Progress, and Boosterism

The rapid development of the chemical industry dominated impressions of the American chemical community between World Wars I and II A cadre of chemical boosters publicized chemistry as the key to economic progress and a guarantee of national security. 

This ebullient attitude cooled during the late 1950s and early 1960s as overcapacity, increasing competition, and the invasion of chemical markets by oil and rubber companies slowed growth within the more narrowly defined chemical industry. Also, chemical research and development were eclipsed by the burgeoning aerospace and electronics industries. 

The chemical industry functions as both implicit and explicit support for the institution of chemistry. Explicitly, the industry provides work for the majority of American chemists (see Section 5.1 below), as well as direct financial assistance to academic chemistry in the form of fellowships, scholarships, and research grants. Implicitly, the chemical industry helps to provide legitimacy for the chemical community its economic centrality confers authority on members of the fraternity, ratifying their claims to expertise. Promoters of chemistry have invoked the economic contribution of chemical industry as a potent symbol to aid them in making arguments on behalf of the chemical profession — a political move with obvious utilities for garnering recruits and resources. This chapter concludes with a sketch of the historical context of this process within the American chemical community. 

Stieglitz, 1919, [xvi]. On the role of chemists and chemical industry in World War I mobilization efforts, see III, Yerkes, 1920, 123-174 III, Qarkson, 1923, 387-419 III, Haynes, 1945a and 1945b and III, Jones, 1969. Ill, Whittemore, 1975, discusses the postwar history of the Chemical Warfare Service in light of the Progressive ideal of public service adopted by influential members of the chemical community. 

The 1919 Symposium on Maintenance and Preservation of Our Chemical Industries , sponsored by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, illustrates the concerns of chemical manufacturers facing postwar readjustment (III, Thompson et al., 1920). A survey of activity in the chemical industry after World War I is in III, Haynes, 1945b, 353-427. For a detailed statistical portrait of the transformation in American chemical industry by 1925, consult lA, Swift, 1929. On federal support for nitrogen fixation processes, see III, M. Qarke, 1977. On the coal-tar dyestuffs industry, and the postwar campaign for protective tariffs to forestall German competition, see III, Haynes, 1945b, 257-278. Ill, Herty, 1924, illuminates the impact of the Tariff Act of 1922 on the domestic dyestuffs industry. On the Chemical Foundation, see III, Muh, 1954. 

---