GENERAL MEETING A General Meeting of the Society was held on 23rd October, 1972, in the Edward Lewis Lecture Hall, Middlesex Hospital Medical School, London, W 1 The President, Dr. J. G. Davis, was in the Chair.

MORNING SESSION

SUBJECT: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE BRITISH DAIRY INDUSTRY

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE DAIRY INDUSTRY BY R. J . MACWALTER, OBE Formerly Chief Scientist, Unigate Ltd.

Dairy research and development mean different things to different people depending on their responsibilities within the industry. On one point I imagine we all agree - there should be more of it. More of what kind of research, and who should pay for it?

I hope that after this meeting we will be a little clearer about the different sorts of research going on and how the workers in these fields can benefit from each other’s efforts. In this way we could get a better return for our expenditure than we do at present.

As regards research and development done by private companies, I believe there is a good deal of ignorance about the way this is carried out and its aims, and I intend to devote my paper to an attempt to explain how we approach our work.

Company-based research by food and dairy firms has a very short history and the generation of scientists which immediately preceded my own was regarded rather as a demonstration that the company was up to date, than as an essential part of its profit-earning capacity. It is small wonder that these lonely men pursued their academic re- searches in their isolated laboratories. The remark- able thing is that their work so often was pertinent to their company’s business. I think they must have been like the chaplains attached to the stately houses of long ago-on the strength to provide some uplift in the way of a book of sermons from time to time provided it bore the imprint of its patron.

In the last twenty or thirty years the whole situa- tion has changed. It has been realized by firms and by their scientific staff that there are no cloisters in1 industry. If scientists are to be usefully employed they must identify themselves completely with their company and become as involved and pro-

fessional as the company’s accountant or engineer. This attitude has never been so marked as during the last five or six years, and I regard it as wholly healthy. It means that industry-based research and development demands quite different qualities and expertise from those required in academic or institute-based research, but their work is no less research for all that. I know from my own experi- ence how traumatic was the change when I moved from academic to industrial work. Even now the training at university level of graduates seems designed to fit him primarily for an academic approach in spite of the fact that he is much more likely to be employed in commerce.

I have noticed even in the titles of our papers today that the term ‘research worker’ is curiously restrictive. You will see that Professor Weitz is to talk about the contribution of the ‘research worker’ whilst I am to speak on the contribution of the dairy industry. How can industry contribute to research and development except through its own research workers who, by the very nature of their jobs, are different from the people Professor Weitz will have in mind? Both he and I will thankfully agree on that point.

I think, therefore, that I may best spend my time in giving you my views on how I think the research worker in industry should approach his work, contrasting it as far as possible with what I con- ceive to be the approach of the academic or institute research worker. If we can get the roles of these two types clear in our minds we shall be well on the way to dovetailing the efforts of both to the greater benefit of research and development in general.

Now in doing this we shall have to be careful to avoid the trap of trying to assess their relative values and importance. In times past it was not

22 Journal of ?he Society of Dairy Technology, Vol. 26, No. I , January, 1973

perhaps unfair to make these cxjmpadsons, when industry strove to acquire merit by imitating the academic scientist. Nowadays these comparisons are as irrelevant as trying to assess the relative merits of lawyers and architects. Nor should we be so naive as to draw comparisons about their relative social values as some people tend to do. In our society nothing can be achieved without money and there are only two activities which generate it, industry and commerce. All other activities are dependent on the profitability of these two enterprises. An industry research worker is engaged directly in research organized to generate profitability - say, to make more attractive yoghurt.

. An institute or academic research worker may in- vestigate means to eliminate mastitis. Is the one more socially important than the other? But the mastitis work is financed by money provided by industry and commerce and could not be done without it. Neither worker is more worthily occupied than the other and each is essential. I do not think more highly of the man whose work owes something, no matter how small, to the profits of those curious shops to be found in the Charing Cross Road, than of the man who throws in his lot with a particular company. We are all members one of another.

Let us then consider the job of the leader of an industrial research team. In common with his in- dustrial colleagues, his task is to produce the maximum of profitable results at the minimum cost in the shortest time. If he does not do this the company will not attract the finance it must have from the shareholders and eventually folds up in favour of another company which is able to do so. The basic stimulus I have just stated has never been more evident than at present and I am sure it will increasingly govern industrial research when we enter the Common Market.

So this leader must on the one hand constantly reassure himself that the work carried out is directly applied to the company’s activities, and on the other, that his budget is the lowest possible for the tasks he has set. In these two aspects he has a continuous dialogue with his technical, com- mercial and financial colleagues and masters and there is a continuing scrutiny of his stewardship. Remember, too, that the market place is fickle and a project of prime importance today may be a dead duck in three months’ time; so very often speed is the essence in his approach.

What is the scope of his work? I think it lies in three or four directions :

(1) To improve methods of processing and manufacture.

