmental ethic as a basis for decisions, yet sustainability issues are becoming a part of engineers’ ethical responsibilities. Many engineers are faced with scenarios in which they have clients who are not supportive of environmental preservation. Davidson believes that exposing students to this dilemma in class will better prepare them for future challenges. Understanding of natural systems—An understanding of natural systems (i.e., ecosystems) from the life sciences, physics, and chemistry, perspectives is necessary for engineers of sustainable design. Understanding of social systems—Engineering decisions are made in the context of societal systems (e.g., legal, economic, and political), but most engineers do not have expertise in these areas. Possessing knowledge of these social systems could allow engineers to become more politically and socially sensitive, as well as help scientists promote important agendas, such as sustainability. Davidson next spoke of the Carnegie Mellon initiative “Environment Across the Curriculum.” The initiative goal is to introduce environmental modules into nonenvironmental courses. Davidson provided many examples of successful environmental modules being integrated into departments across other college campuses Lastly, Davidson discussed the Center for Sustainable Engineering, a team effort from Carnegie Mellon University, Arizona State University, and University of Texas at Austin with support from the National Science Foundation and EPA. The center’s goal is to “develop and implement activities to enhance education in sustainable engineering at colleges and universities around the world.”1 Workshops for engineering faculty who would like to add sustainable engineering to courses began in July 2006. A second activity is a Web site called Bookbuild that is a partnership between the three universities and Pearson/ Prentice Hall. Bookbuild will be a global hub for faculty to submit and share lecture materials, notes, slides, handouts, and other engineering educational materials. All materials submitted to this Web site will be subject to peer review. Another activity for the center is a benchmark assessment of the status, including materials, of sustainable engineering activities in U.S. engineering departments. Davidson left the audience with the message that changing engineering courses is necessary to teach engineers green skills and attitudes. Next, Dr. Terrance Collins, director of the Institute for Green Oxidation Chemistry at Carnegie Mellon University, provided his perspective on “Where do we go from here?” He explained that the goal of the institute is to perform world-leading research in green oxidation analysis. The institute is very important in green chemistry because the first green chemistry course was taught there in 1992, and it continues to be offered to upper level undergraduates and beginning graduate students. It is clear that green chemistry has been on Collins’s and his colleagues’ minds for quite some time. Collins has trained students who have won many awards, including the Alexander von Humboldt Postdoctoral, Beckman, Goldwater, and Hancock, and in his opinion, these people are the next leaders in green chemistry. According to Collins, “sustainability is the single most important challenge for our civilization for at least the next 100 years.” Collins stated that the cause of our sustainability problem is science and technology, which is controversial for the universities and disciplines since they are also re- 1 http://www.csengin.org/.
OCR for page 19
Exploring Opportunities in Green Chemistry and Engineering Education: A Workshop Summary to the Chemical Sciences Roundtable FIGURE 4.1 Chemical goals for sustainability. SOURCE: Collins, T. 2005. Where Do We Go from Here to Green Our Civilization through Science? Presentation at the National Academies Chemical Sciences Roundtable Green Chemistry and Engineering Education Workshop. November 8, 2005. sponsible for developing the science and technology. Although various federal funding agencies and private foundations support the green chemistry efforts at Carnegie Mellon, many universities are not willing to risk losing funding in order to address sustainability issues. Collins believes that any university that wants to be an honest actor in sustainability must be prepared to deal with controversy. Collins pointed out, however, that leadership has come from of people such as Paul Anastas and the workshop audience to drive universities toward the important issue of sustainability. Collins paraphrased Hans Jonas’s The Imperative of Responsibility: Finding an Ethics for the Technological Age2 by saying that “all previous ethics have been based on the premises that the human condition is determined by the nature of man and the nature of things.” He gave the analogy of living in ancient times where the people thought that what they did impacted only the people they came in contact with. During those times, people did not think that what they were presently doing could impact people in the future. That premise has changed. What we are doing today is going to impact the welfare of many future generations because of our power over the ecosphere through science and technology. Collins believes that recognizing this future impact principle and building upon it is essential and, therefore, green chemistry is essential. Next Collins presented the chemical goals for sustainability (see Figure 4.1). The first goal discussed was safe energy. In Collins’s opinion we do not have an energy problem; we have an energy policy problem. Collins believes that if a sustainable technology base is developed, the energy problem would be nonexistent, and we will have safe energy. According to Collins, safe energy equals solar energy, and we need new chemistry for solar-to-electrical or solar-to-chemical energy conversions to achieve this goal. The second chemical goal for sustainability that Collins presented was renewable feedstocks. Economical feedstocks for chemical and polymer industries from plants are needed. 2 Jonas, Hans. 1984. The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
