00:00:00 ♪♪

00:00:10 ♪♪

00:00:20 ♪♪

00:00:30 ♪♪

00:00:35 You are about to see an interview with Dr. Paul J. Flory,

00:00:39 conducted by Dr. Charles Overberger,

00:00:41 for the American Chemical Society's Eminent Chemists videotapes program.

00:00:46 Paul Flory's contributions have revolutionized the field of polymer science.

00:00:51 After receiving his doctorate in physical chemistry from Ohio State University in 1934,

00:00:56 Flory joined the DuPont laboratory of Wallace H. Carruthers.

00:01:00 Carruthers' research, which laid the foundation for the manufacture of neoprene, nylon,

00:01:05 and other polymeric materials, introduced Flory to macromolecules

00:01:09 and sparked his interest in polymer research.

00:01:12 Flory contributed to the Carruthers group

00:01:14 through his ability to express reaction conditions mathematically.

00:01:18 His research first concerned the study of linear condensation polymers,

00:01:22 and then turned to addition polymerization,

00:01:25 where he introduced the concept of chain transfer.

00:01:29 From DuPont, Flory's career took him to the University of Cincinnati,

00:01:33 and then in 1940 to ESSO,

00:01:35 where he studied the thermodynamic properties of polymer solutions.

00:01:39 Working independently, both Flory and Maurice Huggins

00:01:42 derived an expression for the entropy of mixing,

00:01:44 which embodies the essential physical features of polymer solutions,

00:01:48 and has led to many applications over the years.

00:01:52 Paul Flory later moved on to the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in 1943,

00:01:56 and to Cornell in 1948,

00:01:58 where he delivered the Baker Lectures at the invitation of Peter Debye.

00:02:03 In 1956, Flory left Cornell to become director of research at the Mellon Institute,

00:02:08 and in 1961 moved to Stanford University,

00:02:11 where he is currently Jackson Wood Professor Emeritus.

00:02:15 The major areas of his work include polymerization mechanisms and polymer structure,

00:02:20 physical and mechanical properties of polymers in bulk,

00:02:23 solution properties of polymers,

00:02:25 and conformations of polymer chains.

00:02:28 Paul Flory's career has combined industrial, research, and academic activities.

00:02:33 His research has contributed greatly to the growth of polymer science since the 1930s.

00:02:38 In 1974, he added the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to his many awards and honors.

00:02:43 This was presented for his fundamental achievements,

00:02:46 both theoretical and experimental, in the physical chemistry of macromolecules,

00:02:50 and cited his work on the properties of solutions of polymers.

00:02:54 Certainly, Paul Flory has provided the basic conceptual framework

00:02:58 for most of polymer science,

00:03:00 and has had a major influence in the field.

00:03:03 In this interview, Paul Flory is interviewed by Dr. Charles Overberger,

00:03:07 a colleague in the field of polymer research,

00:03:09 and currently Vice President for Research at the University of Michigan.

00:03:13 In graduate school, when did you elect to do a thesis, and with whom?

00:03:22 Well, you know, I did an organic master's thesis with Professor Board,

00:03:30 a little late Professor Board, on organic synthesis.

00:03:36 I don't know whether you knew that, but it's a fact.

00:03:39 I knew you had somewhere. I didn't realize it was a master's thesis.

00:03:42 I really wanted to go into physical chemistry,

00:03:45 but I wasn't sure at the beginning of my graduate career

00:03:49 with all of the deficiencies and so on,

00:03:51 whether I could hack it.

00:03:54 And Professor Board kindly took me on as a graduate student for a master's degree.

00:04:00 And then I had a great deal of respect for him,

00:04:06 and even I liked him personally.

00:04:09 So it was with some pain that I went to tell him

00:04:13 that I had decided to switch to physical chemistry.

00:04:17 And he took this graciously, being the man that he was.

00:04:22 And then I worked with Harry L. Johnston in physical chemistry,

00:04:28 or perhaps the closest thing we had done to chemical physics.

00:04:31 What was the thesis topic?

00:04:33 Photochemistry. Photochemistry of nitric oxide.

00:04:37 It's a rather topic that's on the minds of lots of people in the last ten years.

00:04:42 That's right.

00:04:44 Have you ever looked back and compared to the current knowledge

00:04:54 of photochemistry of nitrogen oxides

00:04:57 and related what you were doing at that time to...

00:05:01 What's going on today?

00:05:02 Yes.

