We found that the USA was working to a different definition of chemical engineering from that in the UK. US chemical engineers have significantly changed their focus over the last ten years, along the lines suggested by the Amundson Report (Amundson, 1988). This report recommended that chemical engineering should move closer to the sciences, and this transition is well advanced. Amundson suggested the development of bi-cultural researchers; targeting new technologies (especially in biotechnology, biomedical devices, electronic materials, polymers and ceramics); maintaining the leadership in existing technologies; protecting and improving the environment; the application of advanced computational tools; and use of a detailed knowledge of surfaces, interfaces and microstructures. Amundson saw chemical engineers moving more to product development and closer to science, with less emphasis on processes - this has now happened.

The US has moved away from work in process engineering in all departments, except for a few centres, and has taken on product engineering. This expansion of chemical engineering’s horizons was coupled with a rapidly broadening range of backgrounds of the academic staff. Consequently their training and skills have become increasingly bi/multi-disciplinary. The US has strategies of actively funding interdisciplinary work (particularly in the way the refereeing process is conducted), which has resulted in stimulation of new and highly effective research careers. Much of the formal structure of chemical engineers' training and research, whilst different from the UK, has not changed over the past 25 years; yet the subjects with which they have engaged have changed dramatically. top

The areas mentioned in the Amundson report were surfaces and interfaces, advanced computation and artificial intelligence, energy, environment and safety, electronic and optronic materials, polymers, biotechnology and biomedical engineering. All of these are now strongly researched in the US, except perhaps for energy. They are also expected to maintain their position in the established industries, where there is now little government funded research. By contrast, their desertion of the established industries seemed to be worrying. Many US academics remarked on the difficulty of funding process control, for example, which was mentioned as a key area by Amundson.. top

The willingness to participate in non-traditional (and entirely new) multidisciplinary areas, together with appropriately structured funding schemes, are two of the keys to the current and likely future success of US chemical engineering. Another important factor is undoubtedly the much higher financial benefits which accrue to US chemical engineering academics; their salaries are in the top decile of all chemical engineers, whilst in the UK academics are in the bottom quartile. . top

In the UK, we found that there is now a wide range of disciplines being brought into chemical engineering departments by the staff, but that there is a barrier to exercising research at the interfaces between science and engineering. Cited as areas of particular difficulty were the research councils' policies and the peer review process. There has been no parallel large scale move by the UK into interdisciplinary areas; and training seems, by comparison, mono-disciplinary and narrow. The quality of UK postgraduate students is generally reported as unsatisfactory, whereas US students are generally very strong. The dominance of traditional process engineering research within the UK profession is to some extent inhibiting the future development of the chemical engineering community. In addition, workload on young staff imposed by the departments, the pressures of TQA, RAE, and other assessments, have all reduced research effort.. top

The UK community now has the opportunity to move forward. The new industries require new products at an increasing frequency. Modelling and quantification at the molecular and micro-scale may become good enough to predict performance; thus scientific tools and skills must be acquired in these new areas. We must first concentrate on incorporating perceived customer needs into the design of the potential product, rather the processes to make them. Of the larger scale processes, those dealing with energy and environmental aspects of processes will maintain their importance. Advanced computational skills will remain core; the major change will lie in the application of our techniques directly to the development of new materials, in electronics, optronics, polymers, biomaterials, complex fluids and nanostructured composites. . top

New tools must be incorporated from other cultures, and chemical engineers must increasingly learn additional skills beyond those of chemistry and mathematics. Further, incorporating the means to perceive customer need, and engineer the whole product cycle (including disposal/recycle) will meet the needs of the emerging industries of the next century. Making these advances will require more postgraduate opportunities in the sciences and engineering subjects to create bi- and multi-disciplinary individuals who can carry out the new research. This will require the establishment of links with the new industries, and funding patterns which encourage development along these lines. In addition, the means will need to be found to attract and retain strong postgraduates into universities to carry out, and then lead, future research. <return to contents> <return to top>

Amundson report

Culture change

Areas in US

Interdisciplinary work

UK position

UK opportunity

Bi-disciplinary development