National Academies Press: OpenBook

International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness (2007)

Chapter: 5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership

« Previous: 4 Benchmarking Results: Detailed Assessment of U.S. Leadership by Area of Chemical Engineering
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

5
Key Factors Influencing Leadership

In the context of this report, research leadership in chemical engineering has been measured by various factors such as numbers and citations of journal articles and a Virtual World Congress conducted by the panel members. This leadership is influenced by a multitude of factors that are largely the result of national governance, structural and support polices, and overall available resources of each country in the world. As done previously,1 the panel focused on four key factors that influence the international leadership status of the U.S. chemical engineering research:

  • Innovation: Investment and technology development mechanisms that facilitate introduction of chemical science and technology into the marketplace.

  • Major facilities, centers, and instrumentation: The physical infrastructure and materiel for conducting chemical engineering research.

  • Human resources: The national capacity of chemical engineering students and degree holders.

  • Funding: Financial support for conducting chemical engineering research.

1

National Research Council, Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2000.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

5.1
INNOVATION

A key factor influencing leadership in chemical engineering is how rapidly and easily new ideas can be tested, developed, and extended into the U.S. economy as well as the global marketplace. This process by which research ideas are developed and funded in the United States has been defined as our “innovation system.” The U.S. innovation system, like that in other countries, is characterized by a set of unique attributes. Some of the factors that influence the U.S. innovation process for the field of chemical engineering are discussed below.

5.1.a
A Strong U.S. Industrial Sector

Leadership in chemical engineering research in the United States over the years has been strongly linked with the development of the U.S. chemicals industry. According to Landau and Arora,2 “the rise of the research university in science and engineering gave a strong boost to the American chemical industry” particularly in the early part of the 20th century. And this relationship has been a vital part of the success of the United States as a nation. Landau and Arora further point out that the U.S. chemicals industry: (1) “was the first science-based, high-technology industry”; (2) “has generated technological innovations for other industries, such as automobiles, rubber, textiles …”; and (3) “is a U.S. success story.”

At the same time, the U.S. chemical manufacturing industry is not what it used to be. Once a major net exporter, the U.S. chemical industry is now essentially a net importer (trade went negative in 2000-2001).3 Some feel that today the U.S. chemical industry is in fact fundamentally disadvantaged relative to the rest of the world because of its dependence on oil and natural gas for raw materials, which have become less abundant and much more costly than they used to be. The chemical industry consumes only 5% of the tota production of oil and natural gas, while the majority is used in transportation, residential, and other industrial requirements such as energy generation; and the cost of natural gas is 2 to 10 times higher than anywhere else in the world. This is greatly influencing investment for new plants, jobs, and even research outside the United States.4

2

 R. Landau and A. Arora, “The dynamics of long term growth: Gaining and losing advantage in the chemical industry,” Pp. 17-43 in U.S. Industry in 2000: Studies in Competitive Performance, D.C. Mowery, ed., National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.

3

 W.J. Storck, “UNITED STATES: Last year was kind to the U.S. chemical industry; 2005 should provide further growth,” ChemicalEngineering News 83 (2):16-18.

4

 M. Arndt, “No longer the lab of the world.” Business Week, May 2, 2005.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

5.1.b
A Variety of Funding Opportunities

Another key attribute of the U.S. innovation system is the existence of a multitude of funding options—from largely government-supported academic research to entrepreneurial work supported by small and large companies. This variety of sources, with different emphases, creates a spectrum of opportunities for chemical engineering research.

Industry

As we will discuss later, this sector is the largest supporter of R&D. Individual companies may operate their own R&D labs as well as provide funds for academic topical/strategic research.

Federal Government

The National Science Foundation (NSF) Engineering Research Center (ERC) and Science and Technology Center (STC) models are intended to spur innovation. While NSF mainly supports academic research, it seeks to foster successful links between academe and industry with programs such as Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaisons with Industry (GOALI) and Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT). NSF also has more directed collaborative research and education programs in the area of nanoscale science and engineering, such as Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Teams (NIRT), the Nanoscale Exploratory Research (NER), and Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSEC). Other federal mission agencies (Department of Defense, Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute for Standards and Technology, also fund a great deal of physical science and engineering.

The Small Business Administration (http://www.sba.gov) supports the agency-wide Small Business Innovative Research program (SBIR), which is a highly competitive program that encourages small businesses to explore their technological potential and provides the incentive to profit from its commercialization. Each year, 10 federal departments and agencies are required to reserve a portion of their R&D funds for awards to small business. The Small Business Technology Transfer program (STTR) is another important small business program that expands funding opportunities in the federal innovation research and development arena. Each year, just five federal departments and agencies (Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and National Science Foundation) are required by STTR to reserve a portion of their R&D funds for awards to small business/nonprofit research institution partnerships.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
State Initiatives

There have also been a growing number of state initiatives to foster innovation and stimulate economic growth:

  • Pennsylvania Infrastructure Technology Alliance (http://www.ices.cmu.edu/pita) is a program that is designed to aid in the transfer of knowledge to provide economic benefit to the state of Pennsylvania.

  • Texas Technology Initiative (http://www.txti.org) is a long-term economic development strategy designed to retain and attract advanced technology industries, coordinate advanced technology activities throughout the state, and accelerate commercialization from R&D to the marketplace to drive new business development in the state.

  • New York State office of Science, Technology, and Academic Research (NYSTAR—http://www.nystar.state.ny.us) has a technology transfer innovation program (TTIP), which funds academic research that has a New York State industry partner that cost shares some of the work.

Universities

Many universities are now putting more funding towards supporting research, especially through centers that provide community outreach, span multiple universities, and even partner with industries. Examples include the following:

  • The University of California solicits proposals for “UC Discovery Grants” in biotechnology to promote industry-university research partnerships. Biotechnology is one of five fields supported by UC Discovery Grants (i.e., biotechnology, communications and networking, digital media, electronics manufacturing and new materials, and life sciences information technology). UC Discovery Grants enhance the competitiveness of California businesses and the California economy by advancing innovation, R&D, and manufacturing, and by attracting new investments.