00:05:03 Oh, I thought about it in passing,

00:05:05 but I've left that field so far, been away from it so long,

00:05:09 that it's rather remote.

00:05:12 Although I still think that this is a very interesting area.

00:05:17 Interaction of light and chemistry.

00:05:20 Did he publish the results of the thesis?

00:05:23 Oh, yes. The thesis was published.

00:05:27 Actually, there was another paper going out of the thesis.

00:05:32 This was an area somewhat removed from Johnston's main line of research,

00:05:39 which was good and bad.

00:05:41 It meant that I was more on my own.

00:05:44 On the other hand, I got less tangible assistance in my research from him.

00:05:53 On balance, it was probably a good thing that I had to be more on my own.

00:05:59 There are...

00:06:01 For those people who, and I think we see this in our own students,

00:06:06 who are superior,

00:06:09 whenever that does happen, I think it is true

00:06:12 that it allows them to develop some self-reliance

00:06:20 which you wouldn't get any other way.

00:06:22 Definitely.

00:06:23 Now, this was 1934.

00:06:25 I got my PhD in 1934.

00:06:27 And the DuPont Company was interviewing.

00:06:30 Yes.

00:06:32 And they came around just like they do now, probably.

00:06:35 Or not quite.

00:06:37 In the somewhat...

00:06:39 The tactics were a little different.

00:06:41 But they came around, yes.

00:06:44 The lab director personally came around.

00:06:48 Who was the lab director?

00:06:50 Arthur P. Tenberg.

00:06:55 He did his own interviewing.

00:06:58 He would not trust the personnel department

00:07:00 to interview prospective staff for his laboratory.

00:07:06 So they made you an offer, obviously.

00:07:08 They made me an offer.

00:07:09 Is this what is now called Central Research?

00:07:11 Yes.

00:07:12 Experimental Station.

00:07:14 Then called the Chemical Department Experimental Station.

00:07:16 It's now Central Research and Development.

00:07:19 Yes.

00:07:20 Well, now you must have immediately come into contact

00:07:24 with people in that laboratory

00:07:26 that were interested in macromolecules.

00:07:31 Whereas prior to this time,

00:07:34 you undoubtedly had some interaction with people,

00:07:41 but relatively small until you went to DuPont.

00:07:45 I didn't know what a polymer was,

00:07:47 except that when I was working with Cecil Board,

00:07:52 Professor Board, Synthetic Organic Chemistry,

00:07:57 I was also his sort of private research assistant at one stage,

00:08:01 and he asked me to distill some styrene

00:08:07 in connection with some experiments that he wanted to do.

00:08:12 And he said this styrene has a tendency to polymerize.

00:08:19 And I had some vague notions of what that term might mean.

00:08:24 It was just a nuisance.

00:08:25 You had to distill it to get rid of that polymerized styrene,

00:08:30 whatever that really meant.

00:08:32 It was something to avoid.

00:08:34 That was about the extent of my knowledge of polymers at that time.

00:08:41 I was advised.

00:08:45 Dr. Tanberg wrote me one of his cordial letters

00:08:50 before I went reported at DuPont, 1st of July, 1934,

00:08:56 that they had decided to assign me to the group

00:08:59 headed by Wallace H. Carruthers.

00:09:03 And I knew very little about this.

00:09:06 I did look up some...

00:09:09 I was told that they had published, and I did look at the papers.

00:09:13 I knew very little of what was in store.

00:09:17 He was the influence, the person,

00:09:23 that interested me in polymers.

00:09:29 His approach was rigorous science, his approach to polymers.

00:09:37 And he imbued that into his people,

00:09:41 at least if they were at all receptive.

00:09:46 If they weren't, they didn't stay in his group very long.

00:09:50 And his conviction

00:09:55 that these seemingly complicated substances, polymers,

00:10:01 could be approached scientifically.

00:10:07 Now Hill must have been in that group too.

00:10:10 Julian Hill was in the group.

00:10:11 He was a senior member of the group headed by Wallace Carruthers.

00:10:16 I, of course, didn't know Carruthers,

00:10:18 but I am told that he was, of course, a very intense individual

00:10:25 whose intensity did permeate other people,

00:10:31 although he was not an extrovert.

00:10:34 Certainly not. He was an introvert.

00:10:38 He was a very cultured person.

00:10:44 His view of science, to begin with, was broad.

