The Shoria&e of Scientist* Is many ways Vol. IV of "Science and Public Pol­icy," a report to the President by John R. Steelman, chairman of the President's Scientific Research Board, is the most important in the series because it answers the frequently debated questions: "Are we short of scientists in this country—If so, why?" and "How can we overcome the shortage with a minimum of delay?"

Frequently readers of this publication challenge editorials in which we refer to the dangerous shortage of scientists. We now have available a factual and quantitative study, one which should be in the hands of every chemist and chemical engineer.

In the past when we have referred to a shortage of chemists and chemical engineers, we have had in mind the supply of men and women who, by training and ex­perience, are able to conduct, supervise, and direct o: ;~inal research in fundamental and applied chemistry. .^.30, we have had in mind the shortage of high grade teachers capable of training highly skilled and pro­ductive research workers.

Have we been wrong or right in our assumption that America faces a crisis in science because of a critical lack of highly trained research workers? Mr. Steelman summarizes his findings as follows:

β For the next two years, there will be too few scien­tists to permit the substantial expansion of research and development programs that the Nation requires.

For the long run, there is danger of a shortage of high-quality scientists. There is no question that tens of thousands of students will be graduated from science courses in the next decade. There is room for serious doubt that the training they can receive under present overcrowded conditions in our colleges and uni­versities will make them into capable scientists.

This threat to the quality of future science workers is one result of the present shortage of scientists. It takes a scientist to train a scientist, and there are not enough to perform all the research and development work that should be done immediately, as well as to train the scientists of the future in our colleges and uni­versities.

It is not possible to estimate the number of scien­tists now needed in the nation, but the shortage is ap­parent in almost every phase of scientific effort. There is scarcely a large employer of research investigators who <«loes not have positions which he cannot fill, or which he must fill with scientists less well-trained than is desirable. This is true in industry and Government, certainly in the colleges and universities. Almost all research directors have projects on their desks which they cannot consider because they know in advance it will not be possible to staff them. The Atomic Energy Commission has had difficulty staffing even its reduced research programs in certain fields. A major Army program, that on guided missiles, is only three-quarters staffed.

Mr. Steelman is highly realistic when he points out that a graduate in science is not necessarily a scientist and that numbers without quality will not make up

WALTER J. MURPHY, Editor

the shortage, nor assure the nation's scientific progress. Contrary to the belief of many chemists and chemical engineers, neither a bachelor's degree, nor a master's, nor a Ph.D. are a guarantee of future competence in re­search. Degrees are nothing more than a license to practice. We are not doing our plain duty if we do not explain to students entering science courses in our col­leges and universities that they are embarking on a terrific gamble and only the cream of the crop will achieve success in research. Our colleges and uni­versities should exercise extreme caution in selection of candidates for advanced degrees in order to decrease to a minimum the number of individuals who find for one or more reasons that they cannot perform independent research despite seven or eight years of rigorous train­ing.

We cannot mass-produce highly trained scientists, and the present shortage cannot be overcome in the near future. As Mr. Steelman points out, this is not a matter of feeding so many students into an assembly line, discarding those who cannot meet the qualifica­tions, and finishing in a period of time with the req­uisite brainpower and techniques for successful scien­tific work. Research, by its very nature, is essentially the product of a highly trained intelligence, requiring not only techniques and knowledge, but the imponder­ables of personality—imagination, persistence, keen analysis, organizational and creative ability.

Mr. Steelman has included a number of specific rec­ommendations in his report. Briefly he suggests (1) development of sources of financial support for our colleges and universities to enable them to expand and improve their facilities and equipment, to increase their instructional staffs, and to raise salaries; (2) develop­ment of a broad program for the support of basic re­search in the universities and colleges; (3) develop­ment of a national system of scholarships and fellow­ships to continue federal support of students as the benefits under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act ex­pire.

If we are to maintain supremacy in science, we must recognize that to do so will cost vast sums of money. Teachers and scientists must receive greater financial rewards. If we are to attract and hold the best minds of the country, we must assist promising students in a financial way, and we must see that our colleges, uni­versities, and government research laboratories are provided with the facilities and equipment required for high grade research. To accomplish these objectives, we need spend but a very small percentage of our an­nual national income. Can we afford to temporize on a matter of such vital importance?

CHEMICAL AND ENGINEERING irravra