Are we educating our technologists correctly? (Viewpoint).

In 1967, Dr. J. Glazer, head of the National College of Rubber Technology, postulated, "few would disagree with the view that the viability and future development of the rubber industry will depend largely upon its success in acquiring and increasing the number of well-educated technologists whose education has included a study of polymers, as well as a study of basic disciplines of chemistry, engineering, mathematics and physics." Reflecting upon our industry today, I cannot help but ask whether or not, in fact, our industry has been populated by such well-rounded scientists.

Historically speaking, there has been a long standing emphasis by the British on developing and utilizing natural rubber technology. This has been apparent at a university level and through both government and industry sponsorship. Perhaps the most notable instance is the British Rubber Producers Research Association (now known as MRPRA), whose mission has been to develop the science of rubber. This association was organized in 1938 with initial funding by the Malaysian government, an English colony at that time.

Early in the 1940s, "polymer science" was initiated as an educational program. Polymer technology was essentially regarded as an extension of polymer science, but this, as many will agree, is not a true representation of the two disciplines.

The 1960s might be characterized as the "golden years" of rubber technology in England, with leadership offered by the Institution of the Rubber Industry (IRI). In an effort to coordinate a diploma scheme, the IRI proposed various levels of technical qualification: a) Junior and Senior Technician (compounders); b) Junior and Senior Technologist (BS and MS equivalents); and c) Licentiate (Doctoral level). The actual diploma courses approved by the IRI are given at colleges and universities and financed with public money.

The Journal of the IRI went so far as to publish Licentiateship Examination questions in their April 1968 and October 1970 issues. They were both comprehensive and challenging. The examinations included separate sections for Rubber Technology I (applied science) and II (factory practice), Rubber Science (chemistry and physics), Rubber Science (physics and engineering), Organic Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, Polymer Technology, Physical Chemistry of High Polymers, Organic Chemistry of High Polymers and finally "Use of English."

More recently, the Rubber Division has enhanced the distinction in disciplines with two prestigious fellowships: in 1988 the Paul J. Flory Fellowship (Science) and in 1990 the John D. Ferry Fellowship (Technology). The distinction in disciplines certainly comes as no surprise since the Rubber Division journal Rubber Chemistry and Technology (RC&T), by its very title has perpetuated the perception of separate disciplines. However, my intent is not to disparage the Rubber Division. In fact, as a former education committee member, RC&T was always utilized as my first information resource. As a case in point, consider two relatively recent chapters and the RC&T references therein. First, "Halogen containing elastomers," which contained 12 published papers and eight division papers. Next, "Sealing technology," which references eight published papers and 12 division papers.

Despite the presence of multiple disciplines, through perception or otherwise, you can safely argue that the discipline of chemistry appears to dominate our industry. Fortunately, however, the Rubber Division's audience consists of both disciplines. I had the privilege of representing the Rubber Division for ten years on Chemtech's advisory board, which had representatives from each of the American Chemical Society's divisions. For many years, Ed Vandenberg (inventor of epichlorohydrin rubber) represented the Polymer Division. Interestingly, Ed's background was basic mechanical engineering (Stevens Institute of Technology--1939) as was mine (Stevens Institute of Technology--ex. 1952). In fairness to our basic mechanical engineering degree, the requirement included four semesters of chemistry, including basic, organic, qualitative and quantitative chemistry.

The simple conclusions I hope you might draw from this diatribe are two-fold: Foremost, rubber is essentially an engineering material. Second, it is easier to teach polymer chemistry to a mechanical engineer than to teach engineering to a chemist. Perhaps these conclusions are not readily apparent. But then, I do not believe Dr. Glazer's vision has become apparent either.

Either way, we still have the basic underlying industry problem: end-users who buy upon price alone, not wishing to pay for research and technical support. These same users sometimes expect warranty cost sharing for marginal designs often initiated by their own design groups. For the sake of irony, you could say that our end users assume that science and technology are basic integrated competencies of our industry.

Daniel L. Hertz is founder, president and technical director of Seals Eastern, Inc., a company specializing in precision rubber molding and engineered sealing concepts. He has been an active member of Rubber Division--ACS (Chairman--1996), The New York Rubber Group (Chairman--1983), Energy Rubber Group and Polymer Technology Consortium--Texas A&M.