The Chemistry Enterprise in 2015

The Chemistry Enterprise in 2015 William F. Carroll, Jr., Occidental Chemical Corp., ACS President 2005 Douglas J. Raber, GreenPoint Science ACKNOWLEDGMENT First, we would like to thank the members of the Senior Analysis. Thanks to those chemists who contributed specific Advisory Group who were interviewed extensively to com- predictions contained in the paper itself. Finally, thanks to all prise the first part of the project, the Situation Analysis. In the ACS members and staff who participated in or facilitated addition, we thank the Governance Advisory Team who dialog and debate; you provided the engine to bring the helped us with the strategy and peer review of the Situation Enterprise Project to completion. Senior Advisory Group Governance Advisory Team Samuel W. Bodman, Alvin L. Kwiram, Michael Betenbaugh, C. Dale Poulter, Deputy Secretary, U.S. University of Washington Johns Hopkins University University of Utah Department of the Treasury Robert S. Langer, Chris Hollinsed, Carolyn Ribes, Ronald Breslow, Massachusetts Institute of DuPont Co. Dow Chemical Co. Columbia University Technology Michael Jaffe, Ron Webb, Donald M. Burland, Jeffrey M. Lipton, New Jersey Institute of Procter & Gamble National Science Foundation Nova Chemicals Technology Marinda Wu, Ralph J. Cicerone, Thomas E. Reilly, Jr., Michael Nevill, Science is Fun! University of California, Irvine American Chemistry Council Solvay America, Inc. Thomas E. D’Ambra, Alfred P. Sattelberger, Albany Molecular Research, Inc. Los Alamos National Laboratory Predictions Peter B. Dervan, Jay Short, California Institute of Technology Diversa Corp. Ronald Breslow, Simon Campbell, Arthur B. Ellis, Jeffrey J. Siirola, Columbia University Royal Society of Chemistry National Science Foundation Eastman Chemical Co. Ge Li, Barbara Pressey Sitzman, J. Michael Fitzpatrick, Michael E. Strem, WuXi PharmaTechs. Chatsworth High School, Los Rohm and Haas Co. Strem Chemicals, Inc. Samuel W. Bodman, Angeles Mary L. Good, Matthew V. Tirrell, U.S. Department of Energy John Clevenger, University of Arkansas, Little University of California, Santa Chad Holliday, Truckee Meadows Community Rock Barbara DuPont Co. College, Nevada Harry B. Gray, George M. Whitesides, Stephanie Burns, Marye Anne Fox, California Institute of Technology Harvard University Dow Corning Corp. University of California, San Diego Roald Hoffmann, Richard N. Zare, Harry B. Gray, Cornell University Stanford University California Institute of Joe Francisco, Purdue University Harold W. Kroto, Technology Florida State University Nancy B. Jackson, Arthur B. Ellis, National Science Foundation Sunil Kumar, Sandia National Laboratories International Specialty Products, Morton Z. Hoffman, Inc. Boston University Altogether, this document represents a synthesis of views from across the chemical enterprise, but does not necessarily represent the views of ACS. Occasional redundancies and potentially controversial statements have been retained in an effort to convey the breadth of the input from our colleagues. The Chemistry Enterprise in 2015 BACKGROUND— markets, the chemistry enterprise will show strong growth as we 1 THE CHEMISTRY ENTERPRISE move toward 2015. Inevitably, this growth will be accompanied The chemistry enterprise—including industry, universities, by change. The field—both intellectually and economically— and government laboratories—plays a central role in our will be different from the way we know it today, just as it is dif- nation’s well-being. It helps to maintain our intellectual ferent today from what we knew in previous decades. We must be vitality, and it lies at the core of the country’s economy. willing to identify opportunities as we adapt to new challenges. Broadly, the industry extends beyond traditional chemi- ● The most dramatic advances will occur at the boundaries— cals and petrochemicals to include energy, biotechnology, where the frontiers of knowledge always are found—but there and pharmaceuticals as well. The enterprise is dynamic, will be many opportunities to solidify and strengthen the core. and change is both normal and essential. In the last Exciting questions remain in analytical methods, catalysis, century, chemical science moved from working with a small-molecule synthesis, and computational chemistry, to small number of known chemicals, in quantities rang- name only a few. The physical sciences stand on their own as ing from only a few grams to a few tons, to the current they simultaneously provide the foundation for advances in the state where we have the capability to manipulate quan- biological sciences. The chemistry enterprise will remain an tities as small as a single atom and as large as the intellectually vibrant area that generates new ideas, fundamen- entire