Under this head research, of course, involves chemists, biochemists and bacteriologists, but especially jn its later stages the operation of pilot and full-scale plant. Each of the research people engaged on this stage needs an intimate

knowledge of the manufacturing side of the business if he is to contribute usefully. Chemi- cal engineers are, in my view, essential at this stage, and I think it most heartening that some of these men are being made aware during their training of the openings in the food and dairy industries. Hitherto chemical engineers seem to have regarded the food industry as beneath their notice. Now there are special courses for bio- chemical engineers, and I hope these men will be increasingly recruited into our industry. (2) To devise new products and processes.

New products are produced by a collaboration of marketing and research skills. Although they start life usually as a cookery exercise, before long the special needs of commercial production or the marketing pattern require the interposition of the chemist, the bacteriologist, the biochemist the physical chemist and the chemical engineer to overcome technical problems. (3) To maintain quality levels and to correct

This is primarily the job of the quality con- trol department. Except in the simpler cases the irregularities thrown up by this service require investigation on the plant by scientists experi- enced in the detail of the process. I regard this as research justifying the transfer of research staff from what might be thought of as more rewarding work. In fact there is nothing more rewarding in my view than a production problem promptly and neatly solved. (4) To satisfy statutory requirements.

This is a very proper obligation on manu- facturers which demands in its study a research approach, because of the complexity on the one hand, of the legislation and on the other, of the processes and products manufactured. Unless the research team is fully aware in depth of the principles as well as of the details of the great volume of legislation which controls our industry, good research may be abortive. I have mentioned four directions of industrial

research, but I have omitted several which some might think pertinent, e.g.:

(a) To increase scientific knowledge of the nature of his company’s products by engaging in fundamental research.

(b) To seek new ways of ensuring the safety or nutritive value of his company’s products.

(c) To improve the methods of production of his raw materials.

Each of these three items may well be studied in depth if it satisfies the fundamental requirement of improving the profitability of the enterprise - long- or short-term. The improvement may be measured, if the company so decides, by the increase in the standing of the company resulting from publishing

faults.

Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology, Vol. 26, No. I , January, 1973 23

this expert knowledge, or the increase in goodwill which such a research might generate. We can all think of examples of this from recent history. It is important, however, to recognize the status of this kind of work.

I labour these points because every action of the leader of research must be activated by one criterion only - the ultimate profitability of the enterprise. Of course, there are difficult decisions to be taken, for example, how far a research policy of publication of scientific papers will encourage suitable young staff to seek employment; how far research which has no tangible benefit for the company can be pursued on grounds of gaining expertise in new techniques. Many other factors may modify the somewhat harsh economic principle I have enunciated, but without invalidat- ing it.

Now in order to pursue the legitimate objectives which I enumerated earlier, there must needs be a number of long-range research projects going on and these invariably throw up gaps in knowledge not immediately related to the research in hand. Ideally the industry research worker would pass on these problems to the academic or institute-based scientist for thorough study. Unfortunately this seems often not to be possible, and then. reluc- tantly, the industry man may have to investi- gate it for himself. He has to deflect staff from the more pressing work, equip his laboratory with special apparatus for the purpose and, as like as not, have to stop the work at an interesting scientific stage. Moreover, it is unlikely that the work will be as well done as it would be in a more academic environment where there are oppor- tunities for frequent discussion with like-minded colleagues. Now this type of work is sufficiently removed from the area of competitive business as to produce no problems of confidentiality, and unfettered publication of the results is desirable. Another bonus is that the subject is related ,to the realm of practicality. It is the job of industrial researchers to build viable processes from scientific work already available and to add what is neces- sary from their experience to make the project a profitable enterprise. This latter development stage is not often, of course, susceptible of immediate publication or sharing with competitors.

I am sure I have said enough to indicate that the range of scientific matters which come within the range of duties of the industrial scientist are often beyond the competence of even a large research team. The problem of timing is also very impor- tant. The right time for a project to be launched is arrived at by consideration of many factors: marketing; financial; political; as well as technical, and there is often insufficient time for a full scientific evaluation of the consequences, without losing the opportunity for a successful operation. Then the industry scientist must exercise his most

valuable gift - that of divination. This gift is com- pounded of experience, a wide circle of expert friends, a strong sense of responsibility, some scientific acumen and luck. Better that he should make an intelligent guess than someone else not possessing these resources, for this may well be the alternative. In the last resort he has to be strong enough to say if he believes the hazards are too great for success. All he has then to do is to live down the opprobium which will inevitably be heaped on his head.

