« Λ ' x^Hv*'VvV^'M'r,r vfify

mwmnmwmmu NEWS

DECEMBER Υ3Γ. 1956 . V O L 3 4 , NO, S I APPUED JOURNALS. ACS

Director of Publico!mas: C B. Lstrralw* Editorial Directors W. J . Murphy

£»ec«ifnre Editors J a m e $ M. C?ow« Proc/ocfibn AAonagers Joseph H. Kumy

CHEMICAL AND ENGINEERING NEWS editors Richard l_ Kenyon Managing Editor; R o b e r t F . G o u l d EDITORIAL HEADQUARTERS Washington 6 , D. C. 115S S i x t e e n t h St.» N.W. Phono Republ ic 7-5300 T e l e t y p e WA 2 3

fsfew* Editor: Gordon H. Blxler Associate Editors: David M . Klefer, George B . Krantz. Hu±Sx Cornet te Assistant Editors: Katnryn Campbel l , Helen H . Blurr*. Irene <*. Kiefer, B e t t y V. Kteffer,Whildesi W. J o h n s o n , David E. Gushee» Arthuir Poulos Edstonat Assistants: R u t h L . Connor , Betty J. Corday, Bar*-bara R . Christ ie . Hanns L. Sperr Staff Artist: Melvin D. Buckner

BRANCH EDITORIAL OFFICES CHICAGO 1, ILL. £6 East Randolph S t . P h o n e S t a t e 2-7686

Assoc/crfe Editor: Assistant Editors: rence 3 . W h i t e

Teletype CG 725, Albert S . Hester Chester Placek, Lata-

HOUSTON 2» TEX. T18 Melrose BIdg. P h o n e Fairfax 3-7107

Associate Editor: , Assistant Editor:

Tele type HO 7 2 Harry W . Haines, Jr.

Bruce F . Greek

MEW Y O R K 16, Ν . Y . 2 Park Ave. P h o n e Oregon 9-1646 T e l e t y p e WA 2 3

Associate Editors: H a r r y Stenersor», Howard J. Sanders, D. Gray Weaver* Assistant Editors: Walter S- Fedor» Morton Sal kind -*-

SAN FRANCISCO 4 , CALIF. 703 Mechanics* Inst i tute BIdg. S7 P o s t s * . P h o n e Exbrook 2-2895

Associate Editor: T e l e t y p e SF54S

Kenneth M. Reese

£ASTOM» PA-2 0 t h and N o r t h a m p t o n S t s . P h o n e Eas ton 9111 Te le type ESTN Pa 4 S

Associate Editor: Charlot te C. Sayre Editonai Assistants: J o y c e A. Richards , Elizabeth R. Rufe, J u n e A . Barron

EUROPEAN OFFICE B u s h House , Aldwych, London P h o n e T e m p l e Bar 360S Cable 41ECHE1W5

Azsozk£e Editor: W i l l i a m Q . K«S!

Advisory Board: « a x e l B i shop , R. H . Boundy , A. C- Byms, J . T . Cox. Jr.» Maurice F. Crass, Jr . , R. L« Ericsson, H. I_ Fisher, Theodore S . Hod-« |ns» J . R. Hoover, J . Warren Kinsman, « . F . Mark, Lloyd H. Reyerson, Έ . G£. Rochow. Cart Séf te fs trom. Frank J . Soda^

Adv&riistng Management: REiNHOLD PUBLISHING CORP. 430 Park Ave. , New York 22, Ν . Υ. (For Branch Offices see p a g e 6261}

-Tie American Chemical Society assumes no respoasâ-ÏMKty for the statements and opinions advanced by cont-«xxlratocs to i t s publications. Views expressed in the ed£-conais are those oFxhe editors and do not necessarily repre­sent the official position of the American Chemical Society.

PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD CHEMICALS The Chemical Process Industries Still Have a Public Relations Job on the Use of Certain "Nasty" Words

J V L A N Y years ago when rayon was being introduced in the United States the words synthetic" and "substitute" were widelv used to describe this man-maae material and to distinguish it from the natural fibers, particularly silk. J

Earlier the chemical industry used these same words to distinguish man-made indigo from the natural product. In the early days of the plastics industry, the producers of the basic ingredients and the fabricators most frequently thought of the finished products as "substitutes" for something else—usually glass, china, porcelain, or leather.

These two words—synthetic and substitute—for years have plagued the chemical process industries, although through sound public relations the termι synthetic—at least in association with man-made fibers—has taken on a definite aura of respectability. This is perhaps due largely to the change of heart of one of the largest producers of such fibers. For a time, its public relations department was under strict orders never to use the word synthetic. Later this order was not only rescinded but the departments of advertising and public relations were encouraged to use it extensively.

These comments on synthetic and substitute are prompted by reading a recent speech of Sir Miles Thomas, chairman of the board of Monsanto Chemicals, Ltd., before the second technical symposium staged by the British publication, Rubber and Plastics Age at the National College of Rubber Technology.

"The internal combustion engine," said Sir Miles Thomas in his introductory remarks, "was hailed originally, not as the key to a new and revolutionary principle of transport, but as a rather dubious alternative motive power for a form of transport already in existence. Plastics, synthetic rubbers, and similar polymers have also been regarded by many people not as revolution­ary services of new construction materials, but as somewhat doubtful alterna­tives to established materials."

As the chairman of the board of Monsanto Chemicals, Ltd., sees it, tech­nical progress in itself is not enough. In addition, the right kind of psy­chology, salesmanship, publicity, and management are essential. We agree completely.

Considerable progress has been made in the U. S. in convincing the public that the term synthetic does not necessarily imply inferiority—indeed, it can connote superiority. N o longer does the purchaser of any one of a number of well known synthetic fibers think of it as a substitute and not quite com­parable to one of the natural fibers. The buyer understands the unique characteristics of these synthetic fibers and purchases them on a competitive basis. Synthetic rubber and the variety of plastics now available enjoy wide acceptance for the same basic reason.

Perhaps w e in the U. S. are further along the path of acceptance of prod­ucts made in the plant or factory which replace to some extent natural materials than are other countries, including Great Britain. It would be difficult to prove or disprove this statement.

If we are, this is no reason for American chemical process industries to become complacent. W e need only recall the public reaction on the chemical food additive dispute. Here the terms synthetic, substitute, and chemical were employed in a disparaging sense—and continue to be in many quarters.

There is still a tremendous public relations job to be done to create in the minds of the public complete awareness that a "chemical" is not neces­sarily dangerous—indeed, it most frequently is useful and beneficial; that just because a fiber, a tire, a piece of pipe, or a food preservative is made in a manufacturing plant instead of by Mother Nature, it is neither necessarily of poor quality or potentially inimical to the health and well-being of human • -Oings .

On the contrary, w e must convince the public that chemistry and chemists have provided and continue to provide, through synthesis, hundreds and hundreds of useful products that nature Las never produced. In a word w e must have a positive rather than a negative, or defensive approach.

Zc/al^l: fifK+Uf