Polymer science is more unique in its physics rather than chemistry. All reactions in various polymerization known today are not unconceivable in the scheme of organic synthesis. There is no new concept in reaction mechanisms. In contrast, the unique properties of polymer materials mainly stem from chain topology rather than detailed chemical structures, which have led the polymer physics research from Flory’s mean-field theory, in a statistical physical scheme, to de Gennes’s scaling theory, in a fractal and non-equilibrium physical scheme. This strand of study have long been stimulating the synthetic effort for precise, monodispersed model polymers for experiment, because most theories that are mathematically tractable assume a monodispersity presumption.
However, stories from the industrial world may be a little different. Broader molecular weight distribution, for example, is favorable in rubber processing, for the resulting plasticizing effect from the lower molecular weight portion. Branched structures are also desired in many cases of polyolefin applications, i.e. blends. In some rarer cases, unknown additives during processing can affect the product properties so significantly that alternative routes assumed to result in the same product would mysterious give a very different product in fact. In the theoretical aspect, empirical equations, derived by phenomenological methods, are also more favored by engineers, although most of these equations have little to no physical meaning. The above mentioned differences between industrial and academic studies constitute a large part of the reasons for the depletion of the two fields. And researchers in the former fields may know much less about the latter than they should be, while not necessarily vise versa.
In the latest issue of Science, a special one of industrial chemistry, Phillip Hustad told a colorful story1 about how industrial research effort, under additional constraint of cost or price, give rise to new commercial polyolefins which continue the legend of polymeric material after a century of development. The article is also thought-provoking for academic research, trying to inform us a long-been-neglected origin of innovation.
The article mainly focus in one ongoing innovative process in the industry, namely Olefin Block Copolymers (OBCs), describing why early research failed when commercial consideration comes in, and highlighting the ideas that lead to recent commercial success. It is an amazing story. But more invaluable of this article are some in-depth words by the author that really tell some truth:
[T]he development of polymeric materials is much more challenging when practical constraints are imposed and success is defined by commercial viability. It is often the case that overcoming one obstacle simply leads to another, but useful innovations can stem from explorations of these perceived contradictions…It is common sentiment that “precise” and “useful” are directly correlated in polymeric materials. This may be tru for many applications, but the required level of precision ultimately depends on the material’s desired function. With biological systems, a single mistake can have drastic consequences, but in simpler polymeric materials, the penalties for imperfections are far less grave.
However, knowing now the difference in results between academic and industrial research, it is still impossible and unnecessary trying to extend the academic kind of research wisely and replace the industrial labs, because of their different in motives.
Industrial and academic R&D differ in a number of ways, most notably the motivation behind them…The difference between the two missions is evident in the way success is measured. In industry, success comes with commercial sales of the material, but in academia, success is measured by winning grants and publication of results in high-quality peer-reviewed journals. The academic researcher is less constrained with respect to practicality, scalability, or final product price; creativity is the bottom line. The industrial researcher, on the other hand, knows that even the most creative scientific breakthrough must ultimately lead to a commercially viable product for the company to realize an economic benefit.
Between lines, this comparison implies that the trait of academic research has been determined by the whole system, the journals, the publish-or-perish rule, and the peer reviewers — ourselves. Industrial labs have less pressure to publish, which allow the researchers with time and patience to identify and solve real world problems. Possibly the detached of academic research from the real world and ordinary life also causes the misunderstanding of scientists among the public. Most modern products which ordinary people enjoy have distant and vague relation to the ongoing research of pure science, while the creativity of academic researchers reported by various press releases is just “useless”, if not “dangerous”. In addition to strenuously explaining the relationship between the cutting-edge scientific breakthrough and the ordinary life for the public, as some scientists and science writers have been trying to do, maybe the research system itself should also consider a change that includes more real world problems, which makes the impact of research more obvious both for peer-review journals and for the mass.
1 Hustad, P. (2009). Frontiers in Olefin Polymerization: Reinventing the World’s Most Common Synthetic Polymers Science, 325 (5941), 704-707 DOI: 10.1126/science.1174927
“Polymer science is more unique in its physics rather than chemistry. All reactions in various polymerization known today are not unconceivable in the scheme of organic synthesis. There is no new concept in reaction mechanisms. In contrast, the unique properties of polymer materials mainly stem from chain topology rather than detailed chemical structures, which have”
You are talking through your ass. There are quite a few examples out there but I will stick with P3HT to make my argument concise.
(i) There are quite a few new concepts in reaction mechanism that have been developed purely from a polymer stand point. Look at the mechanism of P3HT formation by GRIM. The traditional mechanism written for a poly Kumada coupling reaction would lead to a step growth polymerization resulting in poor control over Molecular Mass and high PDI. A novel mechanistic paradigm is invoked(McCullough has the correct mechanism) to explain controlled chain growth. In fact this insight has led to development of controlled chain growth polymerization using other cross coupling reaction. (ii) Once again the properties of P3HT depend on regioregularity which is strictly concerned with each individual link and is controlled chemically by tuning the reaction parameters like the ligand structure around Nickel. In fact let’s not even go that far. If you change the alkyl group on the thiophene from butyl to hexyl to dodecyl, you can significantly change the electronic properties of P3AT It is clear that you have neither interst nor idea about polymer synthesis, how it can be used to change the properties of a polymer and have no idea at all about the importance of organic chemistry. If you think you can change properties of polymers only by physical methods and not by the underlying chemistry, I would like to quote DMX‘Shove ya head up ya ass, have you seein shit clearly’
My statement is by no means generally applicable. But let me explain why, knowing already what you’ve provided in the comment, can still hold my argument. It is because I exclude a large part of research as ‘polymer science’ and define it very narrowly. It is very unfair so I can feel your anger.
First, polymer science, as I define it, is what about the unique nature of polymer compared with other matter, even in the regime of soft matter. The effort to control the synthesis of polymer is essentially not polymer science, already, no matter how much high impact concepts therefrom. Achievements in organic reaction mechanisms have contributed greatly to all fields. Polymer science does not benefit exclusively from synthesis innovation. So polymer synthesis, though vitally important, is not part of polymer science as I define.
Second, physical properties of polymers can surely be vast. If you go through the Nobel Prizes ever given to polymer study, you will find a gradual shift from molecular nature (Staudinger), thermodynamics (Flory), mesoscale/gross structures (de Gennes), to photo-/electro-/magneto-properties (Heeger). With the help of synthesis development as you’ve emphasized, we can now polymerize a much larger variety of molecules way besides vinyl monomers. Properties directly governed by local nature of covalent bonds, however, is irrelevant with the uniquely long-chain/-rod nature of polymer. Chemical mechanisms can be also applied to other covalent architecture of macromolecules because their effects are local, otherwise if they vary from architecture to architecture, belongs to what I called topology-governing properties again, as in the statements you quoted. So, if polymer science is defined as study on really unique properties as I do, chemical mechanisms are not included. It does not mean they do not exist, of course.
Why do I define polymer science like this? Because to be science it is hardly not physics and chemistry. There are few or no namely “xxxx sciences” are truly independently sciences, they are all physics most strictly, either physics or chemistry less strictly. Now in a even less strict context, a field science can also call independent science when it cannot be deduced by pre-exist theories of other sciences like chemistry and physics. Polymer have some properties, but not much, that are unpredictable from chemical and physical knowledge. So it can be call a science and given the term “polymer science”.