00:10:48 Of course, he was, I think you would agree,

00:10:52 a very accomplished synthetic organic chemist.

00:10:56 His interest and appreciation of science ranged widely.

00:11:03 He also was conversant and interested in literature and music

00:11:09 and to some extent the arts.

00:11:12 He was a very cultured person, very refined,

00:11:17 privately charming.

00:11:20 In talking to a small group, more than three people,

00:11:25 he was an excellent conversationalist.

00:11:28 But if the group became larger, he shut up like a clam.

00:11:31 The classroom was an ethno for him.

00:11:33 He did not like the classroom, unfortunately.

00:11:38 But he had this conviction that, yes, polymers are complicated,

00:11:43 but they can be treated and understood scientifically.

00:11:49 That was an extremely important concept, particularly at that time,

00:11:53 because there were so many organic chemists that were afraid of them,

00:11:58 in a sense.

00:12:00 Not only organic chemists, Charlie, but others.

00:12:03 Just chemists.

00:12:05 You stayed there about three years?

00:12:09 Four years.

00:12:10 Four years, and then went to the University of Cincinnati.

00:12:13 Carruthers died in 1937,

00:12:15 and that was one of the most profoundly shocking events of my life,

00:12:24 his sudden death.

00:12:27 It just pulled the rug out from under my hopes and aspirations and plans,

00:12:33 to the extent that I had any.

00:12:36 And that changed the situation completely,

00:12:42 from my point of view of a lowly beginning scientist.

00:12:51 It was really for that reason.

00:12:54 That was the cause of my leaving DuPont.

00:12:59 He then allowed you to think about things such as chain mobility

00:13:11 and matters that would ordinarily not be the organic chemist's purview

00:13:18 in a situation of that sort.

00:13:20 He not only allowed me, he encouraged me to do this.

00:13:25 He encouraged me.

00:13:28 And the fact that his fort was a little different,

00:13:34 or I'll put it the other way,

00:13:36 that my inclinations were somewhat different from his.

00:13:41 I was not a synthetic organic chemist.

00:13:43 He didn't try to make me one.

00:13:45 He felt that he wanted to have a physical chemist in his group.

00:13:52 I was his physical chemist.

00:13:54 It was an extraordinary opportunity, I realize now in retrospect.

00:13:59 He came to me one day during my first year there.

00:14:05 He was most effective in coming into the lab

00:14:08 or inviting you into his office informally

00:14:10 and sitting down and just chatting about some thoughts he was having

00:14:13 about this and that.

00:14:14 And it might range well beyond his immediate concerns with synthesis,

00:14:19 mechanisms, and we even got on to molecular distributions.

00:14:27 And he said, you know, this is a field,

00:14:31 the polymer field is an area where it is my belief

00:14:35 that mathematics could be applied.

00:14:37 Now he had very limited capabilities in mathematics.

00:14:42 Mine were limited too.

00:14:44 I mean, his even more.

00:14:46 But he had the appreciation of this, you see.

00:14:49 And he conveyed this appreciation to me, that youngster in his lab.

00:14:57 That, of course, had a great influence.

00:15:00 And when I set about to consider the statistics of molecular distributions

00:15:06 and told him what I was starting to do, he said, that's fine.

00:15:10 And he discussed it with me.

00:15:12 He didn't say it's fine.

00:15:13 He discussed it with me.

00:15:14 And it went without saying that he approved of this.

00:15:18 So I continued.

00:15:20 So it was your concern then that you would not be allowed to continue in this vein

00:15:26 without Carruthers being there.

00:15:30 I suddenly realized how much of a shield he had been

00:15:33 and how much of an influence he had been when he was gone.

00:15:37 Now then, this position at the University of Cincinnati,

00:15:40 I don't know very much about that.

00:15:43 Well, that was a small laboratory launched by one of the administrators

00:15:59 that I've forgotten his name, at the University of Cincinnati,

00:16:03 who was interested in cooperative education.

00:16:10 Students should come and work six months,

00:16:13 be six months at the university in courses and some research, perhaps,

00:16:19 and then six months in an industry.

00:16:21 And, of course, the industry should pay the whole bill.

00:16:25 This was Dean Schneider.

00:16:28 Basic Science Laboratory, it was called.

00:16:31 It was Schneider's idea.

00:16:33 It's a little thing operated on a shoestring.

00:16:36 But it did provide me a small lab and very little help from students,

00:16:44 but I could come in weekends and do experiments

00:16:46 and do what I pleased at least part of the time.