  • Pennsylvania State University, Center for Glass Surfaces, Interfaces, and Coatings (Carlo G. Pantano)

  • Lehigh University, Center for Optical Technologies (http://www.lehigh.edu/optics)

Private Foundations

There are many philanthropic organizations that help round out the support for chemical engineering R&D in the United States, such as:

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Venture Capital

Chemical engineers are increasingly involved in small business startup companies that often seek out venture capital funding. This is especially the case for biotech, semiconductor, and medical device research applications. For example, a startup firm proposing a completely new, biological means of laying down thin films and carrying out other steps in electronics manufacturing secured financing worth more than $12 million from investors that included nanotechnology specialist Harris & Harris and In-Q-Tel, a venture capital group funded by the Central Intelligence Agency.5

5.1.c
Cross-Sector Collaborations and Partnerships

Collaboration of university and industry researchers is another important aspect of the U.S. innovation system. Even though U.S. industry funds only about 10% of the research carried out in universities, the mobility of individuals between academic and industrial laboratories is especially vital in the transfer of new concepts and technology. In the past, many academics had significant industrial experience, where they interacted closely with industry in research and as consultants. Today, the majority of new faculty members come from academic labs where they have carried out postdoctoral research, such that the link to industry has been weakened. University faculty members also participate in the formation of high-tech companies. These relationships provide university researchers with an understanding of problems that are relevant to industry, and they provide a channel for the transfer of knowledge and new approaches developed in academia with funding from the federal government.

A good example of one industry-university-government collaboration is between the Chemical Engineering Department at University of Delaware, Rohm and Haas, Engelhard (now BASF), with funding from the Department of Energy. The program seeks to develop a major new manufacturing process that will use propane instead of propylene to manufacture acrylic acid. The novel technology, if adopted worldwide by acrylic acid and other propylene derivative manufacturers, could save up to 37 trillion BTUs per

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

year, eliminate 15 million pounds of environmental pollutants annually, and potentially save U.S. industry nearly $1.8 billion by the year 2020.

Such partnerships in general—whether between universities and industry or among companies—have become critical to improving the effectiveness with which industry commercializes research. However, many larger companies no longer carry out the level of exploratory research they once did, and U.S. universities can sometimes present significant barriers when it comes to intellectual property ownership. At the same time, other regions of the world that are presently accommodating in their licensing policies are increasingly moving toward the U.S. model of academic licensing.

5.1.d
Strong Professional Societies

The American Institute for Chemical Engineering (AIChE) provides strong support for chemical engineering research in the United States as well as the world at large through the publishing of high-quality scholarly journals, holding annual meetings, and making connections between chemical engineers and the broader community. AIChE is a nonprofit professional association of more than 40,000 members that provides leadership in advancing the chemical engineering profession. Through its many programs and services, AIChE helps its members access and apply the latest and most accurate technical information; offers concise, targeted, award-winning technical publications; conducts annual conferences to promote information sharing and the advancement of the field; provides opportunities for its members to gain leadership experience and network with their peers in industry, academia, and government; and offers members attractive and affordable insurance programs. In addition, the American Chemical Society supports both chemistry and chemical engineering R&D efforts.

5.2
CENTERS, MAJOR FACILITIES, AND INSTRUMENTATION

Chemical engineering research is at the interface with many other disciplines, requiring specialized facilities (hardware, software) used by several other disciplines. Therefore the health and competitiveness of chemical engineering research depends on the health and availability of cutting-edge facilities at U.S. universities and national laboratories. The Office of Basic Energy Sciences at the Department of Energy6 funds and operates several major facilities of relevance to chemical engineers that will be highlighted below: synchrotron radiation light sources, high-flux neutron sources, electron beam microcharacterization centers, nanoscale science research centers, and specialized single-purpose centers. There are also many

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

National Science Foundation-funded centers and facilities, but these tend to be for used more heavily at the local university level—or with nearby universities. However, some of these centers do span multiple universities and provide an invaluable resource at the national level (some examples are included below). When available, important international facilities are included in the lists as well.

The types of facilities of interest to chemical engineering research fall into the following broad categories:

  • materials synthesis and characterization facilities

  • materials micro- and nanofabrication

  • genetics, proteomics, and biological engineering

  • fossil fuel utilization facilities (combustion centers)

  • cyberinfrastructure (supercomputing)

5.2.a
Materials Synthesis and Characterization Facilities

Synthesis and characterization of materials often requires high-energy light sources—such as synchrotron and neutron sources—or other specialized facilities that need a significant level of funding to operate and maintain. These are typically only available at national facilities, both here and abroad.

  • Examples of important synchrotron sources include7 Advanced Light Source (ALS), Advanced Photon Source (APS), National Synchrotron Light Source (NSLS), Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (SSRL), Los Alamos Neutron Scattering Center, IPNS (Intense Pulsed Neutron Source) at Argonne and High Flux Isotope Reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the United States; Berliner Elektronenspeicherring-Gesellschaft für Synchrotronstrahlung (BESSY) in Germany; European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) in France; INDUS 1/INDUS 2 in India; and National Synchrotron Radiation Research Center (NSRRC) in Taiwan.

  • Examples of important neutron sources include8 Spallation Neutron Source, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the University of Missouri Research Reactor Center in the United States; ISIS-Rutherford-Appleton Laboratories in the United Kingdom; and Hi-Flux Advanced Neutron Application Reactor in Korea.

7

For a full list of worldwide synchrotron light sources, see http://www.lightsources.org/cms/?pid=1000098.

8

For a full list of worldwide neutron sources, see the National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Neutron Research at http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/nsources.html.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

5.2.b
Materials Micro- and Nanofabrication

Most research intensive universities are well equipped with conventional micro- and nanofabrication techniques such as thin-film deposition (e.g. chemical vapor deposition, physical vapor deposition), lithography, chemical etching, and electrodeposition, as well as characterization techniques such as electron microscopy, electron and X-ray diffraction, and probe microscopy that are used routinely to characterize small structures, small volumes, and thin films. However, the ability to characterize extremely small nanostructures or to tailor materials at an atomic level requires much more specialized equipment.

The Department of Energy is now in the process of opening five Nanoscale Science Research Centers9 that will provide just such capabilities. Four of these centers are listed here, and one is mentioned later when we discuss biological capabilities.

The Center for Nanoscale Materials is focused on fabricating and exploring novel nanoscale materials and, ultimately, employing unique synthesis and characterization methods to control and tailor nanoscale phenomena.


The Center for Functional Nanomaterials provides state-of-the-art capabilities for the fabrication and study of nanoscale materials, with an emphasis on atomic-level tailoring to achieve desired properties and functions.


The Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies features low vibration for sensitive characterization, chemical/biological synthesis labs, and clean room for device integration.


The Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences is a collaborative nanoscience user research facility for the synthesis, characterization, theory/modeling/simulation, and design of nanoscale materials.

Other agencies and even some universities support key nanofabrication facilities. The National Science Foundation funds several nanofabrication facilities, such as at Cornell University, that are available to external users, and which are part of a larger National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network10 (NNIN). The Cornell Nanofabrication Facility11 provides fabrication, synthesis, characterization, and integration capabili-

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

ties to build structures, devices, and systems from atomic to complex large scales. Carnegie Mellon University independently operates its own user facility that serves the broader community. The Nanofabrication Facility at Carnegie Mellon12 provides facilities for data storage thin film and device development and includes extensive clean-room space.

5.2.c
Genetics, Proteomics, and Biological Engineering

Biological engineering capabilities are increasingly important to chemical engineers. A few examples of new centers providing state-of-the-art facilities and approaches are given below—starting with one of the Department of Energy nanoscale science research centers.

The Molecular Foundry13 provides instruments and techniques for users pursuing integration of biological components into functional nanoscale materials.


The Institute for Systems Biology14 takes a multidisciplinary approach to addressing systems biology that includes integration of research in many sciences including biology, chemistry, physics, computation, mathematics, and medicine.


The Broad Institute15 brings together research groups with a shared commitment to important biomedical challenges, along a set of key “platforms”: biological samples, genome sequencing, genetic analysis, chemical biology, proteomics, and RNAi.


The Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center (SynBERC)16 focuses on synthetic biology, fabricating new biological components and assembling them into integrated, miniature devices and systems.

5.2.d
Fossil Fuel Utilization Facilities (Combustion Centers)

Chemical engineers have long required capabilities for understanding combustion and fossil fuel utilization. A few examples of centers providing state-of-the-art facilities and approaches are given below.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

The Combustion Research Facility (CRF) at the Sandia National Laboratories in Livermore17 is a Department of Energy Office of Science user facility, conducting basic and applied research that has pioneered the use of laser diagnostics for in situ measurements in a wide range of furnace and engine applications.


The Building and Fire Research Laboratory at NIST 18 has unique facilities and programs for addressing the needs of the building and fire safety communities and provides science standards developments, metrology for standards, and responses to major fires using its full-scale fire laboratory.


The International Flame Research Foundation at Livorno, Italy,19 is a cooperative international organization focusing on applied combustion research and serves industry and academia, with 10 national committees, including the American Flame Research Committee, and excellent facilities at the ENEL plant outside of Pisa.

5.2.e
Cyberinfrastructure (Supercomputing)

According to the National Science Foundation, cyberinfrastructure refers to the distributed computer, information, and communication technologies combined with the personnel and integrating components that provide a long-term platform to empower the modern scientific research endeavor.20 Two examples of engineering cyberinfrastructure capabilities include:

The Collaborative Large-scale Engineering Analysis Network for Environmental Research (CLEANER)21 addresses large-scale human-stressed aquatic systems through collaborative modeling and knowledge networks.


The Network for Computational Nanotechnology22 connects theory, experiment, and computation in a way that makes a difference to the future of nanotechnology.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

5.3
HUMAN RESOURCES

Human resources are an essential component for leadership in chemical engineering. Below we discuss trends and several key characteristics of science and engineering human resources in the world overall, and then drill down into some important features of the U.S. supply of chemical engineers.

5.3.a
Strong Competition for International Science and Engineering Human Resources

At the international level, the United States ranks lower than most industrialized nations in terms of the quantity of natural sciences and engineering degrees awarded per number of 24-year-olds in the general population (Figure 5.1). Many more overall science and engineering (S&E) degree holders are being produced abroad than in the United States. However, over the years, the United States has been successful at attracting foreign-born scientists and engineers (Figure 5.2).

5.3.b
Steady Supply of Chemical Engineers in the United States

It is difficult to find numbers for chemical engineering human resources at the international level. The best we can do is look at the trends in U.S. chemical engineering graduate degrees to get some indication of the current health of the discipline and where things are headed.

Over the period 1983-2004 (shown in Figure 5.3), there has been an overall steady supply of graduate students enrolling in chemical engineering. However, if we look more carefully at the residence status of graduate students, there has been a significant decrease in the number of U.S. citizens/permanent residents enrolling in chemical engineering graduate programs. As it turns out, the decrease has been made up by enrollment of temporary residents.

A better indicator of current trends, however, is to look at first-time full-time graduate enrollments, because overall graduate student enrollments include individuals who began school up to 5 or 6 years ago. We see that since the mid 1980s, first-time full-time graduate student enrollments in the United States (Figure 5.4) have fluctuated, but have overall remained constant. At the same time, recently reported numbers from National Science Foundation show a nearly 13% decrease in enrollment of first-time full-time chemical engineering graduate students.

Since we are most interested in competitiveness of chemical engineering research, it is critical to look at the supply of PhDs. We see in Figure 5.5 that between the late 1970s and early 1990s, the number of earned chemi-

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.1 Natural science and engineering (NS&E) degrees per 100 24-year-olds by country/economy, most recent year.

SOURCE: Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 based on data from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Education Research and Innovation, Education database, http://www1.oecd.org/scripts/cde/members/edu_uoeauthenticate.asp; United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Institute for Statistics database, http://www.unesco.org/statistics/; and national sources.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.2 Share of foreign-born scientists and engineers in U.S. S&E occupations, by degree level, 1990 and 2000.

NOTE: Data exclude postsecondary teachers because of census occupation coding.

SOURCE: Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 based on data from U.S. Census Bureau, 5-Percent Public-Use Microdata Sample, http://www.census.gov/main/www/pums.html.

FIGURE 5.3 Total graduate enrollment in chemical engineering and enrollments based on residency status: U.S. citizens/permanent residents versus temporary residents, 1993-2004.

SOURCE: Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, Appendix Table 2-15; and National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering: Fall 2004, NSF 06-325, Project Officer, Julia D. Oliver (Arlington, VA 2006).

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.4 First-time full-time graduate student enrollments for chemical engineering, 1983-2004.

SOURCE: S&E Indicators 2006, Appendix Table 2-13 and National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Graduate Students and Post-doctorates in Science and Engineering: Fall 2004, NSF 06-325, Project Officer, Julia D. Oliver (Arlington, VA 2006).

FIGURE 5.5 Earned doctoral degrees in chemical engineering from U.S. institutions as a function of residency status, 1966-2004.

