CHEMISTS AND INDUSTRY. 
To speak thus in general terms is somewhat idle unless specific suggestions 
follow. Having in mind the quite unprecedented development of chemical pro- 
cesses in England and elsewhere in recent years, it would appear that the chief 
advances have been made by men who, while well trained along the more usual 
lines, have been especially capable of applying the results of two particular 
studies. The two are ultimately connected, and are the study of thermodynamics 
on the one hand, and on the other the study of heterogenéous equilibria from the 
stand-point of the so-called phase rule. The number of men capable of applying 
the former will always be limited, but it may be doubted whether there is any 
chemical manufacture in which advance may not be effected by a chemist 
thoroughly familiar with the weapon of the phase rule. This is not the place 
to show by examples what has been done in England to justify this statement; 
nor even to name the investigators whose brilliant work has made possible those 
achievements in munitions chemistry which have meant to the Allies far more 
than most people will ever realize. Systematic researches on the lines mentioned 
have proved, in the chemist’s hands, to he weapons as powerful as any he has 
ever possessed for dealing with manufacturing problems. But what is especi- . 
ally to the point here is that all this has shown that the training required by the 
expert technical chemist has become broader and deeper than ever before. No 
technical school or university can include in its general course a sufficiently 
detailed study of all the sections of chemistry now required; there is too much 
else to be included. More must, therefore, inevitably be thrown upon the student 
after graduation. Yet to leave these difficult studies entirely to his own initiative 
is not only unjust, but it is to some extent wasting time. Post-graduate instruc- 
tion of a special kind must be provided for the first one or two years after the 
chemist has entered a works, and while he is making his first practical acquain- 
tance with works methods and works machinery. If it be not provided, there will 
be few who will succeed in reaching anything more than the position (and value) 
of a works analyst. 
That brings one to the second matter under discussion—the position of the 
chemist in the works. There is nothing to be gained by blinking the fact that to 
many manufacturers the job of the chemist is to conduct the routine analyses 
of gases, liquids or solids at “test” points of the process. Nor is it any use 
blinking the fact that so long as the manufacturer persists in that view, he is 
doing little more to apply science to his industry than does the maker of engines 
to devise new and better machines when he merely employs a gang of greasers. 
It has to be recognised that there are grades of chemists; there are, one may say, 
the non-commissioned as well as the commissioned ranks. It is the duty of the 
former to carry on; so long as the latter are compelled to spend their hours simi- 
larly, it is clear that all expectation of improved strategy and tactics must go. 
The chemist who will devise and improve processes is the one who supervises and 
criticises the analytical detail, but does not himself carry it out when it has 
become a routine; who is free to spend hours on the plant examining the working 
of this, that, and the other detail; who is free to devote himself (in working 
hours) to reading everything with a bearing on his subject; who is given defi- 
nitely to understand that his time is to be filled not merely with “ process 
managing,” but with process devising and process improving. It is in this sense 
that one speaks of the chemist in the works who will “ apply science,” and it is 
only the chemist who demands and obtains these opportunities who will be 
assured of success. 
It is perhaps not irrelevant to remark upon an expectation amongst some 
factory-owners that their problems may be solved by sending them to an outside 
43 
