October 22, 2007

Volume 85, Number 43

pp. 6-9

Plastic or Metal Pipes: Pros and Cons

The Plastics Pipe Institute is the major trade association representing all segments of the plastics pipe industry in North America. For more than 50 years, our members have been involved in the research and advancement of plastic pipe and the promotion of its benefits throughout the world. I was both surprised and disappointed after reading an article by Bethany Halford (C&EN Latest News, "Plastic Plumbing Can Make Water Nasty," Aug. 24) based on a study done by Andrea Dietrich, a researcher at Virginia Tech.

Starting with the title of the brief and carrying through many of the comments in the report, the choice of words tend to shed a negative light on the use of plastic pipe in drinking-water systems. Since C&EN is a publication covering multiple aspects of chemistry, I was quite surprised by the lack of research taken before writing this piece and disappointed by the lack of balance by not comparing plastic pipe to more traditional metal pipe. After reading the article, one can easily come away with the negative impression that only plastic pipe imparts tastes and odors to water, leading to unfounded fear in its use.

As a case in point, while copper has been a material widely used in the U.S. to move drinking water, the fact that copper pipes can deliver a highly metallic taste to water, which can become particularly potent and even toxic when those pipes begin to deteriorate, was excluded. This comes from a study also done by Virginia Tech researchers in 2006.

Generally, all piping systems can impart some taste and odor traits to water. Widely accepted best practices recommend the flushing of all lines and piping systems prior to implementing them for regular consumptive use; any taste or odor characteristics resulting from inactive lines or new installations are quickly and easily remedied through such activity.

What was missing from the article, and from Dietrich's report, was commentary on the substantial economic and health benefits that come from the use of plastic pipe over conventional metal pipes. These two points are the heart of why, as Halford mentions in her article "plastic has started to replace metal as the material of choice for water pipes."

A. (Tony) Radoszewski
Executive Director
Plastics Pipe Institute
Irving, Texas

Universality of Science

I am writing to express my grave concern as to the current policies and practices of the U.S. government with regard to visas for scientists from Cuba.

The president-elect of the Federation of Latin American Chemical Societies, Alberto Nuñez, was invited by ACS to attend its recent meeting in Boston on Aug. 18–24.

He applied for a visa in good time and made his arrangements to fly to Boston from Havana immediately after returning from a series of International Union of Pure & Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) meetings in Europe. He received notification from the U.S. State Department on Aug. 14, when he was still in Europe, that his visa application had been denied.

The reasons for the visa refusal for Nuñez, who has previously visited the U.S., were not communicated. However, his case mirrors that of another eminent Cuban scientist, Miguel García Roche, who is president of the Latin American Regional Group for Food Science, which is affiliated with the International Union for Food Science & Technology. He was refused a visa in June to attend a meeting of the American national affiliate to the union.

In both of these cases, the result is that the Latin American scientific community has been excluded from representation in meetings of American scientific societies. This is in clear breach of the principle of universality, as articulated in the International Council for Science statute 5, which is adhered to by IUPAC and all affiliated unions:

"The principle of the Universality of Science is fundamental to scientific progress. This principle embodies freedom of movement, association, expression and communication for scientists, as well as equitable access to data, information and research materials. In pursuing its objectives in respect of the rights and responsibilities of scientists, the International Council for Science (ICSU) actively upholds this principle, and, in so doing, opposes any discrimination on the basis of such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political stance, gender, sex or age. ICSU shall not accept disruption of its own activities by statements or actions that intentionally or otherwise prevent the application of this principle."

It is important that both individual scientists and their representative organizations actively support this principle and, in so doing, oppose any unjustified distortion of normal scientific practice and exchange for political ends. Throughout history, diplomatic relations between different countries have varied enormously, but scientific progress, based on open exchange, has continued. The refusal of visas on political grounds for Cuban scientists to attend meetings in the U.S. is a serious threat to the universality of science and should be of concern to scientists everywhere and to all those interested in promoting international science for the benefit of society.