OCR for page 20
Exploring Opportunities in Green Chemistry and Engineering Education: A Workshop Summary to the Chemical Sciences Roundtable Collins believes that we can get the things we need out of recently dead plant matter rather than fossilized plant matter, and this is an active area of industrial research. The final chemical goal for sustainability was pollution reduction. Collins believes that this can be done by moving the elemental composition of technology closer to biochemistry to eliminate persistent environmentally mobile pollutants. Collins’s research group is focused on this goal. In particular, Collins promotes solar Stirling engines. Robert Stirling invented the Stirling engine in 1816. The engine works on a heat differential and because it does not have explosions in the pistons or make noise, has been used in nuclear submarines. Lastly, Collins discussed the enormous stakes of failing to address toxicity and ecotoxicity. He first highlighted laboratory research that exposed pregnant rats to a mixture of DDT and vinclozolin. The male offspring experienced severe reproductive damage up to four generations later. He also noted the research revealing developmental impairment due to lead toxicity. Lead toxicity is still a problem today in places where lead is persistent in drinking water. Collins stressed that failing to address environmental toxicity issues could have severe repercussions in the future. The final main speaker in this session, Dr. Julie Zimmerman from the EPA and the University of Virginia, followed Collins’s concerns about toxicity and focused on how design decisions impact cost, waste, and the environment. Zimmerman stressed the importance of big picture questions, such as investments, time, energy, resources, money, and potential realized benefits, rather than just design questions. To impact all of these elements, Zimmerman highlighted three steps to change design procedures: (1) optimize the existing solution; (2) reengineer the system; and (3) redefine the problem. According to Zimmerman, the same challenges occur when designing a new curriculum and designing new products and processes. Zimmerman stressed that introducing business, social science, service, production, and design at an early stage will help move toward a more integrated curriculum with multidisciplinary teams. Zimmerman mentioned 10 disciplines for incorporating sustainability in product design: Research and extract engineering, Materials science, Mechanical engineering, Chemistry, Chemical engineering, Manufacturing engineering, Civil engineering, Environmental science, Social science, and Policy making. Zimmerman believes that the multidisciplinary approach also embraces a necessary holistic approach. One way she is trying to achieve this is through the EPA P3 (People, Prosperity, and the Planet) competition that asks students to identify what they see as a challenge to sustainability and propose a scientific, technical, or policy solution The proposals are peer reviewed, and outstanding applicants are given $10,000 grants to perform their proposed work. Grantees are required to develop an interdisciplinary team and to quantify the benefits of their design environmentally, economically, and socially. At the end of the $10,000 academic award, students participate in a second round of competition in Washington, DC. Six winners from the second round are awarded phase two funding. The funding gives the winning grantees $75,000 grants to further develop their designs and move toward commercialization. The program has spawned entrepreneurship and innovation, such as student teams developing courses and start-up companies. For those who work on college campuses, Zimmerman explained how there are many opportunities to integrate sustainability into the physical infrastructure of the campus. The opportunities include transportation decisions, where to put new buildings, energy, and managing hazardous waste, and these particular influences can be measured, which gives a means for measuring the impact of sustainability decisions. Zimmerman devoted the final portion of her talk to the intellectual pipeline of people. Zimmerman feels that this is the time to embark on the issues of ethnic and gender diversity in the workforce. If this issue is addressed now, when sustainability has the attention of the scientific community, we can gain the benefit of a diverse workforce that is engaged in and trained in sustainability. PANEL SPEAKERS Dr. Linda Vanasupa from California Polytechnic State University was the first panelist of this session. Vanasupa’s discussion focused on curricula stemming from scientific discovery and the human dimension of designing curricula. When designing curricula, the ultimate goal is to produce scientists, engineers, technologists, and practitioners who are capable of practicing or applying sustainable solutions. These solutions should also reflect the society they serve. Although there are adequate numbers of students in the pipeline, ideas of how to attract the people that reflect society (i.e., societal demographics) and of how to retain them in science and engineering programs are necessary. For example, there are a number of studies about why women drop out of engineering. The basic reason for women leaving engineering is because they do not see engineering as relevant to their life goals. Caltech received a grant from the National Science Foundation that they are using to attract a diverse population of applicants. One tactic that was used was an e-mail message that was sent to high school students in California, but the message did not aid Caltech in achieving its goal of attracting a diverse population of applicants. It at-