SOURCE: NSF/SRS, Survey of Earned Doctorates, Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Data System (WebCASPAR), http://webcaspar.nsf.gov (accessed September 5, 2006).

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.6 Chemical engineering graduate students by mechanism of support, 1980-2004.

SOURCE: NSF/SRS, Survey of Earned Doctorates, Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Data System (WebCASPAR), http://webcaspar.nsf.gov (accessed September 5, 2006).

cal engineering PhDs in the United States grew quite rapidly and more than doubled, largely due to increased numbers of doctorates awarded to temporary residents. Over the past 10 years (1994-2004), the number of earned chemical engineering doctorates awarded each year has fluctuated slightly, but overall has remained fairly level at around 700 doctorates awarded per year. In comparison, for the 213 non-U.S. chemical engineering departments who provided data to the University of Texas, Austin, Chemical Engineering Faculty Directory for the years 2003-04 or 2004-05, there were 1923 PhD degrees awarded.23

Graduate students in chemical engineering have been supported adequately over the past 20 years. During this time period, graduate research assistantships have increased significantly. Research assistantships accounted for more than 50% of graduate student support in 2004 (see Figure 5.6).

Approximately half of all chemical engineering graduate students are supported by research assistantships. A large number of these assistantships are funded by federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation (Figure 5.7).

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.7 Full-time graduate students in chemical engineering on research assistantships, by funding source, 1980-2004. NOTE: NSF = National Science Foundation.

SOURCE: NSF/SRS, Survey of Earned Doctorates, Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Data System (WebCASPAR), http://webcaspar.nsf.gov (accessed September 5, 2006).

5.3.c
Job Prospects and Salaries for U.S. Chemical Engineers Are Still Favorable

The number of employed chemical engineering degree holders has steadily increased (Figure 5.8). The percentage increase from 1999 to 2003 was 8% overall, 4% for bachelor’s, 19% for master’s, and 17% for Ph.D.’s.

Figure 5.9 shows that there was also an increase in the number of employed chemical engineering degree holders across all employment sectors. However, the fraction of individuals employed by the business sector fell from 88% to 84%, while the percentage employed by the education and government sectors increased respectively from 4% to 7%, and 8% to 9%.

However, there has been a change in where chemical engineers (not necessarily chemical engineering degree holders) are employed. Figure 5.10 below shows the decline of chemical engineers being employed in the chemical industry and the concomitant growth in the electronics industry.24

24

E. L. Cussler and J. Wei, Chemical product engineering, AIChE Journal 49(5):1072-1075 (2003).

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.8 Comparison of employed chemical engineering degree holders, 1999 and 2003.

SOURCE: 2004 and 2006 S&E Indicators.

FIGURE 5.9 Comparison of employed chemical engineering degree holders across different sectors, 1999 and 2003.

SOURCE: 2004 and 2006 S&E Indicators.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.10 Trends in employment of doctoral level chemical engineers in various industries, 1991-2001.

SOURCE: E. L. Cussler and J. Wei, “Chemical Product Engineering,” AIChE Journal, 49, no. 5 (2003).

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2006-2007 Occupational Outlook Handbook25 the job prospects for those employed as chemical engineers (not necessarily chemical engineering degree holders) over the next 5-10 years looks quite good. While engineers are employed in every major industry, as expected, the chemical industry employs the largest percentage of chemical engineers (27.8%), followed by architectural, engineering, and related services industries (16.3%). Chemical engineers are expected to have employment growth about as fast as the average (9% to 17%) for all occupations through 2014. They state that although overall employment in the U.S. chemical manufacturing industry is expected to decline, chemical companies will continue to carry out R&D on new chemicals and more efficient processes to increase output of existing chemicals. At the same time, the handbook says that among manufacturing industries, pharmaceuticals may provide the best opportunities for jobseekers and that most employment growth for chemical engineers will be in service industries, such as scientific research and development services, particularly in energy and the developing fields of biotechnology and nanotechnology.

25

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2006-2007 edition. In Engineers, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., 2006.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

TABLE 5.1 Average Starting Salary Offers for Engineers

Curriculum

Bachelor’s

Master’s

PhD

Aerospace/aeronautical/astronautical

$50,993

$62,930

$72,529

Agricultural

46,172

53,022

Bioengineering and biomedical

48,503

59,667

Chemical

53,813

57,260

79,591

Civil

43,679

48,050

59,625

Computer

52,464

60,354

69,625

Electrical/electronics and communications

51,888

64,416

80,206

Environmental/environmental health

47,384

Industrial/manufacturing

49,567

56,561

85,000

Materials

50,982

Mechanical

50,236

59,880

68,299

Mining & mineral

48,643

Nuclear

51,182

58,814

Petroleum

61,516

58,000

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistic 2006-2007 Occupational Outlook Handbook, based on 005 survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers.

The handbook also discusses expected earnings for chemical engineers. While earnings for engineers vary significantly by specialty, industry, and education, engineers as a group earn some of the highest average starting salaries among those holding bachelor’s degrees. Table 5.1 shows the current average starting salary offers for engineers, with chemical engineers ranking among the most highly paid degree holders.

Data from the American Chemical Society 2004 Survey on Starting Salaries of Chemists and Chemical Engineers (Figure 5.11) shows that starting salaries for chemical engineers have steadily increased since 1975. However, this increase (4.74% average annually) has just barely kept pace with inflation.26

Earnings for more experienced chemical engineers (with PhDs) as measured by median annual salary since degree (Figure 5.12) has grown a bit more than starting salaries (3.7% annually), but has also barely kept up with inflation.27

26

Consumer Price Index, average annual increase for 1975-2004 is 4.42% (Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator data.bles.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl accessed 9-8-06, a dollar in 1975 is equivalent to $3.51 in 2004).

27

The average annual increase in the consumer price index for 1993-2003 was 2.42% (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, $1.00 in 1993 is equivalent to $1.27 in 2003).

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.11 Inexperienced chemical engineer median starting salaries by degree held.

SOURCE: ACS 2004 Survey on Starting Salaries of Chemists and Chemical Engineers.

5.4
R&D FUNDING

Here we look at trends in international levels of S&E funding and specific R&D funding for chemical engineering in the United States. As discussed earlier, the U.S. innovation system benefits greatly from the variety and well as the consistency of funding sources.