Bengt Gustafsson
Chairman,
ICSU Committee on Freedom & Responsibility in the Conduct of Science
Uppsala, Sweden

Patent Law And Monopolies

Jesús Joanús i Timoneda's thoughtful response (C&EN, Aug. 20, page 4) to the article on the Supreme Court case KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. misses the point (C&EN, June 11, page 26).The Supreme Court said nothing about monopolies.

Instead, it admonished the Federal Circuit to apply the law as Congress had enacted it rather than legislate variations on the statute. Congress replaced the common law test of "invention" with a new test of "nonobvious" a half-century ago. Instead of construing the statute according to Supreme Court interpretations, the Federal Circuit drafted its own test of "teaching, suggestion, or motivation," words that do not appear in the statute.

The five arguments in the letter as to why patents are not monopolies cannot withstand scrutiny. First, in every country, patents are government grants that restrain trade in the invention. Patents are outside the scope of the antitrust laws because they are an exception, not because the antitrust laws are limited to "anything that was already in possession of the people." Diamonds are typically owned by the mining company and are not "already in the possession of the people," yet trade in diamonds is restrained to control prices. Patents restrain trade in drugs so that owners can maintain high prices, as any consumer of Lipitor knows.

Second, it is an error to contend that there is no "quid pro quo" with monopolies. Most of the oil pumped from Earth is the result of quid pro quo. I pump it out and you give me a monopoly.

Third, the owner of the patent "controls and rules the market." The fact that most patents do not have measurable value is a market problem, not a patent problem. Patents owned by Silicon Valley companies have much greater value than patents elsewhere because the market there is much more efficient, not because the patents are any different. There is a problem with patents granted for peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches and for business methods, but that problem can be solved by the more rigorous patent examination that the KSR case contemplates.

Fourth, a patent "gives the monopolist rights to make, sell, buy, work, or use" the invention that may not be had by others. Likewise, diamond sellers in Western Africa have found a "way to design around" the monopoly enjoyed by South African diamond monopolists for generations.

Patents are wonderful, enshrined in the Constitution. But they are benign monopolies that advance the progress of the useful arts by making knowledge patent, that is, "open to public inspection." Patents started as monopolies and continue to be so, but that does not diminish their value to society.

John P. Sutton
San Francisco

Funding of Science

The American Academy of Arts & Sciences has formed a committee to study alternative ways to identify, invest in, and manage high-risk, high-reward research and to further the research of early-career faculty. Spurring the study is a growing recognition that current federal funding mechanisms are not always supportive of high-risk, high-reward research and that many early-career scientists find it increasingly difficult to sustain their research after their start-up packages are exhausted. Nobel Laureate and Howard Hughes Medical Institute President Thomas R. Cech is leading the committee, which invites input from the public across all disciplines concerning alternative investment policies, federal funding mechanisms, and management processes that can improve the success of early-career scientists and of scientists with high-risk, high-reward research proposals. Please submit ideas, comments, and suggestions by Nov. 30 to John C. Crowley at jcrowley@mit.edu.or Katie Donnelly at kdonnelly@amacad.org.

ACS 2007 National Election

Ballots for the American Chemical Society's fall 2007 national election were mailed to members on Sept. 24. If your ballot (mailed in a white envelope with a red banner marked "Urgent Official Election Ballot Enclosed") has not arrived yet, you may request that a duplicate ballot be sent to you by calling VR Election Services, Customer Service, at (800) 218-4026, Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5 PM central time, no later than Oct. 24. You can cast your vote electronically or by the traditional mail-in ballot. The voting deadline is close of business (5 PM CDT) on Nov. 2. Election information on all candidates can be found on www.acs.org/elections or chemistry.org/elections.

Chemical & Engineering News

ISSN 0009-2347

Copyright © 2008 American Chemical Society