BY R. J . M A C W A L T E R

Chief Scientist, Unigate Ltd.

Based on a lecture to the Northern Ireland Section on 13th November, 1968

The place of the scientist and technologist in our industry and his responsibilities have been discussed a great deal recently, particularly from the point of view of research and development. I thought it might be interesting - for me if not for you - to take a glance at his job over the whole field of dairying and his relationships with his colleagues and co-workers.

One classification might be: 1. The scientists engaged in the day-to-day

control of the business of dairying from cow to consumer including the army of Milk Board officials, Local Authority officers, Ministry Advisory staff, commercial labora- tory control staff and technical officers supervising the running of dairy plant. The scientists involved in the investigation of the problems of the industry - ranging from such subjects as the elimination of mastitis in dairy cows to the investigation of defects in processing and plant operation. Those engaged in long-term research into the fundamental causes of the problems of the industry and their solution, providing the background facts and theories used by the other groups in their work.

I would like first to discuss the last category, for it is the one which is attracting a good deal of controversy at present. These scientists are mostly at the research institutes, and at universities and colleges. They need - and generally have - time and a wide range of scientific facilities. They also usually have a high level of scientific ability. They generally lack experience in dairying, nor can they be expected to have it. However, fundamental work into the problems of an industry cannot be properly directed unless there is a close relationship on equal terms with the scientists who have this dairy experience.

I cannot help commenting on the widely held view that:

1. fundamental scientists must not be fettered by practical problems, and

2. genius must be free ranging. It is held that only in this way will the ‘break

throughs’ take place that we all hope will come to pass. My comment on this attitude is that genius is no more prevalent in research institutes than else- where, and that to rely on this rare thing is not the most fruitful way of spending public money. Look

2.

3.

around our industry and you will find that the really new things have cropped up in haphazard ways as they always will whenever a really original mind is brought to bear on a practical problem.

Please understand that I am not against geniuses: I just do not want to invest too much money in them - they are too chancey.

Fundamental research is in my view at its most rewarding for the money spent when it is pursuing the steady line of building logically on earlier work, directed towards clear cut objectives, and for this the staff and facilities of our research institutes are well qualified. Of course, we must not inhibit the free ranging genius but I suggest that there are only a few of these, and the major part of institute research can be pursued with the same degree of positive direction as that which has, of necessity, to be applied to commercial research.

To my mind the philosophical pursuit of dairy science directed to no other end than the accumula- tion of knowledge should have a very small place in the research institutes. However, this may well be the avowed job of the applied science departments of universities.

To sum up my views on this field, I believe firmly in the need for fundamental research to aid the industry in the solution of its problems and in the development of new processes, and that the research institutes are the best bodies to do it. I also believe that this work should have much closer links with the other more practical scientists in the field, and that its direction and programmes should be examined frequently to avoid the pitfalls that await a closed community of academic scientists where interests can become more philosophical than practical. We need less of the senior common room and more of the board room at our institutes.

It may well be argued that institutes are already submitted to regular visitations when their pro- grammes are examined. My plea is that in an applied science directed towards our industry these visitations should not be primarily composed of academic scientists but a much broader group of people experienced both in the science and practice of dairying in its widest aspects.

I now turn to the second group of scientists; those engaged in applied research and development. These are the people who have clear problems presented to them, are equipped with experience in the background and then grind away in the usual

Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1969 139

logical fashion. Varied by occasional bursts of elation and periods of despair, their success lies in dogged persistence towards limited objectives. Once the position is consolidated, all is set for the next limited step forward.

This kind of work also goes on in research institutes, in universities and colleges but especially in industry, but sometimes there is difficulty in deciding where best it should be carried out. We must face the hard economic fact that industry’s research when applied to commercial processes is often jealously guarded, for boards of directors hopefully expect their scientific research to pay. In these cases there cannot be completely free dis- cussion with other groups of workers. On the other hand, the results of the work done at research institutes, universities and colleges generally speak- ing are - and should be - made available to every- body. To my mind, the best compromise is reached when the institutes face these facts. When they do applied research they should appreciate where difficulties of this kind are likely. For instance, anyone who knows the dairy industry will under- stand that research on the production of instant milk powder will not result in the close collabora- tion of all the workers in this field. On the other hand, the scientific principles which govern the agglomeration of milk powder particles will be eagerly studied by those commercial firms engaged in this field. If the institutes wish to enter any of the applied fields of study, they will, by discussion with the interested commercial firms, soon learn the basic scientific problems which beset them and can then formulate programmes of great value in which the commercial firms will be delighted to collaborate.

For, broadly, industry is not equipped or geared to investigate basic principles. It needs to be provided with this background on which to build its own processes if it so desires. In this way we will get the maximum utilization of the skills and experience available and, incidentally, a variety of practical ways of achieving the end results.

On the other hand, there is a wide range of investigational problems which do not verge on these delicate matters a t all where there need to be no inhibitions of any kind.

Moreover, as time goes on and classified or secret processes become ubiquitous, restraints on the free flow of information a t a// stages disappear. Pasteurization and bottling of milk and spray drying of milk powder are cases in point. At that stage, of course, the institutes can engage upon questions of the technical operation of the plant itself, without any inhibitions.

To summarize : applied research needs experience of the industry before it can be successfully carried out. This does not prevent this type of work being carried out by institutes, provided that there is close collaboration with industrial scientists. In- deed, there is much of this work going on though

not nearly enough. There are problems of industrial secrecy but this

need not be a serious hindrance if institutes and industry decide beforehand what are their respective spheres of operation. The benefits to be obtained by both parties expanding this field are enormous.