00:16:50 Do you remember, in a rather general term,

00:16:54 what you were then concentrating on at that time at Cincinnati?

00:17:01 Condensation polymerization kinetics,

00:17:10 statistics of reaction of pairs, if you remember that,

00:17:15 pairs on a linear chain, pairwise connections,

00:17:20 a subject that to where my interest had been alerted

00:17:24 by our good friend Speed Marble,

00:17:29 viscosities of melts,

00:17:32 and then gelation theory came up,

00:17:36 which required a higher level of mathematical approach.

00:17:44 I started and largely finished there.

00:17:48 Was there anybody else interested in gelation theory at that time?

00:17:52 Scarcely anyone.

00:17:54 Carothers had been interested in it

00:17:57 and had discussed the stoichiometry of gelation,

00:18:06 the stoichiometry of forming a network,

00:18:10 but without the statistics.

00:18:13 And it's all important to get the statistics into that problem.

00:18:22 I think probably Carothers introduced me to that problem,

00:18:27 but just the stoichiometric premises

00:18:33 of forming the necessary number of intermolecular linkages

00:18:37 to have a network.

00:18:41 So you spent two years there.

00:18:43 Yes.

00:18:44 And then went to the ESSO labs in Linden, I guess it was.

00:18:48 That's right.

00:18:49 The clouds of war were approaching.

00:18:55 The outlook for universities was students and so on.

00:19:00 Grim.

00:19:01 It was grim, yeah.

00:19:04 Well, the ESSO, of course, had a great deal of input into the...

00:19:14 Well, because of their patent agreements with IG Farben Industry,

00:19:19 the Boone S. patents were available to the community

00:19:25 who had immediately started to work on them even before 1941.

00:19:31 Tell me a little bit about the ESSO labs at that time

00:19:36 and where you were involved.

00:19:38 Well, there was an engineering division, although that may not...

00:19:43 There were two divisions, a large engineering division,

00:19:48 interested or concerned with processes, mainly processes.

00:19:53 This was called the ESSO laboratories.

00:19:55 ESSO laboratories, which was the research arm,

00:19:58 later became ESSO Research and Engineering and so on, Exxon,

00:20:01 and now it's something else, I don't know.

00:20:03 And then there was a chemical division.

00:20:05 There was an engineering division, large,

00:20:07 and a smaller chemical division under Per K. Froehlich,

00:20:10 who about that time was elected president of the American Chemical Society.

00:20:16 And synthetic rubber was very much under consideration

00:20:21 because of the threats posed by the war

00:20:26 and the urgency of acquiring independence of sources abroad of natural rubber.

00:20:36 And there were several lines of work both on the Boone's and on the Butyl,

00:20:40 Butyl, which was sort of an indigenous development within ESSO.

00:20:45 Was Thomas there then?

00:20:46 Yes, Thomas Sparks.

00:20:49 Yes, I worked with them.

00:20:51 And there was two lines, the Boone type and the Butyl, going side by side.

00:21:02 And I worked to some extent on both.

00:21:06 Was there an atmosphere there that was conducive to a learning process?

00:21:13 There was a moderate degree of freedom in research.

00:21:20 I would say, considering the pressures of the times,

00:21:27 external pressures of the national situation,

00:21:32 rather, in thinking back, a surprising degree of freedom.

00:21:39 There was a great deal of opportunity because we had a rather heavy burden

00:21:44 of reports and conferences and so on.

00:21:47 It was hard to find time on a regular work day to do much research.

00:21:51 But it wasn't the kind of heavy hand of day-to-day supervision

00:21:58 that required one to pursue a particular line.

00:22:07 For the time, I think it was a fairly good research environment.

00:22:15 But bear in mind, this was essentially wartime.

00:22:17 Sure, sure.

00:22:19 Well, then we went on to Goodyear.

00:22:23 And I don't know why I say this, but I've always felt that,

00:22:30 instinctively from, I suppose, just talking with a few people

00:22:35 and knowing a little bit about what you did,

00:22:38 that it was a very fruitful time at Goodyear in terms of many of the things you did.

00:22:43 Yes.

00:22:44 Am I off base there?

00:22:46 No, I think it was. I think it was a very fruitful time.

00:22:50 They wanted to start a group on what they called fundamental research.

00:22:57 It was a catchphrase, perhaps,

00:22:59 but they were prepared and did hire a number of people.