5.4.a
Steady Funding for S&E in the United States

The United States has spent more on science and engineering R&D over the time period of 1981-2002 than any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country (Figures 5.13 and 5.14). In 2003, the United States spent more than $250 billion (constant 2000 $US) on total R&D. The United States accounted for more than 40% of the yearly international expenditures for S&E. Between 1981 and 2001, the U.S. contribution declined from 45% to 43%, and the G7 contribution declined from 91% to 84%.

Because of the differences in the size and economies of different nations, it is useful to normalize R&D expenditures based on gross domestic prod-

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.12 Median annual salaries for chemical engineers with PhDs by years since highest degree received, 1993 and 2003.

SOURCE: National Science Foundation/SRS, 1993 & 2003 Survey of Doctorate Recipients.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.13 International R&D expenditures for G7 countries, 1981-2003 in billions of constant 2000 U.S. dollars.

SOURCE: Appendix Table 4-42, Science and Engineering Indicators 2006.

FIGURE 5.14 International nondefense R&D expenditures for select countries, 1981-2003.

SOURCE: Appendix Table 4-43, NSF S&E Indicators 2006.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.15 International R&D as a percentage of gross domestic product by selected country, 1981-2003.

SOURCE: Appendix Table 4-42, S&E Indicators 2006.

uct (GDP). As seen in Figures 5.15 and 5.16, the United States is among the leaders in gross domestic expenditures on R&D, ranking fifth among OECD countries in terms of reported R&D/GDP ratios.28 However, Israel (not an OECD country), devoting 4.9% of its GDP to R&D, led all countries, followed by Sweden (4.3%), Finland (3.5%), Japan (3.1%), and Iceland (3.1%).29 Although China reported R&D expenditures similar to Germany in 2000, on a per capita basis, Germany’s R&D was over 16 times that of China.

As in most of the developed nations (Figures 5.17 and 5.18), the industrial sector in the United States spends the most on and performs most of the R&D. Industry funds about 60% of the R&D, and the federal government funds about 30%. However, industry conducts nearly 70% of R&D,

28

As noted by the National Science Foundation, “Growth in the R&D/GDP ratio does not necessarily imply increased R&D expenditures. For example, the rise in R&D/GDP from 1978 to 1985 was due as much to a slowdown in GDP growth as it was to increased spending on R&D activities.”

29

See NSF S&E Indicators 2006, Table 4-13.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.16 International nondefense R&D as a percentage of GDP, by selected country, 1981-2003.

SOURCE: Appendix Table 4-43, S&E Indicators 2006.

while the rest is split among higher education (15%), government (10%), and private/nonprofit (5%).

Compared with other countries that support a substantial level of academic R&D (at least $1 billion purchasing power parity in 1999), the United States devotes a smaller proportion (15%) of its R&D to engineering and social sciences. However, in terms of the actual expenditures for engineering, the United States leads the other industrialized nations (Figure 5.19).

5.4.b
Steady U.S. Funding for Chemical Engineering R&D

In 2004, nearly $500 million was spent on chemical engineering R&D at academic institutions (Figure 5.20). Of this, about 54% was from federal sources.

In terms of constant 2000 dollars, the U.S. federal obligations for total research in chemical engineering declined from a high of about $ 350 million in 1992 to about $ 200 million in 2002 (Figure 5.21). More recently, the numbers have increased to about $300 million, due to a large increase

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.17 International R&D expenditures for selected countries, percent distribution by source of funds.

SOURCE: Appendix Table 4-44, S&E Indicators 2006.

FIGURE 5.18 International R&D expenditures for selected countries, percent distribution by performing sector.

SOURCE: Appendix Table 4-44, S&E Indicators 2006.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.19 Share of academic R&D expenditures, by country and S&E field: Selected years, 2000-2002.

SOURCE: Table 4-14, Science and Engineering Indicators 2006.

FIGURE 5.20 Federal and nonfederal R&D expenditures at academic institutions for chemical engineering.

SOURCE: National Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, FY 2004.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.21 Federal obligations for total research in chemical engineering.

SOURCE: Appendix Table 4-32, Science and Engineering Indicators 2006.

in funding from the Department of Energy (shown later in Figure 5.23). Federal obligations for chemical engineering over the time period (1984-2003) ranges from a low of 0.4% in 2000 and 2001 to 1.6% of the total U.S. R&D budget in 1985.

The federal funding for chemical engineering research is comparable in spending with two of the other “big four” engineering fields of civil and mechanical engineering—electrical engineering has traditionally been better funded than the other three (Figure 5.22).

5.4.c
A Changing Landscape for Chemical Engineering R&D Funding

The different federal agency contributions to the total funding for chemical engineering research are shown in Figure 5.23. The Department of Energy has made the largest overall contribution to chemical engineering research over the 20 years shown. DOE funding was at a maximum of about $142 million in 1991, dropped to $92 million in 2002, and jumped to $198 million in 2003.

Below is a comparison of Department of Energy Basic Energy Sciences funding for core research areas in chemistry, geosciences, and biosciences (Figure 5.24) and materials (Figure 5.25) for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.22 Federal obligations for total research, by engineering field—“The BigMillions of Constant 2000 U.S. Dollars Four”: fiscal year 1984-2003.

SOURCE: Appendix Table 4-32, Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 Academic R&D Expenditures.

FIGURE 5.23 Federal obligations for total chemical engineering research, by select agency, fiscal years 1984-2003.

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for R&D.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.24 Department of Energy Basic Energy Sciences funding for Chemical, Geological, and Biological Core Research Activities.

SOURCE: http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/brochures/CRA.html.

FIGURE 5.25 Department of Energy Basic Energy Sciences funding for Material Science and Engineering Core Research Activities.

SOURCE: http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/brochures/CRA.html.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

2005. There was a large increase ($10 million) for catalysis and chemical transformations, as well as modest increases for atomic, molecular, and optical science and photochemistry and radiation research.

Federal academic research obligations for chemical engineering are less balanced among agencies than 10 years ago (Figure 5.26). The National Science Foundation now accounts for 66% of the federal academic research obligations for chemical engineering. Ten years ago a larger proportion of R&D funding for chemical engineering came from the Department of Energy.

The National Institutes of Health does not appear in figure 5-26 as one of the major funding agencies for academic chemical engineering research. However, the five year doubling of the NIH budget between 1998 and 2003 has significantly increases NIH’s contribution to chemical engineering departments (Figure 5-27).

