Reactions: Critiquing the Federal Sustainable Chemistry Strategic Plan, and encouraging accommodations for chemists with disabilities

Letters to the editor

Federal Sustainable Chemistry Strategic Plan

Joel Tickner’s opinion piece in January hit the nail on the head about the December 2024 Office of Science and Technology Policy Federal Sustainable Chemistry Strategic Plan. The report fails to address the barriers posed by incumbency and doesn’t inspire desperately needed “moon shot” thinking around how we should manufacture chemicals in the future.

Part of the problem is that most of the time when sustainable chemistry is on the table for discussion, the process is too often an afterthought. When I use a tabletop air fryer instead of a wall oven, I consume far less energy. Similarly, when soft-serve ice cream is made on demand, there’s no need to store large quantities in freezers hoping to sell them. These are process innovations enabled by equipment matched to the use case­—that is, soft-serve ice cream versus hard-scooped ice cream, and a few pieces of chicken versus a 20 lb (9 kg) turkey, which would not fit in an air fryer. When the use case is correct, the cost of ownership is lower than with older technology, and the investment pays off over time. For chemical factories, we will always have many dump-and-run reactions in large, fully depreciated tanks, but we can be kinder to the planet and make many chemicals and drugs more economically with flow chemistry that reduces solvent use, cuts energy consumption and waste, improves yield, and significantly boosts safety.

To make real progress, we need to accelerate the adoption of new technologies that have already been proved at scale. Just one of the rapidly growing number of factories around the world using advanced continuous-flow reactors has reported publicly that it is now operating a unit taking up a mere 1 m³ of space with 10,000 metric tons of throughput per year on just this single line. Today, China is the only country to have embraced flow chemistry on a big scale, while in the US and Europe, we generate studies and reports that are not having much impact.

Gary Calabrese
Wilmington, North Carolina

Accommodations for chemists

The inclusion of diverse perspectives enables better science. A recent article in C&EN highlights some challenges of being neurodivergent in STEM. I was disheartened, yet not surprised, at some of the hurdles and stigmas students and professionals shared.

As a former high school chemistry instructor in the US, I am familiar with legally binding plans to support student success to follow the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). I witnessed the huge effort among many people to obtain a diagnosis and advocate for accommodations. Accommodations varied but often boiled down to extended exam time or similar. As an instructor, it was not always easy, but it was my job to execute. I’m grateful for wonderful colleagues who shared practical strategies to better manage the extra workload.

Years have passed, and I am still learning how to support others as a postdoctoral researcher. I had an excellent undergraduate student awhile back who, after a few weeks in the lab, messaged me while I was on work travel that they could no longer do wet-lab work and wanted to conduct only computational studies. I was surprised because I thought things were going well. Soon after my return, they divulged that the wet-lab work was making their invisible-to-me condition unmanageable. While they legally did not need to share a diagnosis with me, I shudder to consider the impacts if I had pressured them to remain in the lab in response to their request for change. I did my best to make this transition seamless to lighten their load, such as communicating with the larger group about this change in a direct, nonchalant fashion. This courageous student did nothing wrong in this situation. They were “guilty” only of being bright and hardworking while exploring career options.

I am not demanding specific actions; there is no “one size fits all” solution to the human condition. Every situation is different, and respect must flow in all directions. The path can be murky, but we must respect the law, like the ADA in the US. I am by no means perfect—sometimes I regret a snap decision. But for me and other readers in a position of power, we must consider the consequences of our actions. As the de facto gatekeepers of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, we must extend flexibility, grace, and accommodations to recruit and retain diverse perspectives in science.

Tracy Schloemer
Stanford, California