You will appreciate from all this that the in- dustrial scientist must be able to accept the im- portance of the views of his colleagues who bring other skills to bear - marketing. financial, advertis- ing - a quality which scientists are not noted for exhibiting. He comes to realize that his scientific contribution to a problem (even a technical one) is only one facet, and his job is to explain his point of view persuasively to non-technical and often more senior colleagues without patronizing them. And to accept something less than what in his view is technically ideal, if this is the only way that all views can be reconciled. This is a characteristic for which scientists are not famous, but architects and engineers have, over the generations, learned this lesson. This general problem of communication with colleagues in other non-scientific disciplines is vital, for upon it depends the confidence with which his work is accepted. There is no place for culti- vated eccentricity or esoteric language designed to impress. The technique of explaining complex scientific principles in simple terms is, in my view, a good test of one’s own grasp of the subject.

It is, after all, a very important step to translate research into a positive enterprise and to put at risk a great deal of shareholders’ money, so that it is worthwhile devoting an equivalent amount of study to the steps required to mould it into a form acceptable to those who have to make the decisions and bear the responsibility.

So I regard it as important, at the earliest stage in his career, for the industrial research worker to cultivate his contacts with his production col- leagues. He depends on them for an important part of his experience and he will not acquire it without their confidence and sympathy. Often there are gulfs of background and education to be bridged before that confidence can be won.

Now I turn to the question of economy of opera- tion. Commercial scientists work to a budget as do all the other production departments of a com- pany. But research is not directly profit-earning and inevitably a research budget is looked at with a more jaundiced eye than the budget of a profit- earning department. Industrial research costs have, therefore, to be justified more carefully, and it is usually not possible to rival the glossier ap- proach of some other departmental budgets. When I was asked for a budget item such as a depart-

24 Journalof the Society of Dairy Technology, Vol. 26, No. 1, January, 1973

mental car, I had to consider whether it would not be better to replace it with a spectrograph. Most industrial research units I know look with envious eyes nowadays at the elaborate research equipment available in academic establishments. Time was when this was quite different.

There are many different views on the way re- search costs should be borne within companies. Some prefer an elaborate system of time sheets with hourly charges based on labour and overhead costs. Others prefer a division of the total research costs on an agreed basis between the user depart- ments. Some work on a system of estimates of the cost of the work to be done before it is begun, and yet others on a series of budgetary sums to cover distinct classes of research. Whatever method is used the industrial scientist is continuously aware of the cost of his work and this influences in large measure his approach to his work.

I have dwelt on all these matters to try to demon- strate the great differences between the work and conditions of the industrial scientist in com- parison with the work and conditions of his academic or institute-based counterpart. I am quite sure there are some similar checks on the academic worker, but I suspect that they are less abrasively applied - and quite right, too. We require of the industry man a range of qualities which in im- portance may outweigh his purely scientific know- ledge and skill. He has to keep his ear to the ground, his shoulder to the wheel, his eye on the ball and his nose to the grindstone. He needs friends - how he needs them ! He must be accept- able to, and respected by his colleagues in other departments who know little of the nature of his work. I suggest that all this is in sharp contrast to the qualities required and the atmosphere of the academic worker.

What does the industry scientist hope to see in the future?

First, I think he wants more and better facilities for his work - who does not?

Secondly, he would like better arrangements than now exist for discussions with his friends in the academic world and the institutes, leading to closer integration of research effort. He would ex-

pect from this that the gaps in fundamental know- ledge which his own research reveals, would be purposefully studied and, of course, published.

Thirdly, he looks to his more academic col- leagues with their contact with the newest scientific techniques and free-ranging minds to initiate new methods and processes. He would hope, however, that there would immediately follow discussion on the possible industrial significance of these researchers. Thereafter, the project would be planned in such a way that the two types of mind and experience may be brought to bear on the work.

The industrial scientist looks with a jaundiced eye at the efforts of academic scientists to develop commercially viable processes on their own. In doing so they tend to reveal gaps in their know- ledge and experience only to be paralleled by the industrial scientist when he engages in fundamental studies.

What stands in the way of this kind of recipro- city of endeavour?

One factor is the reticence of commercial people to discuss their own plans. We must learn to dif- ferentiate between commercial development and scientific research.

Another factor is, I fancy, a reluctance among some academic scientists to accept that commercial workers really know what they are doing, and perhaps a very slight reciprocal feeling.

A third factor is to be found in their differing views on the priorities of projects.

These are all facets of a lack of communication between the groups. How can we put it right?

I had hoped that we had found a way of utiliz- ing the Minister of Agriculture’s Milk and Milk Products Advisory Committee, but that was not to be. Now that we are at the beginn.ing of a new approach to research and development stimulated by the Government’s White Paper ‘Framework for Government Research and Development’, perhaps we are at the dawn of a new era.

If we could only bring this mutual consultation into practical effect I, for one, would have no fears about the future of research and development in the British dairy industry in the 70s and 80s.

Journalof the Society of Dairy Technology, Vol. 26, No. I , January, 1973 25