Figure 5.28 shows the breakdown of funding for the divisions of the National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate. The Chemical Transport Systems (CTS) Division mainly supports chemical engineering research at academic institutions.

Recently, CTS was joined with the Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (BES) Division to create the Chemical, Bioengineering, Environment, & Transport (CBET) Division. Table 5.2 shows the overall research proposal funding rate for CBET. While, the number of awards has remained

FIGURE 5.26 Federal academic research obligations for chemical engineering provided by major agencies.

SOURCE: Appendix Table 5.09, S&E Indicators 2006 and Appendix Table 5.11, S&E Indicators 1996.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5-27 NIH support for chemical engineering department programs by institute, 1985-2003.

NOTE: NIBIB = National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; NHLBI = National Heart, Lung, Blood Institute; NIAID = National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; NCI = National Cancer Institute; NIDDKD = National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; NIGMS = National Institute of General Medical Sciences.

SOURCE: National Institute of General Medical Sciences Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation compilation of biochemistry, chemistry, and chemical engineering department support based on data from the NIH IMPAC system.

fairly stable and the median annual size of awards has increased between 1997 and 2005, the funding rate for awards has substantially decreased. (For similar data for CBET funding areas see table in Appendix 5A at end of this chapter.)

5.5
PROJECTION OF LEADERSHIP DETERMINANTS

In this section, we attempt a projection of the leadership determinants, which underpin the likelihood of predictions made in earlier Chapters 3 and 4.

5.5.a
Recruitment of Talented Researchers

U.S. institutions continue to attract and retain the world’s best scientists and engineers because of the presence of other outstanding researchers

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.28 National Science Foundation Engineering Directorate funding for divisions in millions of U.S. dollars: Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (BES), Chemical and Transport Systems (CTS), Civil and Mechanical Systems (CMS), Design and Manufacturing Innovation (DMI), Electrical and Communications Systems (ECS), Engineering Education and Centers (EEC), Office of Industrial Innovation (OII).

NOTE: *FY05 planned budget; **FYO6 proposed budget.

SOURCE: NSF FY06 Budget request, available at http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget (accessed October 5, 2006).

TABLE 5.2 Research Proposal Funding Rate for National Science Foundation Chemical, Bioengineering, Environment & Transport (CBET) Division from Fiscal Year 1997 to 2005.

Fiscal Year

Number of Proposals

Number of Awards

Funding Rate (%)

Median Annual Size ($)

2005

2,712

353

13

94,124

2004

2,084

421

20

87,188

2003

1,962

397

20

86,816

2002

1,449

403

28

79,818

2001

1,449

374

26

79,994

2000

1,459

410

28

75,000

1999

1,122

364

32

69,035

1998

1,267

379

30

64,400

1997

1,363

413

30

57,523

SOURCE: National Science Foundation Budget Internet Information System http://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/ (assessed October 6, 2006).

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

with whom these individuals work, a superior economy, and outstanding research facilities. Evidence of this is the level to which foreign doctorate recipients plan to remain in the United States to work after graduation (Table 5.3). However, with changes in visa policies (such as the drop in student visas issued after 9/11 shown in Figure 5.29) and global leveling in research capability, the United States may be losing ground.

The data presented so far raise many issues that affect the future ability of chemical engineering programs to attract high-quality graduate students, and include

  • Recruiting students from both within the United States and abroad. The decreasing numbers of U.S. citizens or permanent residents attending Ph.D. programs is worrisome.

  • Improving and strengthening academic programs so they can still remain poles of attraction for young people with intellectual curiosity.

  • Retaining an open and active research environment, which has been one of the most attractive features, especially for non-U.S. prospective Ph.D. students.

  • Ensuring adequate financial support for U.S. students pursuing graduate education.

  • Maintaining a strong job market for chemical engineering graduates (especially PhDs) with improved incentives and more attractive career paths.

  • Increasing diversity in academia, government, and industry chemical engineering leadership.

5.5.b
R&D Funding

Whereas U.S. industry and government are shifting funds toward shorter-term research, many other countries, notably Japan, are increasing long-term and basic research funding. Many U.S. companies have eliminated or significantly reduced in size corporate or central research

TABLE 5.3 Percentage of Foreign Doctorate Recipients Reporting Plans to Stay in the United States After Graduation, 1995-2003

 

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Definite Plans to Stay

34

35

42

44

46

49

49

54

52

48

Plans to Stay

62

65

67

68

67

70

71

74

73

71

SOURCE: Special Tabulation of Data from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients, prepared by National Opinion Research Center.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

FIGURE 5.29 Student, exchange visitor, and other high-skill-related temporary visas issued, 1998-2005.

SOURCE: NSF 2006 Science & Engineering Indicators.

laboratories in order to more closely align research and development with shorter-term business opportunities.

Chemical engineering research in universities has been sponsored mainly by the federal government. The National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy have provided the most support for a range of fundamental chemical engineering research. In particular, the National Science Foundation now dominates support for chemical engineering with 66% of academic research in the field.

The overall federal research and development funding strategy for chemical engineering research is currently unbalanced. As a result, important developments in key subareas could lag behind in world competition. As was discussed in Chapter 4, several core areas of chemical engineering research are at serious risk. The dynamic range of the discipline, which has been a principal strength for more than 50 years, is seriously threatened by reductions in support of core research areas. This is illustrated by the funding data shown in the table in Appendix 5A. For the areas in the table, the funding rates have dropped to less than half their peak levels over the last 4-5 years. Biophotonics is the only area that has kept a constant funding rate. The overall drop in rates occurred despite a large number of proposals

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

in 2005 (over 600) in biotechnology and biomedical engineering that are far more than the submissions 4-5 years ago.

Although some academic researchers have turned to industry for financial support, in many cases, industry-funded research is of shorter duration and, compared with federal grants, has a specific, short-term focus. Some research projects are conducted under contract terms that capture intellectual properties, protect confidentiality, restrict publication, and require detailed planning and reporting of progress. These conditions rarely attract top graduate talent to the research effort.

In Chapter 4 we discussed areas in which industrial research collaborations can be most valuable, where special equipment not generally found in universities is required to achieve process control and to evaluate sequencing protocols and scaling parameters.

