【 以下文字转载自 New_board 讨论区 】
发信人: Synthon (合成子·AntiSARS), 信区: New_board      
标  题: [范文][ChemicalEng]化学工程学科未来的发展
发信站: BBS 水木清华站 (Fri May 23 09:35:53 2003), 转信

下面这一系列是一份研究报告。是我导师推荐我看的。
它是几十位英国化工专家在对美国化工学科发展经过长时间考察后写成的。
包括了化工学科的研究未来方向，化工学科的本科，研究生教育，美国的研究基金。
特别对英国和美国的差距进行了分析。对大家也许会有所帮助。特别的将来打算去美国

的同学用处会更大。
不过是english,但是很值得一看。
We found that the USA was working to a different definition of chemical engi

neering from that in the UK. US chemical engineers have significantly change

d their focus over the last ten years, along the lines suggested by the Amun

dson Report (Amundson, 1988). This report recommended that chemical engineer

ing should move closer to the sciences, and this transition is well advanced

. Amundson suggested the development of bi-cultural researchers; targeting n

ew technologies (especially in biotechnology, biomedical devices, electronic

materials, polymers and ceramics); maintaining the leadership in existing t

echnologies; protecting and improving the environment; the application of ad

vanced computational tools; and use of a detailed knowledge of surfaces, int

erfaces 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
, e
xcept for a few centres, and has taken on product engineering. This expansio

n 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 ref

ereeing 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 chan

ged over the past 25 years; yet the subjects with which they have engaged ha

ve changed dramatically.
The areas mentioned in the Amundson report were surfaces and interfaces, adv

anced computation and artificial intelligence, energy, environment and safet

y, electronic and optronic materials, polymers, biotechnology and biomedical

engineering. All of these are now strongly researched in the US, except per

haps for energy. They are also expected to maintain their position in the es

tablished industries, where there is now little government funded research.
By contrast, their desertion of the established industries seemed to be worr

ying. Many US academics remarked on the difficulty of funding process contro

l, for example, which was mentioned as a key area by Amundson..
The willingness to participate in non-traditional (and entirely new) multidi

sciplinary areas, together with appropriately structured funding schemes, ar

e two of the keys to the current and likely future success of US chemical en

gineering. 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.
In the UK, we found that there is now a wide range of disciplines being brou

ght into chemical engineering departments by the staff, but that there is a
barrier to exercising research at the interfaces between science and enginee

ring. Cited as areas of particular difficulty were the research councils' po

licies and the peer review process. There has been no parallel large scale m

ove by the UK into interdisciplinary areas; and training seems, by compariso

n, 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 th

e UK profession is to some extent inhibiting the future development of the c

hemical engineering community. In addition, workload on young staff imposed
by the departments, the pressures of TQA, RAE, and other assessments, have a
  ll reduced research effort.
The UK community now has the opportunity to move forward. The new industries

require new products at an increasing frequency. Modelling and quantificati

on at the molecular and micro-scale may become good enough to predict perfor

mance; thus scientific tools and skills must be acquired in these new areas.

We must first concentrate on incorporating perceived customer needs into th

e 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 techni

ques directly to the development of new materials, in electronics, optronics

, polymers, biomaterials, complex fluids and nanostructured composites. .
New tools must be incorporated from other cultures, and chemical engineers m

ust increasingly learn additional skills beyond those of chemistry and mathe

matics. Further, incorporating the means to perceive customer need, and engi

neer the whole product cycle (including disposal/recycle) will meet the need

s of the emerging industries of the next century. Making these advances will

require more postgraduate opportunities in the sciences and engineering sub

jects to create bi- and multi-disciplinary individuals who can carry out the

new research. This will require the establishment of links with the new ind

ustries, and funding patterns which encourage development along these lines.

In addition, the means will need to be found to attract and retain strong p

ostgraduates into universities to carry out, and then lead, future research.

The UK should focus more research effort at the boundaries between engineeri

ng and science. This should be problem solving, design based, and aimed at t

he interests of the new high-technology industries. Referees need to be care

fully selected to be sympathetic to these aims. In doing more research at th

e interfaces the UK should not neglect the core. There must be encouragement

to import new tools into the field. [Research Councils]
The evaluation of research grants should be based on refereed publications
rather than on pre-defined deliverables to encourage innovation. These publi

cations may emerge some time after the grant completion for short grants.[Re

search Councils
--
FROM 166.111.142.18