Page History

Chapter 8 
Materials Science and Engineering: 1972-1988 
Background 
Materials science 'U'd engineering emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a vigorous new field. An indication was the national program for the Centers for Materials Science and Engineering, including the Center at MIT described in the preceding chapter. 
A systematic and analytical manifestation of the interest in the new field was the study by the Committee on the Survey of Materials Science and Engineering (COSMAT), published in 1974 as "Materials and Man's Needs" (also in Cohen). A paraliel study conducted under the auspices of the National Commission on Materials Policy was published in 1973 as "Materials Needs and 
the Environment Today and Tomorrow." 
In the 1960s and early 1970s, in a delayed reaction to materials shortages in World War II and the Korean War, government departments and agencies, academic and other research groups, and technical societies began to direct their attention to national materials policy. They focused on the supply of materials with respect to national security and economic competition. The interest in materials policy was reflected in "Resources in America's Future" by Landsberg, Fischman, and Fisher (1972) and the two studies mentioned above. 
In the 1970s the environmental movement began to have an impact on materials production and consumption, and environmental considerations became a factor in materials policy. Recycling of metals and other materials and the recovery of materials and energy from solid waste were important areas in which engineering and economics interacted. Recycling and resource recovery were one of several stimuli for research in materials engineering. 
91 
• 
Part 1. The Period 1972-1982 
The Institute 
At MIT the availability of funds and too number of graduate students had peaked in 1967-68. The subsequent rapid decline of government spending on research and technology and the widespread disenchantment with science were felt throughout the Institute, but particularly in departments with a strong applied science and research orientation. After the initial contraction in the late 1960s, "research funds and graduate students disappeared at an alarming rate" (Floe, King, and Owen). Even the number of faculty members decreased slightly. 1973, a year of severe economic restraints, was the low point in the Department' 5 funding and student enrollment. Reductions in research expenditures, enrollments, and the size of faculties were national trends. The decline "bottomed out" in 1973. 
A dramatic upturn began in 1975 as the economy improved. Energy-related research, in particular, benefited from the oil crisis of 1974, as mentioned earlier. Generaliy, the focus of materials research support moved to the engineering end of the spectrum, especially materials processing and materials design. 
The Department 
Professor King had resigned as head of the Department as of September 1,1972. He was succeeded by Professor Floe, who served as Acting Head in the academic year 1972-73. In July 1973, Professor Walter Owen assumed charge of the Department. 
The President's Report for 1972-73 stated in relation to the Department that the "number of undergraduates \[is\] too small, some subjects do not attract enough interest, and funding has declined ... some professors are not supported." The Report for the following year reported "small but steady growth." It also pointed out that the Department at MIT would be able to accept larger numbers of highly qualified students than any other mate- 
92 
rials department in the country. The volume of research was increasing. 
A new undergraduate curriculum in materials science was introduced in 1973. In the following year, programs in five areas were offered to graduate students. Also, in 1974 a cooperative program with industry, destined to become exceedingly successful, was started under the leadership of Professor King. 
Work on polymers in the Department was strengthened by the transfer of Professor McGarry from the Department of Civil Engineering (letter from Walter S. Owen to Edward J. Hanley, April 16, 1974). 
During the 1970s the Department's Visiting Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Edward J. Hanley, was very active. The Committee's Report for the October 1973 meeting proposed six changes: 
Eliminating overlaps in subject coverage 
Introducing new subjects in accordance with new needs and interests 
Changing most 12-unit to 8-unit subjects 
Separating laboratories from lecture classes and introducing project-oriented laboratories 
Introducing a foliowup subject for 3.091 Introduction to Solid State Chemistry 
Restructuring subjects in a "first division" and "second division" involving, respectively, fundamentals or having professional orientation 
The Visiting Committee Report of November 22, 1974 quoted Professor Owen's Annual Report. In this report, four major problems were outlined: 
The small number of juniors and seniors 
The increasing average age of the faculty and the increase in the ratio of tenured to untenured faculty 
Unsupported research being carried by general Institute funds 
The "failure to date to develop a program of instruction at either the undergraduate or graduate level which interacts strongly with industry." Regarding this matter, Owen's report had pointed out "there are contacts with industry, especially through the Industrial Liaison Program, but no educational programs." 
Owen discussed possible solutions to these problems and the foliowing recommendations of a committee chaired by Professor Roy Kaplow: 
A summer program in materials engineering 
A 12-month Master's program for graduates in industry designed to help them reorient their careers 
93 
Research on materials policy and/or materials systems work 
A co-op program 
The first two recommendations do not seem to have been pursued. The third recommendation probably gave some support to research projects that were being started at the time. The co-op program was the major result of the Kaplow Committee's work. 
Undergraduate Program 
A new undergraduate curriculum went into effect in 1972-73. It took a broadened approach to materials. It also introduced greater flexibility, which made transfer from other departments easier. Subject 18.03 Differential Equations was restored as a requirement. This and other changes had been discussed in meetings with the Visiting Committee. Restricted electives permitted some specialization of undergraduates, but the emphasis was on education in the science and engineering fundamentals of materials (Floe, King, and Owen). 