OCR for page 21
Exploring Opportunities in Green Chemistry and Engineering Education: A Workshop Summary to the Chemical Sciences Roundtable tracted only two female students. The message was redesigned to appeal to a different audience. Vanasupa highlighted several best practices to help retain all students: Systems thinking; Meaningful context; Integration of support subject domains; Interaction with faculty as coaches; Active learning and design; Connection with peers; Reflection and self-assessment of learning; and Emphasis on the American Board for Engineering and Technology’s (ABET) “other” design constraints. The next panel speaker, Dr. John Leazer of Merck Co., discussed green chemistry from the pharmaceutical industry perspective, where innovation drives the use and implementation of green chemistry. Leazer sees green chemistry as a contributor to industry goals of innovation, efficient processes, and integrated business flow through several efforts. He explained how the efforts comprise demanding exceptional chemistry, teamwork, integration of discovery and manufacturing objectives, cost-effective processes, enhanced safety, and quality performance. Leazer emphasized that green chemistry is a business advantage because it can be key to achieving other initiatives, such as: Product optimization; Energy conservation; Lean manufacturing; Operational excellence; Sustainability; Technical leadership; Enhanced productivity; and Get it right the first time. Merck is one company with leading activity in green chemistry. The company received the Presidential Green Chemistry and ICHEME Astra Zeneca awards for focusing on the 12 principles of green chemistry and for solid efforts to implement green chemistry.3 Buy-in at the highest levels of Merck influences the status of green chemistry at Merck. Sponsorship and buy-in at the highest levels of the research and manufacturing divisions have made implementation of green chemistry successful at Merck. To substantiate these goals Leazer quoted Paul Anastas and John Warner as saying, “The use of auxiliary substances should be made unnecessary wherever possible and innocuous when used.” Examples of Merck’s efforts to use green chemistry are: Developing a collaborative green chemistry effort between R&D and manufacturing; Creating of a green chemistry advocate process research position; Joining the ACS Green Chemistry Pharmaceutical Roundtable in 2005; Fostering early stage environmental process review to identify opportunities for waste minimization, recycling, and process streamlining prior to production; Developing a process research mission statement that embodies principles of green chemistry: “Definition and demonstration of practical, scalable, efficient, cost effective and environmentally benign chemical processes.” Starting initiatives in both chemical and biocatalysis research: Reaction optimization; Atom economy, minimal waste, minimal metal usage, fewer protecting groups, no chiral auxiliaries; and High throughput screening and miniaturization that reduce reagent and solvent usage. Using supercritical fluids rather than traditional chromatography to reduce solvent and energy use; and Providing education and training through seminars and symposiums. Leazer explained how these efforts motivate chemists to be cognizant of waste and total mass balance of processes, opportunities for recycling, less hazardous reagents, and solvent minimization. In closing, Leazer emphasized several points for green chemistry education. First, Leazer emphasized the importance of having a thorough understanding of chemistry with green chemistry being taught in addition to core competences. Second, he underscored the need to more closely align academia and industry. Third, he stated the need for public outreach initiatives because “they (the public) don’t hear chemical itself, they hear toxic chemical.” Lastly, Leazer emphasized the empowerment of critical development technologies to offset green chemistry investments. Dr. James Mihelcic from Michigan Technological University was the next panelist to speak. Focusing on the theme of partnerships, he divided his talk into three sections: (1) the integration of green chemistry and engineering with sustainability; (2) the global perspective, and (3) the issues of diversity. Mihelcic stated, “We need to teach our students how green chemistry and engineering will generate wealth for society and industries they work for, and importantly, how it will make our nation globally competitive.” Mihelcic continued that the nation’s global competitiveness will ultimately depend on how schools, colleges, universities, and other education providers from (precollege through postdoctoral training) develop and refine human resources. Mihelcic spoke in detail about Michigan Tech’s National Science Foundation IGERT doctoral training grant that follows 3 For more information on the 12 principles of green chemistry and engineering, see the following Web site: http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/acsdisplay.html?DOC=greenchemistryinstitute\whatare.html.