5.5.c
Infrastructure

The quality of the basic research infrastructure and the development of new technology from research strongly influence the long-term health of chemical engineering research. The position of the U.S. research enterprise will be determined by the elevation or decline of this infrastructure, which, in this context, is defined broadly to include tangible (facilities) and intangible (supporting policies and services) elements. Several trends for the elements of this infrastructure have been identified:

The university structure in which the chemical engineering organization resides strongly influences the fortunes of the discipline. The high quality of academic leadership in chemical engineering and the excellence of the engineering research enterprise have placed the discipline in a position of strength at most of the top research universities in the United States. The prominence of chemical engineering in nonacademic institutions (industry and government agencies) is also well established here and abroad.

Major centers and facilities provide key infrastructure and capabilities for conducting research and have provided the foundation for U.S. leadership. Key capabilities for chemical engineering research include materials synthesis and characterization, materials micro- and nanofabrication, genetics and proteomics, fossil fuel utilization, and cyberinfrastructure. U.S. facilities have instrumentation that is on par with the best in the world. However, rapid advances in design and capabilities of instrumentation can create obsolescence in 5-8 years.

Forward-looking intellectual property policies, administrative support, and access to patent expertise are improving for U.S. academic researchers in chemical engineering. These policies are generally more flexible and advanced here than they are abroad. The anticipated continuing liberalization of rules that permit academic researchers to commercialize their inventions

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

is a positive step toward decreasing the time from invention to market. Another positive step is the growing assistance from the universities in finding industrial commercialization partners.

Federal laboratories and the national laboratories of the Department of Energy are critical in providing unique facilities for research; they have instrumentation no single university could afford to put in place. An important complement is the availability of world-class scientists who engage in long-term fundamental research, provide assistance through research collaborations with the user community, and provide advanced instrumentation design and methods. Large central facilities, such as neutron and synchrotron sources, electron microscopy centers, and analytical facilities, many of them at Department of Energy laboratories, must be continuously upgraded and maintained.

Although the United States has enjoyed a research and funding environment that allows for the installation and operation of a diverse range of facilities to support leading-edge research in chemical engineering, this position is not assured forever.

5.5.d
Cooperative Government-Industry-Academia Research

Maintaining a competitive advantage in chemical engineering depends on strong collaborations between government, industry, and academia. As industrial research focuses more and more on short-term (2-3 year) targeted advances and product impact, execution of longer term (5-10 year) basic and innovative exploratory research at universities and national laboratories will require even closer interactions. Collaborative research is accomplished in several foreign countries by individuals with joint academic-commercial appointments and through publicly supported research institutes linked to universities (similar to many U.S. national laboratories) that serve industry’s need for longer-term research.

One challenge is also a major opportunity for a government-university-industry initiative: There is a 15-year cycle time in many cases from demonstrating the scientific feasibility of a new idea to its commercial implementation. There is a need for continuity of support and a general recognition of the time it takes to go from observation to hypothesis to experimentation to discovery to implementation. A reduction in this schedule could be realized through more extensive integration of modeling and simulation of the processes with evaluation of fabrication concepts and designs, processing yields, performance, and reliability. There are clearly defined, mutually supportive roles for academia, government, and industry where they can work together. For example, the Department of Energy advanced supercomputer initiative is an effort to develop new computer methods for the simulation of nuclear weapons. Analogous models of cooperative gov-

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

ernment-industry-academia research may be needed to enhance the transfer of results from fundamental research to viable engineering solutions in the new and evolving areas.

5.5.e
Government Policy and Regulations

Government policy and regulations have a direct impact on the choice of directions and intensity of chemical engineering research by industry and academia. They affect cost of raw materials (e.g., natural gas), influence research undertakings (e.g., biorefineries, fuels from cellulose), determine the scope of new technologies (e.g., processes and materials for tighter control of air and water effluents), and encourage or discourage the introduction of new materials in the market (e.g., regulations governing the approval of new biomedical devices and the litigation-based culture in the United States).

Most of our analysis in forecasting the future position of U.S. research in chemical engineering has been predicated on rather “neutral” new regulations. However, the Panel believes that this is a question of significant uncertainty and with enormous impact on the directions and position of future chemical engineering research.

5.6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Historical research leadership in chemical engineering in the United States is the result of many key factors, which have been outlined in this chapter.

Over the years, the United States has been a leader in innovation as a result of a strong U.S. industrial sector, a variety of funding opportunities (industry, federal government, state initiatives, universities, and private foundations), cross-sector collaborations and partnerships, and strong professional societies. While U.S. chemical companies will retain a very strong presence in the global market, the corresponding size of their operations from the U.S. market will grow at a rather low rate. In time, it may have an impact on the number and type of employment opportunities offered to U.S. chemical engineering researchers and the cultivation of research initiatives in collaboration with U.S. universities.

Major centers and facilities provide key infrastructure and capabilities for conducting research, and have provided the foundation for U.S. leadership. Key capabilities for chemical engineering research include materials synthesis and characterization, materials micro- and nanofabrication, genetics and proteomics, clean and efficient fossil fuel utilization, renewable energy sources, and cyberinfrastructure.

In the past, the United States was well endowed with human resources in science and engineering. There has been an overall steady supply of

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

chemical engineers in the United States, and job prospects and salaries for U.S. chemical engineers are still favorable. However, with changes in U.S. citizenry interests and international capabilities, there is increasingly strong competition for international science and engineering human resources. Other professions offer higher monetary compensation and attractive career paths, which help them draw talented young people away from science and engineering education or away from science- or engineering-oriented employment positions. Most major companies are building new R&D centers outside the United States, such as in China and India. For example, DuPont recently announced plans to invest over $22.5 million to construct its first research and development center in Hyderabad, India, which is expected to accommodate more than 300 scientists and other employees.30 Additional examples include GE (India and China), Dow Chemical (India and China), and Rohm and Haas (China). Citizens of those countries are increasingly gaining access to world-class facilities to work in, which will increasingly be competitive with those in the United States.

Research funding for S&E overall and chemical engineering in particular has been steady over all the years. However, the landscape for chemical engineering has changed significantly, and a reassessment of funding policy directions may be needed in view of this report’s findings.

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

APPENDIX 5A

Research Proposal Funding Rate for National Science Foundation Chemical, Bioengineering, Environment & Transport (CBET) Division Research Areas from fiscal year 1997 to 2005. SOURCE: NSF Budget Internet Information System, http://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov (accessed October 6, 2006).

