The Chemical World This Week

PROFESSORS' PAY TRAILS INFLATION AGAIN For the second consecutive year, faculty members at U.S. universi­ties and colleges are going back­wards economically. Indeed, finds the American Association of Uni­versity Professors' annual salary survey, the average professor has 4.2% less purchasing power this aca­demic year than in 1973-74, despite a nominal rise of 6.4% in compensa­tion (salary plus fringe benefits) to $18,580. The cause: a rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of 11.1%.

Results of the survey of 1548 schools—appropriately titled "Two Steps Backward"—were released a week ago at AAUP's 61st annual meeting in Washington, D.C. The survey shows continuation of a trend unbroken during the past decade: Faculty compensation generally has grown 5 to 7% a year, but these "raises" have increased purchasing power less and less as inflation spiraled upward, finally crossing over to a net drop in buying power last year (C&EN, May 6, 1974, page 22).

Faculty lost purchasing power again this year % annual change

Total increase

ri - 4

1970-71 71-72 72-73 73-74 74-75

a Includes average salary plus fringe benefits com­pared to previous academic year, b Compared to previous academic year. Source: American Associa­tion of University Professors

Furthermore, AAUP notes, fac­ulty members are faring worse than workers in general (whose compen­sation in 1974-75 rose nominally by 7.1%, with a fall in purchasing power of 3.6%). Additionally, the report points out, faculty economic status is better analyzed using the Higher Living Standard Index, in­stead of the usual CPI. By the higher index, faculty real incomes fell nearly 7% this year.

The loss in purchasing power af­fects all ranks about equally, al­though lecturers suffer somewhat more. Geographically, salaries con­tinue to be highest in Mid-Atlantic states and lowest in the South.

For the future, the report pro­jects a halt to erosion of faculty compensation, anticipating a mild economic recovery and lower infla­tion (6.5%) in 1975-77. However, the "lost ground" will not be recovered quickly.

This year's survey also contains for the first time separate salary data for male and female faculty. "As anticipated," women earn less than men at all ranks, with the dis­parity largest for full professors (8.4% lower, $22,690 vs. $24,760). Women occupy less than 23% of faculty positions and tend to be con­centrated in the lower ranks and at lower paying and less prestigious schools.

The survey finds an average "within-rank" difference of 4.5% ($800), but notes that "our data do not indicate how much of this dif­ferential is accounted for by such factors as age, experience and ser­vice, concentration in lower-paid departments, and how much by dis­crimination."

Some light is shed on this ques­tion by two recent studies (C&EN, May 26, page 17), which indicate that there is no sex discrimination in recruitment of new Ph.D.'s or in salaries for junior ranks. However, conclude Dr. Alan E. Bayer and Dr. Helen S. Astin, upper-level male professors receive appreciably higher compensation than females with similar qualifications (con­trolling for such factors as research productivity, length of employment, attainment of higher degrees, and discipline).

On another front, the AAUP meeting voted censure for five school administrations for violations of academic freedom, tenure, and

due process: the University of Sci­ence & Arts of Oklahoma, Concordia Seminary, Houston Baptist Uni­versity, Elmira College, and the Virginia community college system. Five other schools were removed from the list: Cornell University; the University of Florida, Gainesville; the University of Mississippi; West Chester State College; the Univer­sity of Wisconsin, Whitewater. G

Study recommends fluorocarbon ban A five-month study by an inter­agency federal task force has con­cluded that "there seems to be legit­imate cause for serious concern" that the stratosphere's ozone may be depleted by the release of chloro-fluorocarbons to the atmosphere. And the task force recommends that the use of fluorocarbons in aerosols be banned and other uses of the compounds be restricted by January 1978—assuming that the findings of a National Academy of Sciences study to be completed next spring confirm that a problem really exists. Ozone shields the earth from ultra­violet radiation, which can give rise to skin cancer and cause weather changes.

Du Pont, the principal producer of fluorocarbons, has expressed "strong disagreement" with the recommendations of IMOS. In a statement issued at press time, the company says that the task force's recommendation that restrictions be contemplated on the use of the compounds is "tantamount to pre­judging the results of the [ongoing] research and imposing a guilty-unless-proven-innocent verdict." About 50% of the fluorocarbons pro­duced in the U.S. are used as aero­sol propellants, 28% as refrigerants, and the rest as solvents in fire ex­tinguishers and agents for making foams.

The federal Task Force on Inad­vertent Modification of the Strato­sphere (IMOS) is cochaired by Dr. Warren Muir, senior staff member of environmental health at the Council on Environmental Quality, and Carroll Pegler, who is with the National Science Foundation's sci­ence and technology policy office. Specifically, IMOS was set up to come up with a "proposed federal

4 C&EN June 16, 1975

the American Association 01 Uni­versity Professors' annual salary survey, tne averaee Droiessor nas

program to resolve the issue" of possible ozone depletion in the stratosphere by chlorofluorocar-bons. It also had to determine which federal agency should regulate the compounds.