OCR for page 22
Exploring Opportunities in Green Chemistry and Engineering Education: A Workshop Summary to the Chemical Sciences Roundtable FIGURE 4.2 The sustainability triangle. SOURCE: Mihelcic, J. 2005. NAS Green Chemistry/Engineering Workshop: Where Do We Go from Here in Green Chemistry and Engineering Education? Presentation at the National Academies Chemical Sciences Roundtable Green Chemistry and Engineering Education Workshop. November 8, 2005. a sustainable future model. The model has economic and industrial, environmental, and societal components (see Figure 4.2). In addition to teaching students about the three components, Mihelcic encouraged teaching students the business aspect of education as well. Next Mihelcic focused on the opportunity to educate, as well as retain, students with global thinking because the developing world’s problems are related to water, soil, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries rather than the manufacturing in the modern world. Mihelcic displayed a quote from National Academy of Engineering President William Wulf: “We need to understand why in a society so dependent on technology, a society that benefits so richly from the results of engineering, a society that rewards engineers so well, engineering isn’t perceived as a desirable profession…. Our profession is diminished and impoverished by a lack of diversity.” Mihelcic cited Michigan Tech’s and Southern University and A&M College’s joint engineering and public policy Ph.D. programs, supported by National Science Foundation IGERT and REU grants, as an example of global education. The partnership relates sustainability issues between the Great Lakes in Michigan and the Mississippi River in the South. The collaboration allows diversification of participating faculty members at each school by offering joint appointments at both universities, program offerings, and students. The next panel speaker was Dr. Jorge Vanegas, formerly of Georgia Institute of Technology. Vanegas has a background in architecture, construction, and civil engineering that provided a very different perspective from chemistry and engineering. He spoke about strategies and approaches necessary to make green efforts happen based on Georgia Tech’s green efforts. The strategies and approaches he suggested were a mission statement, a comprehensive philosophical approach, a goal, a long-term plan, support from the top, results, campus-wide integration and coordination, appropriate infrastructure, and money: A mission—Through many efforts, Georgia Tech’s mission now includes sustainability. A comprehensive philosophical approach—This approach includes learning in the classroom, discovery in the research laboratory, and active management of the campus.
OCR for page 23
Exploring Opportunities in Green Chemistry and Engineering Education: A Workshop Summary to the Chemical Sciences Roundtable A goal—Students, faculty, and staff need to understand their respective roles in creating a more prosperous and sustainable society to be in line with the vision. A long-term plan—The plan must begin with engaging the faculty by creating a grassroots-driven vision. Curricular innovation for all students in every major must be achieved. Implementing reliable campus practices can build trust and credibility. Being in possession of a passionate advocate could help move your vision forward. Support from the top—Institutional commitment and an institute-wide agenda will encourage the support needed from top-level institutional officials. Results—Two Georgia Tech faculty members who have collaborated for more than 15 years on sustainable chemical processes are among the winners of 2004 Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards. Other examples of results could be published journal articles or recognition from the scientific community. A campus-wide mechanism for integration and coordination. The Institute for Sustainable Technology and Development at Georgia Tech serves in this capacity. The institute encourages activities in education and research and managing the campus and stimulates activities with other universities and industry. Appropriate infrastructure. For example, at Georgia Tech, interdisciplinary research neighborhoods have been created to enhance collaboration and innovation. Effective strategies and tools are necessary in education, research, and campus wide to influence change. Education Strategies for education include using existing curricula and integrating new concepts into major programs and general studies. Tools needed for education include special initiatives, curriculum committees, academic support, accreditation self-studies, and assessment. Research Strategies for research include enhancing existing R&D programs and fostering new R&D programs for faculty development. Tools for research include research facilities, faculty recruitment, endowed chairs, “seed” funds, centers, and initiatives. The campus The campus strategy is to weave concepts of sustainability into policies and procedures. Tools for the campus include the campus master plan, operations, and purchasing guidelines. Money—In addition to funding, Georgia Tech has 21 endowed chairs and professorships that are related to sustainability, which makes sustainability an integral part of its capital campaign. Lastly, Vanegas stated that it was necessary to “walk the walk.” According to Vanegas, Georgia Tech has been doing green chemistry for several years. On the construction, engineering, and architecture side of things, Georgia Tech is demolishing parking lots to create green space, providing alternative campus transportation, constructing new buildings that are LEED4 certified, and planting trees as part of a campus-wide tree canopy renewal. Another part of walking the walk is in investments. For example, Georgia Tech is investing in focused research programs such as organic photovoltaics, the Center for Bio-inspired Design, and closed-loop production systems. Vanegas encouraged the audience to carpe diem, carpe noctum, and carpe momento, which means seize the day, seize the night, and seize the moment. Dr. Liz Gron from Hendrix College was the final workshop panelist. Gron talked about educating green citizens. She began her presentation by showing who the green community is now and who it could be. Gron said that it is possible that implementation of a green curriculum could expand the current community, many of whom were at the workshop, to include all undergraduate majors. Of the 2.5 million first-time college freshmen, 70 percent had no interest in scientific or professional studies, 12 percent were interested in professional studies, 7 percent were interested in biology, and 11 percent were interested in the physical sciences. Although focus needs to be put on retaining the students interested in the physical sciences (only 0.6 percent of the 11 percent interested in physical science graduated in chemistry or engineering), Gron believes that the vision needs to be expanded to include green scientists and professionals. Gron then discussed the Green-Soil and Water Analysis at Toad-Suck (Green-SWAT) Laboratory Program at Hendrix College. This program teaches green, analytical, and environmental chemistry to introductory students, which Gron feels is working because it dispels the exclusivity of environmental chemistry. This is achieved by teaching introductory students, cultivating environmentally and scientifically “savvy” students, and instilling a green ethic in students. The results of these efforts, in turn, influence the students’ future professional, business, or personal choices. Gron identified two challenges for teaching green chemistry but also provided ways to overcome these challenges. Gron recommends the following actions to move green ideas from a local audience to a global audience and to overcome the challenges: Create and encourage local educational initiatives Small and large efforts, including outreach activities and/or whole majors National initiatives Start-up funding to encourage the smaller companies to invest in green chemistry principles 4 The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System® is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings sponsored by the U.S. Green Building Council (www.usgbc.org).
