Newscrïpis by Κ. Μ. Reese

New film from grits proposed by environmentalists A note of some interest has arrived from president George Martin, Jr., of the Life Environment Conservation Organization in Evansville, Ind. The letter is cosigned by Eileen Vogt, executive guardian, and reads in part as follows:

"One morning after consuming a break­fast [Hmmm] of grits . . . we noticed along the sides of the [grits] pot a thin film of plasticlike material. The material readily peeled from the sides of the pot and exhibited properties quite similar to those of plastic wrapping material. Per­haps the process which produced this film can be developed to yield a biodegrad­able plasticlike material to replace the less desirable synthetics currently in use. We would like to see the research done. Time is running out!"

The authors can't be faulted for not

Letters Technology not an abstraction SIRS: In your editorial of Feb. 7 you comment on previous "Comment" by Nathaniel Brenner (C&EN, Dec. 13, 1971). Mr. Brenner maintains that we are al­lowing our technology " to drain away via licensing, foreign plant construction, and other multinational arrangements ." You accuse Mr. Brenner of "a somewhat shortsighted and parochial though not uncommon view" and that "it is futile to try to stem the flow. . . ." The flaw in your viewpoint lies in your abstrac­tion of technology as if existing in a vacuum. Rather, it is applied science in­extricably allied to the market place and therefore affected by all those factors which influence trade.

The U.S. position of undisputed eco­nomic and technological power following World War II has deteriorated to the present, when Europe and Japan threaten us in every market . But what about our postwar policies of capital and tech­nological assistance to both, through the Marshall Plan, IMF, AID, and Ex-Im Bank, etc. Those countries owe tre­mendously to the charity of U.S. taxpay­ers over the past 25 years. The flight of U.S.-based capital and technology to for­eign countries is due only in par t to the exorbitant demands of our monopolistic labor unions. Equally responsible are our Government's indiscriminate give­away programs to those countries and the promotion of a welfare state that raises all U.S. costs of production. Our technologically leading firms also are pros­ti tuting our supremacy in their eagerness to sell plants and processes, ra ther than products, to foreign countries for short-term profits.

Witness the favored t reatment being accorded Romania, an Iron-Curtain coun­try (C&EN, Aug. 9, 1971, page 22). Many of our multinationals, with the aid of U.S. taxpayers ' funds, are helping to con­vert Romania into a competitor of U.S. chemical producers. The same applies

knowing that much of the research has been done already—one cannot, after all, keep up with everything—and they may in fact have the germ of an idea. The film deposited by the grits was presumably starch, and edible packaging films made of starch have been under study for some years by several companies. The purely technical problems have been mastered, according to a spokesman for A. E. Sta-ley. The problem now is to work out a process that will produce the film at rea­sonable cost.

It should not cost a great deal to fill a giant reactor with grits and fire it up. Martin and Vogt say the cooking time is only 30 minutes. Allowing several hours for cleanup, one ought to be able to do one run per shift, including the time required to peel off the film. It isn't immediately obvi­ous how the process could be automated, but the producer could recover part of his costs by unloading the grits on the com­pany cafeteria and the local school lunch program. The concept admittedly is bi­zarre, but who knows?

to the " t rade" which our Administration is promoting with our cold-war and Viet­nam enemies, Russia and Red China. Russia still owes us at least $35 billion, in current dollar value, from World War II lend-lease. So why send them steel rolling mills, computers, Mack truck plants, and RCA communications equip­ment?

We can no longer afford the luxury and absurdity of your concept of technology in a vacuum. We should have the horse sense to close the barn door before the horse is lost. The second law of thermo­dynamics tells us that the high technology potential in the U.S., acquired by its people during the first half of this cen­tury, will of itself simply be dissipated to other countries unless more work, by the same U.S. people, be expended to maintain it at its high potential. Slidell, La. Akbar F. Brinsmade

Derision solves nothing SIRS: As one interested in the profes­sional at t i tude of chemists, I was very sorry to see that your policy of printing every letter has resulted in two "put-downs" (C&EN, April 3, page 32) in response to the well-written, thoughtful letter from some Loyola of Chicago grad­uate chemistry students (Feb. 14, page 281). I t 's sad to reflect that those letters did not answer the students, at least, not in a positive manner.

Many chemists do carry well the "moral responsibility" which specialized knowl­edge imposes but others seem to feel that questions cause problems and to avoid problems we just don't raise the questions or we become derisive of those who do.

Those chemists who are active and aware know of the excellence of Loyola of Chicago's chemistry department . Certainly, a faculty which encourages questions is educating in the t rue sense.

The editorial of F. A. Long in the same issue of C&EN (April 3) perhaps will in­dicate to the students that many of us share their concern.

Water quality vs. health George W. Comstock, professor of epi­demiology at Johns Hopkins, has drawn a refreshingly frank conclusion from a long and detailed study he made of the effect of water quality on health in western Mary­land. He's not sure, he says, that his re­search proved anything except that the many variables involved make it almost im­possible to do meaningful research on the subject. He detailed his results last month at the Sixth International Water Quality Symposium, in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Comstock did point out that the iden­tification of a water factor in heart disease, if one really exists, could lead to impor­tant preventive measures because the com­position of drinking water can be changed so easily. The problems of isolating single causative factors in such work, however, are evident in correlations he made be­tween fatal heart disease and seven per­sonal factors. The risk for persons who go to church infrequently, for example, was nearly twice that for persons who attended at least once a week.

Let's hope that professionalism will come to mean responsibility and com­passion as well as extensive knowledge and the ability to use it to dispel ig­norance. Skokie, III. Margaret Lally Huston

Ask no special favors SIRS: There is no question that the current unemployment problems of scien­tists (as well as the rest of the nation's problems') are largely caused by the poli­cies of the Federal Government, as was stated by Lawrence Lancaster (C&EN, April 10, page 42). The question is: What do you do about it?

Mr. Lancaster suggests that scientists should a t tempt to apply pressure on the political candidates so that they will be more "favorable to us . " I strongly doubt that any candidate will oppose employ­ment for chemists, and I fail to see how planks in the political platforms sup­porting employment for scientists can in­crease employment.

Since Mr. Lancaster has failed to make any suggestions as to the way in which the Federal Government can help unem­ployed scientists, I will assume (perhaps unjustly) that he wants Congress to ap­propriate more money for programs for the avowed purpose of "aiding unem­ployed scientists, engineers, and techni­cians" without regard to the conse­quences for the rest of the population.

I have two objections to this approach: In the first place, the Federal Govern­ment does not have unlimited resources. At the present t ime it is several billion dollars in the red. Increasing the deficit will increase inflation and increase the hardships of the poor.

Furthermore, if comparatively small groups can " throw their weight a round" and a t tempt to bring about legislation for their own special benefit, larger groups can also do the same thing. Ob­viously the candidates will be more in­clined to favor the groups which can deliver the greatest number of votes.

Continued on page 44

54 C&EN MAY 8, 1972