I now turn to the first group 1 mentioned - those scientists engaged in the day to day running of the technical side of the industry. One finds a wide range of technical qualifications. In some cases they are the same as those in the other groups 1 have discussed, in some cases less and some have no qualifications at all. The reason is that these jobs are concerned with people as well as with things and the qualities demanded are different from those required of the research worker: different but not inferior.

1 cannot see why this category should often be regarded as inferior to the research scientist. It is a part of the fallacy that the brilliant or clever man is the one who has the trick of writing good examina- tion answers. There are many similar fallacies such as the fallacy that the man engaged on research is superior to the man doing technical control, and the fallacy that university or institute research is superior to industrial research: that applied research is inferior to basic research: that medical research is superior to engineering research ; that men are better than women.

1 sometimes feel we are re-living in a modern context the old Victorian view that ‘Trade’ is low and vulgar. Whilst these views still prevail recruit- ment to commercial science inevitably suffers. Surely, the person to be respected is he who does an important job supremely well.

1 am afraid the formal training we give in universities for this type of work is not good. There is an implied assumption that graduates should be trained only for research work. It goes even further - that the data for the research worker will be provided by technicians of an inferior grade. In fact, many - even most - graduates will not be primarily engaged on research work, so why pretend that they should? I was glad to see that a recent Government report came out strongly in pointing out the need to stimulate recruitment for this class of work.

At one time I was concerned with recruits of this type to the dairy industry and I was, and still am, somewhat shocked by the preparation they receive. The first difficulty is to persuade them that they are not failures for being offered this vital work instead of the magic word ‘research’. Then one finds that they are often unable to communicate with those with whom they have to work - operatives, fitters, charge hands, managers, technicians - with tact and respect for the experience each of these people enshrines. The art of writing reports is something which is not taught. Yet reports are the very stuff by which these men are judged by their seniors.

140 Journal of the Socie!y of Dairy Technology, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1969

And finally, the level of technical skill is too low. I am sure they were hard working students but it seems to me that their courses are usually designed rather to equip them to understand scientific reasoning than to carry out practical work. So there is a burden placed on the employer to teach skills which he has neither time nor teachers to do.

Another well tried way of recruiting scientific staff is as school leavers or at some intermediate stage in training, followed by day or block release to colleges. This has different disadvantages. Unless the student has reached a certain academic stage before entering on paid employment and becoming expert in a skill, he finds it difficult to appreciate the value of subsequent theoretical education. I have often heard from members of staff in this category that they were wasting their time at college because they were doing much more advanced practical work at their place of business.

As I get older I realize that the really valuable contributions come more frequently from those people who are the experienced dairy scientists in day-to-day contact with the vagaries of our indus- try than from the dedicated scientist: and indeed they must be the men who tell the research scientists where to direct their efforts.

1 cannot finish this discursive address without mentioning the senior scientist engaged in the control of scientific effort - the scientific director.

Of course, at research institutes there is always a scientific director who, I am sure, has problems of his own, but in industry there is a sad lack of scientists a t the top. As dairying becomes more scientifically oriented, it will be just not good enough if the view of the scientist is not heard round the board table with equal weight to that of the economist, sales director, financier and the others who decide policy. There is nothing in his make-up which prevents a scientist from being a good director - or is there?

Scientists, in common with most other university types, tend by training to be rather bookish. Some of them opt for research to avoid the untidy problems of the world of real men and women, with the inevitable clash of personality. Thus it needs a conscious effort on the part of those scientists who wish to take part in decision making to fit them- selves for it, and I think this effort is greater for a scientist than for an engineer or an economist, for their work brings them into contact with people at an early age. A serious effort has to be made to understand that men without scientific knowledge may yet have a valid point of view; that compromise is a way of getting things done - not a sacrifice of principles; that the usages of the committee system are valuable. Only a few scientists will be prepared to make this effort but those who do not, should not

inveigh against their exclusion from the places where policies are made.

This administrative scientist has other different responsibilities. For instance, he must protect his staff from the varying pressures of his other com- mercial colleagues who often expect a new product every week, a major break-through once a month and a complete change of programme on Wednes- days, but he most not protect them so much that they live in a kind of commercial university. There must be no cloisters in business. He must beware, too, of creating favourite sons. The people nearer to commercial applications tend to be more highly regarded than those who do the background work, which is often the more difficult part.

He must come to terms with the fact that the successful firm is not always the first in the field to exploit new processes, though he must know all about them So he must maintain the enthusiasm of his scientific colleagues if, for various reasons, their brilliant brain children are stillborn, for on another occasion he may be encouraging an early parturition.

He must especially learn to guess intelligently. Commercial opportunity knocks at inconvenient moments, so if all the facts are not available some- one has to guess. Scientific guesses on technological matters are better than those made by the non- specialists. Of course, everyone must be clear which are facts and which are guesses - a distinction not always made clear in scientific communications.

There is, too, a need for directors to accept the idea of the board room being invaded by scientific types. Perhaps the most we scientists can do is to prove that we, too, are human.

I fear I may have given you several wrong impressions of my views, so I will finish by correct- ing some which may have crept in.

I am convinced of the importance of the work of research institutes and of the vital part fundamental research must play in developing our industry. I am only concerned with emphases.

I would not wish to discountenance the genius or near genius who may present us with a ‘break- through’. But let us not bank on it with too great a proportion of our funds.

I want more work on applied research at in- stitutes, with the recognition that there will be some inevitable coyness by industry on certain aspects. This merely means that in such cases the fields of investigation must be defined as between institutes and industry.

I do not recognize as distinct the three groups of scientists I described : they merge imperceptibly into one another. And J am fiercely opposed to the view that one type of scientific work is more impor- tant or socially preferable to another.

Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1969 141