OCR for page 24
Exploring Opportunities in Green Chemistry and Engineering Education: A Workshop Summary to the Chemical Sciences Roundtable Disseminate information Forums and symposiums; Journal and newspaper articles; and Textbooks. Gron concluded that the current community must be prepared to encourage people into green chemistry and everything else will follow. BREAKOUT SESSIONS On the second day of the workshop, breakout sessions allowed participants to delve deeper into the issues surrounding green chemistry and engineering. Workshop participants were assigned to breakout groups, and the results of those breakout sessions that corresponded with the session on “Where do we go from here?” in green chemistry and engineering education are listed below. Creating Incentives, Removing Impediments In this breakout session, participants explored green chemistry and engineering incentives, impediments, and ways to remove the impediments in both academia and industry. The absence of a clear vision statement and the lack of scientists in the policy-making arena pose significant barriers for both academia and industry. The participants acknowledged that potential regulatory barriers in industry exist. There was also a general feeling that industry will not adopt green principles unless there is market demand. In academia there are inadequate numbers of faculty trained in green chemistry and engineering, a lack of available tools, a competition between green and traditional coursework, a lack of time for approval or implementation, and tenure criteria not viewing green chemistry as a rigorous discipline. The group was able to identify incentives for academia and industry. For industry regulations, ISO-like certification and a viable market could act as incentives for companies to adopt green processes. Other ideas for incentives for academia and industry that could potentially raise awareness and decrease skepticism included: Presenting awards for excellence in green chemistry and engineering education, possibly connected to Green Chemistry Challenge awards; Having more leaders in green chemistry and engineering speak at general conferences and meetings; Developing materials that explain the relevance of green chemistry and engineering to other areas, such as policy, economics, and public health; Providing business cases based on real examples to encourage industry; Highlighting green principles in university and industry wide publications; Connecting green chemistry and engineering to major sustainability issues; Indicating the need for green chemistry or engineering experience in employment announcements; Utilizing ACS for proposing short courses in green chemistry and engineering; and Recruiting ACS members to buy into green chemistry and engineering by teaching it and speaking about it. Green Chemistry and Green Engineering in Future Curriculum The participants identified ways that green chemistry and engineering could be incorporated into future curricula. Most participants believed that the following items are needed to implement green principles into curricula: Provision of high-quality materials and resources, such as: Improvements to current materials and resources by replacing lessons in books that incorporate green chemistry and engineering; An overall intellectual framework for green chemistry and engineering modules; Seminars centered on green chemistry and engineering; and Published articles highlighting green chemistry and engineering in major academic journals. Development of interdisciplinary interactions by finding simple access points in other disciplines where green chemistry and engineering are applicable; Recognition through awards; and Changes to current curricula to accommodate green chemistry and engineering, such as: Offering green chemistry and engineering electives; and Having laboratory managers incorporate green chemistry and engineering concepts into laboratory experiments at all levels. The subject of developing specific degree tracks in green chemistry and engineering raised a number of differing views in the breakout session. Some participants believed that green chemistry and engineering need to be an integral part of all good degree programs and taught in an interdisciplinary manner at the graduate level. However, these participants thought that a specific degree track would limit a degree candidate’s career opportunities. There were other participants that supported the idea of a specific degree track. The group suggested that a master’s-level program leading to a Ph.D. degree could fill a niche that a Ph.D. program alone cannot fill. Most participants agreed that an undergraduate degree was not appropriate because Bachelor of Science graduates are trained to be generalists; graduate degree programs are more specialized.
Representative terms from entire chapter: