Phillips Petroleum, Β. F. Goodrich, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Monsan­to, Dow Chemical, and Mobil. Their last stop is Chevron Chemi­cal near San Francisco where they leave for home. The American Chemical Society cooperated with CSCPRC in setting up the itinera­ry.

At the various plants, the group will observe large-, medium-, and small-scale petrochemical works; production installations for sepa­rating ethane, propane, and butane from natural gas and oil gas; and purification of natural gas. They also will study ethylene pipeline transportation and storage; produc­tion of acetic acid, glycerine, rub­ber, and resin; and scientific re­search centers.

The petrochemical delegation is the fourth Chinese delegation brought over by CSCPRC this year. The first three were here to study solid-state physics, molecular biolo­gy, and communications tech­niques. Three more delegations are expected this fall, including repre­sentatives from the Chinese Scien­tific & Technical Association, an industrial automation delegation, and an immunology delegation. In exchange, five U.S. delegations have made or will make trips to China this year to study schistoso­miasis, paleoanthropology, rural small-scale industry, insect control, and solid-state physics. D

Hearings may trigger peer review changes Two weeks of hearings by the House Science, Research, & Technology Subcommittee on the National Sci­ence Foundation's use of peer re­view to evaluate research proposals hasn't resolved the controversy sur­rounding peer review. But it has aired fairly the views of critics and proponents alike. And although specific legislation to change the system isn't at all likely to be en­acted readily by Congress, adminis­trative changes instituted by NSF are a strong possibility. However, more subtle changes in the direc­tion of opting to support "safer" rather than higher-risk innovative proposals may well be a result of stinging criticism leveled at NSF re­search program managers by some Congressional critics.

The scope of the more substan­tive changes—specifically those re­sulting from legislation or adminis­trative action by NSF—appears to hinge in large measure on public and scientific community response I

Symington: fundamentally sound

to critics' charges. They also hinge on the outcome of a host of studies now under way by NSF and others on peer review and the whole issue of how the government goes about managing the R&D it funds. For in­stance, NSF and the National Sci­ence Board (NSF's policy-setting advisory group) are developing a survey to sample the scientific com­munity's reactions to opinions on peer review.

Other areas of "general agree­ment" were underscored by the House subcommittee chairman James W. Symington (D.-Mo.) on the last day of the hearings. Among other things, Symington noted that the witnesses "overwhelmingly agree" that some form of peer re­view should continue to be used to assist in the allocation of funds for scientific research. He observes that nobody—including witnesses from NSF—claimed that the peer review system and its decision-making ability are perfect. "Nevertheless, it appears that, as a base to work from, the peer review concept is seen as fundamentally sound," he says.

In the more controversial areas, there is obviously less agreement. For instance, Symington notes that there are mixed views as to how open or how confidential NSF's systems for making grant decisions ought to be or on how peer reviewers ought to be selected or in what modes they ought to work.

Finally, an increasingly adver­sary relationship continued to pre­vail on the last day of hearings be­tween NSF director H. Guyford Stever and Rep. John B. Conlan (R.-Ariz.), who is fast becoming chief Congressional critic of NSF. Among other things, Conlan be­rated Stever for failing to provide him with verbatim copies of peer re­view of curriculum development projects and reiterated his call for "total openness" of the peer review system. Stever says, in es­sence, that the system is open, is becoming increasingly so, is open to change, and is being studied thoroughly. D

Construction firms still are doing well Chemical makers are cutting back on their construction plans to help them through the recession, a move not likely to please construction en­gineering companies. But a spot sur­vey last week of many of these com­panies showed them to be weather­ing the cutbacks quite well. Al­though several companies ac­knowledge the stretching out and even the cancellation of some chem­ical contracts, a number say that their own business has not been af­fected at all by the announcements of chemical makers. And for some, especially those that are doing busi­ness on a large scale with the oil exporting countries, chemical con­struction contracts are at an all-time high.

A C&EN compilation of construc­tion backlogs for six major engi­neering companies shows that they have doubled over the past year and

Construction backlogs have doubled since early 1974 $ Billions 201

15

10

i 5 1974 1975

Source: C&EN survey of Combustion Engineering, Fluor, Arthur G. McKee & Co., Ralph M. Parsons Co., Pullman, and UOP

a half to nearly $19 billion at the end of the second quarter of this year.

Ralph M. Parsons Co., just finish­ing the best first half in its history, hasn't suffered any ill effects from the cutbacks in chemical construc­tion. For sulfur and sulfuric acid plants, where it has a number of contracts, Parsons has not seen any contract cancellations or stretch­outs, a spokesman declares.

Fluor, too, has not seen any shut­down in construction projects under way and has had a "tremendous in­crease" in new contract awards. Fluor's largest awards in recent months have come from the oil pro­ducing countries of the Middle East, shifting the company's bal­ance of foreign and domestic busi­ness from its 59% foreign level at the end of April to about 70% foreign business currently.

"Business still looks real good to us," says a spokesman for M. W. Kellogg Co., a Houston-based engi-

August 11, 1975 C&EN 5