00:23:06 I had a group of about eight or ten.

00:23:11 I believe there were six PhDs in the group,

00:23:14 roughly a mean during those years of about six.

00:23:19 Who first approached you with the idea of going to Cornell?

00:23:25 Well, Peter Debye, of course.

00:23:30 First he invited me on behalf of his department, or so it was phrased,

00:23:36 to take the Baker Lectureship for the spring term of 1948,

00:23:43 which I was delighted to accept.

00:23:46 This was a tremendous opportunity, I felt, to take on the prestigious Baker Lectureship.

00:23:53 Tell me about the first draft as part of your book.

00:23:56 Well, I was just beginning to think about a book,

00:23:58 and of course they said it would be nice if you'd write a book.

00:24:03 Although, in the background, Debye had gone there as Baker Lecturer first,

00:24:10 and he had never written a book,

00:24:12 so he set a very bad precedent in the history of the Baker Lectures.

00:24:19 So it was a bit awkward for him to put the pressure on me to write a book.

00:24:23 Anyway, the book was an outgrowth of these lectures in large measure.

00:24:29 Who else would you interact with at that time in the department besides Debye?

00:24:35 Well, Debye was the only one working in the polymer field,

00:24:41 but of course he had a core with him.

00:24:44 There was Art Beeker, A. M. Beeker, the late, sorry to say, Art Beeker,

00:24:51 who later became executive vice president of General Electric.

00:24:59 A remarkable man.

00:25:02 And there were a number of many others that came and went through the Debye group.

00:25:11 And I had postdocs.

00:25:14 Tom Fox came with me from Goodyear.

00:25:17 He had worked with me at Goodyear.

00:25:20 And there were a succession of others there that worked with me as postdocs.

00:25:26 On the faculty, on the senior faculty,

00:25:31 it was really only Debye and myself who were engaged,

00:25:37 engaged predominantly in the polymer field.

00:25:41 Harold Chiraga, a very distinguished biophysical polymer chemist,

00:25:51 perhaps that characterizes him, was a junior faculty member at the time.

00:25:55 And we interacted and actually co-authored papers.

00:26:01 And I had many, many interesting discussions with Harold Chiraga,

00:26:06 an association that continues to this day.

00:26:09 Then an attractive offer came along at Ben Mellon Institute.

00:26:16 The Mellon Institute needed a new direction.

00:26:20 And they professed to have decided, the board of the Mellon Institute,

00:26:27 that they were persuaded to turn their direction to fundamental and more basic research,

00:26:36 away from their traditional fellowship program,

00:26:43 which was a very special kind of industrial institute relationship,

00:26:51 which had prospered in earlier years,

00:26:53 but certainly had outlived its usefulness by that time.

00:26:58 And they were persuaded to go into basic research, fundamental research,

00:27:05 and to abandon this.

00:27:07 But they couldn't quite do what they wanted to do.

00:27:13 Their soul was willing, but the flesh was weak when it came down to it.

00:27:21 Well, they had the problem, probably, of supporting the laboratory

00:27:25 with some industrial grants and contracts that were part of the old fellow...

00:27:30 Yeah, proprietary contracts of the hardest kind, in a way.

00:27:34 Yeah.

00:27:35 And really, the fellowships were operated as enterprises,

00:27:43 insulated, or very often insulated, from the rest of the institute,

00:27:49 but openly tied to the industry, the industrial sponsor.

00:27:53 The connection there, back and forth, was open.

00:27:56 The connection within the institute was restricted.

00:27:59 And that's an unsatisfactory arrangement in any institution, obviously.

00:28:05 Many obvious drawbacks.

00:28:07 So the institute had to take a new direction.

00:28:10 But there were counterforces within the management

00:28:15 and all of the Mellon industrial complex of diverse industries.

00:28:30 How large a group was working with you personally when you were at Mellon?

00:28:35 Oh, a rather small group.

00:28:37 I only had on the order of two or three people working with me

00:28:41 because of the administrative responsibilities that I carried.

00:28:45 As you look back on that period where you were at,

00:28:53 Goodyear, then Cornell, and then Mellon,

00:29:01 from your own intellectual satisfaction,

00:29:05 which may not be a very good question,

00:29:09 which did you find the most attractive?

00:29:14 Cornell.

00:29:16 Goodyear, Cornell, Mellon.

00:29:18 Cornell, unquestionably.