The cooperative program, known as Course IIIB, was exceedingly successful from the start under the leadership of Professor King, who was joined in 1978 by Mr. Joseph M. Dhosi, 
the Department's Administrative Officer. After Professor King's death in 1985, Professor Pelioux became the program's director 
and Mr. Dhosi continued as coordinator. Enrollment in the program has continued to grow. The President's Report of 1976-77 mentioned that "many of the new students \[were\] attracted by \[it\]." After only a few years of its existence, a majority of seniors in 
the Department were enrolied in Course IIIB. 
Graduate Studies 
In the early 1970s it was the graduate program that defined the Department's range of interests. One of the first activities involving all parts of the Department in the period 1972-82 was con- 
d ucted by the Ad Hoc Committee on Doctoral Programs in Materials under Professor Cohen as Chairman. The Committee of ten members submitted its report dated September 25, 1973 
in preparation for the Visiting Committee meeting of 
October 12, 1973. 
The opening section of the Committee's report reviewed the state of doctoral studies in the Department, including statistics for the fields of Metaliurgy, Ceramics, and Materials Science for the period 1968-69 to 1972-73. The Department awarded annualiy about l1 percent of ali materials-designated doctorates in the United States and about 18 percent of the doctorates in MIT's School of Engineering. 
The Committee on Doctoral Programs in Materials made two main recommendations. The first was to broaden the Department's base in the field of materials. The second was to establish doctoral programs in Metaliurgy, Ceramics, Polymerics, Materials 
94 
Science, Materials Engineering, and Materials Management. 
The Committee's report stated that the Department 
had the resources to offer doctoral programs in these fields with the exception of polymerics and materials management. They proposed that "steps should be taken to offer a doctorate in Polymerics (with Chemical Engineering if this Department is willing)." The Committee commented that a program in materials management was "further off, but planning should be undertaken." As a more general recommendation, the Committee suggested that the doctoral fields should be granted adequate visibility, but they should not be aliowed to develop into isolated subdepartments. 
Other subjects considered were the qualifying procedure, basic courses, examinations, the thesis, and oral defense. The Committee recommended that the foreign language requirement be dropped, but that the minor be retained and reviewed. 
The report concluded that the suggested plan (1) would establish a sound framework for emergence of a cohesive Department of Materials Science and Engineering and (2) would not stretch out the candidate's time of residence, but would require 
a larger cornmitment-of faculty effort. The closing statement projected estimates of the-expected increases in the number of doctorates in the Department. 
In the "Brief History," Floe, King, and Owen commented: 
"Since 1974, ali five graduate programs have reached maturity. The most remarkable growth has been in polymers. Materials engineering, perhaps the most innovative and adventurous of the new programs, is firmly established. The program in ceramics 
and metaliurgy, with origins more than fifty years ago, have found new strengths. Student interest in materials science has remained at a high level, in part because of the ever-increasing importance of electronic, superconducting and optical materials." 
Change of Department Name in 1974-75 
Professor Walter Owen, the new Department head, in a letter to Dean Alfred H. Keil dated March 19, 1974, pointed out that the most advanced materials disciplines-metallurgy and cerarnicswere being joined by a rapidly developing third discipline, materials science, and that the Department had launched a graduate program in polymerics, which "parallels the programs in metallurgy and ceramics." He added that "it is clear that the trend toward greater emphasis on the development of useful structuresensitive properties in nonmetallic materials will continue." He ended his letter by reporting that "at the Departmental Faculty Committee meeting on February 6, there emerged a clear consensus of opinion that ... the name of the Department should 
be changed to the Department of Materials Science and Engineering.. " 
In a letter dated April 17, 1974 to Mr. Edward J. Hanley, the Chairman of the Visiting Committee, Owen referred to the changes made by the Department, especially with respect to the 
95 
John B. VanderSandc 
\-f 
Heather N. Lechtman 
graduate programs, and pointed out that "the faculty of the Department came to realize that we are now, in fact as well as in principle, a Department concerned witlj all engineering materials. Consequently, we concluded that we should petition the Institute for permission to change the name of the Department. We would like to be calied the 'Department of Materials Science and Engineering: " He mentioned his "memorandum ... to the 
Dean, which has received a preliminary scrutiny by both the Engineering Council and the Academic Council. Before proceeding formaliy to ask for the change to be approved by the faculty and Corporation, we would like to have your reaction to the proposal." 
Mr. Hanley replied to Professor Owen on April 26, 1974 and enclosed copies of a letter he had written to two associates, one of whom was a member of the Visiting Committee and the other a graduate of the Class of 1953. In this letter, he expressed the "feeling most graduates in metaliurgy will be less than enthusiastic about losing the word 'metallurgy' in the Department name," but that he also felt that "the proposal of 'materials science and engineering' might better cover ali the fields the Department henceforth wili deal in .... " One of Hanley'S respondents wrote that" 'materials science and engineering' detracts from the prestige of the School" and that he saw no reason for the change. The other replied that "as a metaliurgist, of course, I am less than enthusiastic about having the word 'metaliurgy' eliminated as the primary Department name:' but that he would "accept the judgments of the Visiting Committee and the Department Head." 
In his letter to Owen, Hanley commented: "these replies may not be typical, but they do indicate the reaction to a name change at this time might be somewhat on the violent side. It just may be that it is too soon to consider a name change. Perhaps it might be more favorably regarded if it were delayed a year or two to let the Department really become established to fit the proposed new name." 
96