biosphere. tal science, and products. ● Multidisciplinary research—collaboration by scientists in dif- CHEMISTRY— ferent disciplines who bring a depth of expertise and an interest DISCIPLINARY STRUCTURE in the periphery—will be increasingly common. Ultimately it The nature of our discipline is changing. Many of the longstand- may be difficult to identify a project’s disciplinary origin, and ing fundamental questions in chemistry have been addressed and the question will seem irrelevant. Strength in core chemistry are well understood. Chemists now can work on applications that will remain the essential platform for advances in all of molec- previously were beyond our capabilities and might not have even ular science. been considered chemistry as little as a decade ago. Today’s stud- ies are leading to new fundamental discoveries and an expansion of the boundaries of molecular science. This in turn leads to a bewildering increase in scope and the resulting need to compre- hend ever more information from increasingly diverse disciplines. The notion of chemistry as a central science is widespread, and scientists and engineers in many disciplines now work at the molecular level. This centrality leads biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines to add chemistry instruction to their basic courses, and in some cases to devise chemistry courses that will be taught “their way,” thereby clouding the mission of chemistry departments. While chemistry education in the United States is Ronald Breslow, strong, it is increasingly taught as a service for premed students by University Professor, “Chemistry and Biochemistry” departments. Some have suggested that chemistry is just a tool for use in their canonical disciplines Columbia University or that chemistry as a distinct discipline will disappear in the com- ing years. All this leads to an important question: In the 21st century, what is chemistry? Or, for that matter, what is not? The biggest difference in 2015 will The overlap between chemistry and biology has increased dra- be that chemistry will no longer be matically, and the boundaries between chemistry and materials limited to only the properties of science have dissolved. The inherent multidisciplinary aspects of these areas, together with new technologies such as high-through- pure substances. Instead it will be put screening, are generating advances at an accelerating pace, refocused largely onto the properties and the needed expertise often requires multifield collaborative of self-organized multimolecular work. These trends may produce an “identity crisis” for the systems that have interesting and chemists working across boundaries. Who will be their peer group, “useful properties. and who will evaluate their work? ● From announced capacity expansions to development of new 1The main text in this document describes the chemistry enterprise in 2005 and also indicates some of drivers for change and the initial direction of the changes. ● Primary bullets are characterized by “will be” and describe the situation to be expected in 2015. ■ Second-level bullets are characterized by “must be”—actions to be undertaken by the chemistry community if the situation in 2015 is to be different from the current trajectory. 1 THE CHEMISTRY ENTERPRISE IN 2015 ” ■ The success of the chemistry enterprise in the framework of multidisciplinarity will require that our scientists be deeply trained in the core of chemistry but also be able to commu- nicate and collaborate with those in related disciplines. Ironically, by expanding at the borders, chemistry is returning to its roots. As in the original meaning of organic chemistry, the field has long been driven by a desire to understand the underly- ing science of life. Advances in molecular manipulation, in com- bination with the power of modern computing, are allowing us to understand the individual chemical reactions and interactions of life processes. Ge Li, Chairman and CEO, WuXi ECONOMIC ISSUES PharmaTechs. Globalization The history of the U.S. chemical industry has been shaped by global events. For example, the organic chemical industry effec- The biggest difference in 2015 will tively began as a result of the German embargo in World War I. In a similar way, much of the evolution of the U.S. enterprise in be the rising of China and India. As this century will be driven by global rather than domestic influ- a result, the global economy and the ences. geopolitical landscape will bear little Rapid economic development, along with an increase in resemblance to what we know today. research, is taking place overseas, particularly in Asia. This economic growth is accompanied by foreign industrial investment Free flow of capital, information, and is facilitated by the tools of modern

Load more