00:29:21 The Mellon Institute position then changed to Stanford,

00:29:32 like it has been ever since.

00:29:38 So you were chairman there for five years.

00:29:41 I did my turn.

00:29:42 You did your turn.

00:29:43 I did my turn.

00:29:44 I did my turn.

00:29:45 That was in the era when Stanford was moving from department heads

00:29:51 who ran the departments and served year after year after year indefinitely

00:29:57 to a rotating chairmanship.

00:29:59 I like to say that my principal contribution as chairman

00:30:04 was to impart a quantum of angular momentum to the job

00:30:10 so that it rotated.

00:30:12 And it's been rotating ever since.

00:30:14 I don't think there's any question, Paul,

00:30:17 that anyone active in the polymer field will agree that there's no one

00:30:26 that has really made the number of major outstanding contributions

00:30:32 to so many parts of polymer science.

00:30:39 I don't say that to...

00:30:42 I say that with a great deal of conviction

00:30:46 because I think I have enough of a background to know it.

00:30:50 As you look back on this exciting career, which is still continuing,

00:30:57 who from the outside stimulated you

00:31:05 or, in your judgment, made strong contributions?

00:31:11 Of course, Debye had an influence, a great influence.

00:31:15 We've already mentioned him.

00:31:18 Other names that come to mind are people who come to mind are Maurice Huggins,

00:31:26 Mike Maurice Huggins, I regret to say.

00:31:29 I would like to comment on my relationships with Huggins.

00:31:35 Walter Stockmeyer, who you know,

00:31:38 has made many important contributions in the polymer field.

00:31:49 Of course, there are many others worldwide that we could mention.

00:31:56 Leo Mandelkern was a collaborator back in the early days at Cornell

00:32:06 and did monumental work then and since.

00:32:12 And we've maintained contact and occasionally have collaborated

00:32:17 in research over the years since.

00:32:22 There are many others.

00:32:24 One must not underestimate the contributions of others.

00:32:31 We all interact with our contemporaries

00:32:34 and sometimes with those who live before us through their works.

00:32:41 These interactions and contributions are enormous.

00:32:47 I could comment on Huggins.

00:32:50 There's a theory which is ineptly named the Flory-Huggins theory.

00:32:55 It should be the Huggins-Flory theory.

00:32:57 I've said this a number of times

00:33:00 because he was just a hair ahead of me in that.

00:33:05 He published the first paper.

00:33:09 And I think back of what might have come out of this that didn't.

00:33:15 And I sometimes wonder, in the personal relationship,

00:33:18 what might have happened and didn't, and I wonder why.

00:33:22 Huggins, who as you know, died in December of this year,

00:33:31 was about 12 or 13 years my senior.

00:33:39 He was an established scientist when I was a beginner.

00:33:42 And I recall a colloid symposium held at Cornell, by coincidence,

00:33:48 long before I went there, or a number of years before.

00:33:51 It was the summer of 1941.

00:33:53 I gave a paper on gelation theory, network theory.

00:33:57 He gave one on the thermodynamics of solutions,

00:34:00 and I was horrified,

00:34:03 because I'm grappling to get a foothold in this field.

00:34:08 There were two things I was pushing.

00:34:10 One was network gelation theory, which I'd chosen to speak on there,

00:34:15 at this colloid symposium,

00:34:18 in honor of Bancroft, who had been at Cornell,

00:34:23 had then retired, and solution thermodynamics.

00:34:29 And I had it worked out.

00:34:32 Perhaps I had a paper drafted, ready to go,

00:34:35 or perhaps already submitted, I don't remember.

00:34:38 And Huggins gave his account.

00:34:41 What to do?

00:34:43 So I approached Huggins, privately.

00:34:48 I had to tell him, because I was going to publish,

00:34:52 and I didn't want to be in the position of appearing,

00:34:54 that I had tried to scoop what he had presented orally at this meeting.

00:34:58 And I told him that I had been working on the same thing.

00:35:04 And contrary to the impressions that many people had of Huggins

00:35:08 from his demeanor in meetings, open meetings,

00:35:13 he was most gracious.

00:35:16 He said, well, I'm very interested to hear this,

00:35:20 and I'm interested that you have similar results.

00:35:25 Will you send me a copy of your paper?

00:35:29 There was never a conflict of, so far as I could see,

00:35:36 from my vantage point, for priority in this field.

00:35:41 And that extended.