IMOS says that no new research needs to be initiated at this time, because a "considerable amount of research already is completed or under way" at various federal agencies. Further, chlorofluorocar-bons producers also have been spon­soring and conducting "relevant" research.

Regulation of these compounds, the task force adds, falls within the jurisdiction of three agencies. Fluo-rocarbons used as propellants in foods, drugs, and cosmetic products "can be" regulated by the Food & Drug Administration; pesticide products by the Environmental Pro­tection Agency; and products for use by consumers by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It says that at the present time there is no federal authority for regulating fluorocarbons used in automobile and in industrial and commercial air conditioning and refrigeration equipment. However, the task force expects that with the passage of toxic substances control legislation in Congress, there will be adequate authority to regulate these uses. D

Rockefeller outlines science office plans That Office of Science & Technol­ogy Policy President Ford says he wants Congress to create for the White House, turns out to be mostly a reincarnation of the old Office of Science & Technology abolished by President Nixon about two years ago. The new OSTP will have no more clout on federal R&D budget matters than did the old OST, which was limited at best. However, unlike the existing arrangement, where the director of the National Science Foundation serves as "sci­ence adviser," the new OSTP and its director will have military R&D under their purview.

Details of what the President wants were conveyed to Congress earlier this month in historic meet­ings between Vice President Nelson Rockefeller and Senate and House committees concerned with science and technology matters. Sen. Ed­ward M. Kennedy (D.-Mass.) one-upped the House Science & Tech­nology Committee, chaired by Rep. Olin E. Teague (D.-Tex.), by get­ting the Vice President to appear at a Kennedy-arranged "White House

Rockefeller: keynote commentary

Science Advisory Conference" sev­eral days before Rockefeller was scheduled to appear before the Teague committee. Rockefeller ap­peared not as a witness, but to offer "keynote commentary" to the House committee. Rockefeller's re­marks were essentially the same at both places. And the reception ac­corded the Vice President might well be characterized as a love-in.

In essence, Rockefeller said that the director of OSTP also will serve as the President's adviser on sci­ence and technology. He added that Ford is leaning toward Senate con­firmation of the adviser's post. The new director (adviser) will be as­sisted by a deputy director and a staff of up to 15 professionals. Asked in the House how the number 15 was arrived at, Rockefeller said that to tell the "honest truth," the number was "drawn out of the air." He said such a number provided "evidence" that the "Administration was seri­ous about the matter." The Vice President had recommended a staff of five. (OST had a staff of 25 to 30 professionals.) OSTP will have a budget of $1.5 million in its first year, compared to OST's $2.1 mil­lion budget in its last year. And in­stead of a formalized President's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) that existed with the old OST, Ford proposes that outside expert advice be obtained on an ad hoc basis.

By press time last week, three of the 16 witnesses scheduled for the House hearings had testified: H. Guyford Stever, Rep. Mike Mc­Cormack (D.-Wash.), and Dr. Philip Handler, president of the National Academy of Sciences. All backed the President's action. Among other things, Stever says that the return of an OST is a good move, noting that the "climate" for science adviser is much better now. McCormack

views the OSTP as a significant first step, and urges consideration of a Cabinet-level department of sci­ence, technology, energy, and ma­terials (STEAM). Handler says that he is "delighted" with the Presi­dent's decision, and that although an NAS panel had recommended a council of science and technology advisers, "we would not hold out for the council." G

Alza contraceptive close to market Women who don't want to get preg­nant soon will have another way not to. Alza Corp., Palo Alto, Calif., says the Food & Drug Administra­tion has notified it that its Progesta-sert system for birth control is "approvable."

Final approval awaits FDA review of proposed labeling. If all goes well, the product could go on the U.S. market early in 1976. Alza plans to introduce the new system this year in Canada, Mexico, the U.K., and West Germany. Regulatory require­ments already have been met in those countries.

Progestasert is a small (32 by 36 mm), T-shaped, flexible, mem­brane-enclosed drug reservoir. Placed in the uterus by a physician, it normally remains there for a year, releasing a continuous low dose of the female hormone progesterone. According to Alza, it prevents con­ception by acting directly on "the target organ," the uterus, rather than by suppressing ovulation. The user has a normal menstrual cycle. Because the dosage is so small, systemic effects of the hormone are undetectable. Clinical tests on more than 6000 women have revealed no signs of the blood clotting disorders that can cause strokes and other vascular problems in women using oral contraceptives, Alza says.

Progestasert resembles—in fact, is—an intrauterine device. As with "conventional" IUD's, some women will experience cramping and extra menstrual bleeding. But, Alza points out, it's the drug that pre­vents conception, not the physical irritation of the device itself.

The pregnancy rate among women using the Progestasert sys­tem is about 1.5% per year. With oral contraceptives, in a controlled situation, the rate is only about 0.5%. "But in the real world," an Alza spokesman says, "the figure is more like 6%, mainly because women forget to take the pills." With IUD's, the annual pregnancy rate averages about 4%. G

June 16, 1975 C&EN 5