CBET Funding Areas

Fiscal Year

Number of Proposals

Number of Awards

Funding Rate

Median Annual Size

BIOCHEMICAL & BIOMASS ENG

2005

34

5

15%

$111,685

2004

49

8

16%

$90,000

2003

84

11

13%

$100,000

2002

57

15

26%

$111,636

2001

61

21

34%

$79,544

2000

66

19

29%

$108,400

1999

75

27

36%

$81,866

1998

60

20

33%

$69,932

1997

63

20

32%

$62,500

BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING

2005

301

32

11%

$100,000

2004

324

33

10%

$100,500

2003

218

30

14%

$79,978

2002

282

37

13%

$76,683

2001

248

45

18%

$76,198

2000

265

66

25%

$75,086

1999

164

45

27%

$65,143

1998

159

53

33%

$54,593

1997

158

40

25%

$51,912

BIOPHOTONICS PROGRAM

2005

42

9

21%

$110,000

2004

27

7

26%

$100,000

2003

37

9

24%

$98,247

BIOTECHNOLOGY

2005

374

20

5%

$100,000

2004

206

30

15%

$138,271

2003

239

29

12%

$109,242

2002

116

23

20%

$128,642

2001

107

35

33%

$99,999

2000

87

26

30%

$101,490

1999

59

18

31%

$88,327

1998

45

21

47%

$85,000

1997

54

21

39%

$63,847

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

CBET Funding Areas

Fiscal Year

Number of Proposals

Number of Awards

Funding Rate

Median Annual Size

CATALYSIS AND BIOCATALYSIS

2005

161

23

14%

$99,881

2004

129

27

21%

$81,325

2003

116

27

23%

$87,185

2002

73

26

36%

$74,999

2001

73

19

26%

$84,000

2000

96

26

27%

$79,501

1999

61

25

41%

$70,000

1998

65

30

46%

$83,073

1997

84

27

32%

$60,650

COMBUSTION AND PLASMA SYSTEMS

2005

153

17

11%

$76,495

2004

73

15

21%

$52,500

2003

78

31

40%

$102,398

2002

53

23

43%

$80,800

2001

49

22

45%

$81,334

2000

75

24

32%

$86,820

1999

56

23

41%

$82,500

1998

45

16

36%

$65,012

1997

69

23

33%

$60,000

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

2005

306

42

14%

$99,998

2004

205

47

23%

$80,001

2003

273

50

18%

$90,749

2002

163

40

25%

$80,531

2001

127

32

25%

$81,393

2000

59

17

29%

$59,750

1999

50

13

26%

$65,000

1998

87

17

20%

$70,305

1997

118

29

25%

$62,258

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY

2005

51

12

24%

$104,942

2004

70

12

17%

$81,386

2003

78

4

5%

$110,689

2002

54

17

31%

$95,196

2001

150

26

17%

$76,263

2000

147

30

20%

$66,845

1999

133

20

15%

$60,360

1998

97

34

35%

$50,296

1997

115

45

39%

$49,931

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

CBET Funding Areas

Fiscal Year

Number of Proposals

Number of Awards

Funding Rate

Median Annual Size

FLUID DYNAMICS & HYDRAULICS

2005

228

25

11%

$73,690

2004

104

35

34%

$81,200

2003

72

16

22%

$80,000

2002

115

33

29%

$75,000

2001

134

29

22%

$75,000

2000

96

38

40%

$70,000

1999

76

24

32%

$58,125

1998

99

23

23%

$67,083

1997

150

29

19%

$62,500

INTERFAC TRANS & THERMODYN PRO

2005

177

19

11%

$90,155

2004

89

30

34%

$80,000

2003

186

34

18%

$51,991

2002

106

43

41%

$83,094

2001

102

24

24%

$81,054

2000

117

38

32%

$73,041

1999

75

35

47%

$62,500

1998

80

42

53%

$57,305

1997

111

42

38%

$64,500

PARTICULATE & MULTIPHASE PROCES

2005

267

42

16%

$60,000

2004

159

47

30%

$80,000

2003

123

44

36%

$77,703

2002

97

38

39%

$62,126

2001

73

33

45%

$69,583

2000

113

37

33%

$89,999

1999

96

39

41%

$56,250

1998

243

34

14%

$50,000

1997

117

32

27%

$49,653

PROCESS & REACTION ENGINEERING

2005

221

23

10%

$91,658

2004

194

26

13%

$83,617

2003

117

26

22%

$87,564

2002

72

30

42%

$75,600

2001

101

27

27%

$73,914

2000

137

32

23%

$64,892

1999

84

28

33%

$64,601

1998

51

21

41%

$70,198

1997

69

21

30%

$67,347

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×

CBET Funding Areas

Fiscal Year

Number of Proposals

Number of Awards

Funding Rate

Median Annual Size

SEPAR & PURIFICATION PROCESSES

2005

89

18

20%

$89,999

2004

61

23

38%

$88,355

2003

117

26

22%

$89,574

2002

48

13

27%

$80,000

2001

77

28

36%

$83,016

2000

96

29

30%

$67,487

1999

60

28

47%

$72,636

1998

61

28

46%

$65,000

1997

67

27

40%

$50,000

THERMAL TRANSPORT & THERM PROC

2005

184

26

14%

$83,404

2004

170

29

17%

$83,559

2003

112

30

27%

$87,185

2002

70

24

34%

$84,030

2001

67

21

31%

$73,683

2000

83

18

22%

$73,542

1999

93

30

32%

$84,118

1998

135

27

20%

$63,267

1997

106

35

33%

$60,054

Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 216
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 217
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 218
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 222
Suggested Citation:"5 Key Factors Influencing Leadership." National Research Council. 2007. International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11867.
×
Page 223
Next: 6 Conclusions »
International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $73.00 Buy Ebook | $59.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

More than $400 billion worth of products rely on innovations in chemistry. Chemical engineering, as an academic discipline and profession, has enabled this achievement. In response to growing concerns about the future of the discipline, International Benchmarking of U.S. Chemical Engineering Research Competitiveness gauges the standing of the U.S. chemical engineering enterprise in the world.

This in-depth benchmarking analysis is based on measures including numbers of published papers, citations, trends in degrees conferred, patent productivity, and awards. The book concludes that the United States is presently, and is expected to remain, among the world's leaders in all subareas of chemical engineering research. However, U.S. leadership in some classical and emerging subareas will be strongly challenged.

This critical analysis will be of interest to practicing chemical engineers, professors and students in the discipline, economists, policy makers, major research university administrators, and executives in industries dependent upon innovations in chemistry.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!