00:35:43 Now, later on, we differed.

00:35:45 We had strong scientific differences on some matters,

00:35:48 but we always, I think it's fair to say, remained friends.

00:35:53 And I am so pleased.

00:35:56 It's very gratifying to me to look back on this episode,

00:36:00 if you want to call it that,

00:36:03 which was so graciously handled by him.

00:36:08 I was the junior party. He was the senior.

00:36:11 And it was he who set the pattern.

00:36:14 I hope I was equally fair.

00:36:17 Where do you see the cutting edge of polymer chemistry

00:36:26 apt to be in five years?

00:36:29 Now, that's a very difficult question,

00:36:31 because you have to qualify it.

00:36:35 But from your own rather broad viewpoint,

00:36:39 and also your background in the use of polymers,

00:36:48 where do you think there will be extra effort made?

00:36:52 Well, there are a couple of questions.

00:36:54 One here concerning the directions of polymer science, pure science.

00:36:59 Here, I would refuse to make predictions,

00:37:01 because I think the really innovative and novel approaches,

00:37:11 new lines of research, depend on people.

00:37:16 Someone has an idea, conceives a new idea,

00:37:19 a new concept, a new theory, or a new method, whatever.

00:37:25 And that depends on the creative process,

00:37:28 which is almost completely unpredictable.

00:37:30 It depends on the people.

00:37:32 Our concern should be that we have enough creative people in the field,

00:37:37 so that these new things of whatever direction, whatever direction,

00:37:41 will emerge over the next five, ten years, and so on.

00:37:48 It's urgently important that creative people,

00:37:52 however whatever that term means,

00:37:55 motivated people with the dedication and reasonable mental capability,

00:38:04 will be attracted to the field and devote themselves,

00:38:10 think hard about issues and questions and observations

00:38:17 that come to their attention,

00:38:19 and out of this will come new theories.

00:38:21 Where they will be is hard to say.

00:38:24 Now, one can make, as to where we'll go in the next five years,

00:38:28 if it's worth making prognostications,

00:38:34 the way to do it is to look around and see who's doing good work today

00:38:38 and say, well, he'll probably continue good work at least for five years,

00:38:42 so this is a valid direction.

00:38:44 Turning to technology, I have some general ideas.

00:38:49 Let's do it.

00:38:51 In the chapter of this book you wrote,

00:38:55 in the chapter for this book that the Academy published on, what is it?

00:39:00 Science and macromolecules?

00:39:03 Yes. You have a little bit of that, if I remember the text.

00:39:10 I think polymers will, well, let's go to the past, the recent past.

00:39:16 Polymers have appeared in profusion since, say, 1930,

00:39:22 or not to choose a precise date.

00:39:25 You might prefer 1940.

00:39:28 They've appeared in profusion of many kinds,

00:39:30 in mass volume, polypropylene, polyethylene,

00:39:34 in enormous tonnages, nylon, enormous quantities.

00:39:39 And the goal was, and has been,

00:39:43 to develop polymers and manufacturing methods

00:39:47 so that these polymers can be produced in large quantity at low cost.

00:39:53 And this was certainly an admirable goal

00:39:56 and achieved much for the benefit of mankind,

00:40:01 and especially for those in the underdeveloped countries,

00:40:05 in the poorer countries.

00:40:07 The polymers have provided cheaper substitutes, very desirable.

00:40:12 I think the trend in the future,

00:40:14 with the necessity to conserve on raw materials,

00:40:20 is going to be in the direction of more specialized polymers,

00:40:23 polymers that will last long and carry a high value,

00:40:28 at least a high use value, and probably a high cost value.

00:40:33 Very high strength, unsurpassed physical and mechanical properties,

00:40:41 unsurpassed special properties for physiological applications.

00:40:52 Perhaps not always as exotic as artificial organs,

00:40:55 but to include them.

00:40:58 I think there will be the specialty applications.

00:41:00 Polymers admit of the greatest variation in precise control and structuring and so on.

00:41:10 The constitutional variables at the chemical level

00:41:15 are so great compared with other materials such as metals.

00:41:21 The variations are enormous.

00:41:25 And we have only to see what nature has done with polymers

00:41:29 to recognize this if we can't discover it for ourselves.

00:41:34 There are enormous possibilities for special polymers

00:41:37 to do things which we haven't even thought about.

00:41:41 I think if I have to make a prediction,

00:41:43 I think the future may lie in that direction.