1970-1990: Composites and "mixed-disciplinarity"

In the early 1960s, many metallurgy departments were renamed "metallurgy and materials science". In the 1970s they dropped the term "metallurgy" altogether and became known as "departments of materials science and engineering". Thus, materials science became more than a research field: a discipline of its own, a pedagogical entity.It is certainly possible to view this changing status as an example of the standard process of maturing disciplines mentioned above. It is tempting to argue that the field "naturally" evolved toward a more general approach to the relation between structure and properties. This is actually the standard interpretation to be found in textbooks. But in fact, it was nothing like a smooth change. The elimination of metallurgy from academic curricula raised violent reactions from both the academic milieu and metallurgy corporations. [17] More than a resistance to innovation, this opposition expressed a loyalty to metallurgy. The change was finally accepted because it was perceived as a measure to face a dramatic decline in students' enrollment. At the same time graduate and undergraduate curricula in MSE opened up with the expectation that they would prove more attractive to students than existing programs It was an odd new discipline, however, having to include as subfields well-established disciplines such as metallurgy and chemistry. A certain violence and much negotation were required for MSE to be established as an academic discipline.These university initiatives paralleled changes in government research policy. In 1972, the responsibility for the interdisciplinary laboratories was passed from ARPA to the National Science Foundation and they were renamed Materials Research Laboratories. [18] The new contract signed on July 1, 1972, following visits to all sites and evaluation of the materials centers over ten years, did not deeply change the organization but rather maintained the policy of a core funding. The NSF reinforced the interdisciplinary requirement. "Thrust groups" of research were encouraged to develop coherent multi-disciplinary and multi-investigatorial projects and the definition of an interdisciplinary group was clarified. [19] After a transition period of two years, however, the NSF developed its own program philosophy. It was clearly intended to reduce the imbalance between materials science and materials engineering and between research on electronic properties and research in other significant areas. [20] What was the impact of this new policy?In the long-term, the transfer from the Department of Defense to a civil agency meant a gradual but nonetheless drastic reduction of the budget during the next 15 years. Consequently the number of faculty involved in materials research dropped from 600 to 400 between 1970 and 1985. [21] Moreover, the aims of academic research were reoriented according to new social priorities in the 1970s. On the one hand, national committees expressed a growing concern with resources, renewability and the environment. [22] Environmental and safety legislation put new demands on material scientists. In both industrialized and developing countries, criticism arose of the overemphasis on basic science at the expense of technological needs of materials supply and demand [23] . Hence a misalignment was repeatedely alleged between university and industry. In contrast with the 1950s and 1960s emphasis on fundamental aspects wiping away the empirical approaches of the past, the new wave praised engineering skills and experienced knowledge. A characteristic feature of this period is the reassessment materials technologies' past with a valorization of ancient skills in processes.

The Japanese Challenge

In addition, a major concern of the 1980s was the economic competition with Japan. US policy makers and materials scientists realized that generous federal sponsoring could generate perverse and counterproductive effects. A number of scientists deplored that it blocked the transfer from university to industry although it certainly secured the leadership of American universities in materials science. Meanwhile Japanese companies, thanks to a vigorous government-developed technology program, had incorporated the best of American technology and were beating American companies in advanced materials. The success of Sony Inc. had the same humiliating effect as Sputnik had had a few years earlier and prompted a vigorous response from American science. Competing with Japan and regaining the leadership thus became the prime concern and even obsession of US materials projects in the 1980s [24] . Academic materials scientists such as Thomas Eagar vigourously questioned the hunt for new materials. He called for a reorientation of research towards processing and an increased commitment of industrial companies: "Designing new materials with curious properties is fun for the materials scientists and engineer but it does not often yield results of major commercial or social benefit. American companies must spend their resources learning how to manufacture existing materials economically, not searching for exciting new materials. But if we spend our resources on processing selected new products of high reliability and low cost, we will all be winners." [25]

Consequently, the governmental sponsorship of more than half of the US research that had two decades earlier been viewed as the key to success was in 1980 denounced as a major obstacle for technological innovation. A reform of patents was urged. It was argued that without the protection of an exclusive license, companies were not willing to undertake the risk of developing thousands of inventions produced by university laboratories belonging to the government. Hence only 4% of the 28,000 patents the government owned were successfully licensed. In 1980, the Patent Uniform Procedure Act established a uniform patent policy for all federal agencies authorizing the licensing of federal patents. [26] This legislative measure was aimed to encourage collaborations between industrial companies and universities.

Thus, after the Cold War had prompted the emergence of the generic concept of materials, the competition with Japan helped reinforce the conceptual basis of materials science. Performances (or functions) and processes entered into the terminology of materials scientists adding to the already established structure and properties [30] . MSE now acquired a coherence characterized by the interaction between four variables: structure, properties, performances and process. Since 1989, this conceptual basis of MSE has commonly been visualized with the help of a tetrahedron indicating the interrelation of each of the "four elements" with each of the three others. [31] Although there is no evidence for the origin of this visual representation, it might well be reminscent of vant'Hoff's representation of carbon valencies. Could it mean that the chemical culture became more active in the field of MSE?

Materials by Design

From a logical point of view, polymer chemistry may appear as the second route that reinforced the coherence of MSE by enlarging the conceptual basis that had been restricted to structure-properties in the early decades. For advanced materials are tailored to specific purposes, they are adapted to a set of specific tasks. In contrast to conventional materials that have standard specifications and a world market, the materials created within MSE are developed according to the functional demands of the final product in view of a set of services. In other words, instead of supplying commodities that would be finalized by the customers, new materials are the end products of a co-operation between customers and suppliers. [32] Materials by design were first developed for military and space applications requiring never-before-seen combinations of properties like light weight and high-temperature resistance for use in severe conditions. A number of these exotic materials have been successfully transferred to more common uses such as sports articles and clothing.

This new generation of materials had a strong cultural impact. The creation of materials by design has often been celebrated as the dawn of a new era. An age when mankind was no longer constrained by matter but in command of matter. Materials properties would no longer limit our possibilities. Ivan Amato, a popular writer, characterized them as "the stuff that dreams are made of". [33]

The composite material is the paradigm of materials by design, i.e. a structure made of a matrix reinforced with fibers. Composite materials combine various mutually exclusive properties into one single heterogeneous structure. Steel and iron are used as supports for toughness, plastics are useful for weight saving, and ceramics for heat resistance and stiffness. The notion of composites clearly indicates that materials can no longer be defined by the structure-properties coupling. They are more adequately defined as exhibiting certain properties for certain usages and the properties themselves are conceived of as responses to specific functional demands. [34]

In 1975, the report Materials and Man's Needs queried: "Maybe composites are the future. The dominance of crystalline materials is already being challenged." [35] Was it a good prophecy? Did composites help reorganize the field of MSE? Composites effectively became a fashionable topic among materials researchers in the late 1970s and 1980s. [36] However, the integration of this technology, developed first within chemical industry, into an academic discipline dominated by the metallurgists' culture proved difficult. Composites grew out of an established chemical technology known as reinforced plastics. [37] Glass-fiber reinforced plastics had been manufactured as early as 1938 and commercialized in 1940 by Pittsburgh Plate Glass Inc. In the 1940s, glass fibers reinforced plastics were developed for military purposes, such as aircraft noses and boats for the US Navy. [38] Once the difficulty of molding large pieces had been overcome, these early composites (laminates of polyester resins), molded at low pressures, were mass-produced from the 1950s onwards for civil applications such as electric insulators and tankers. The shift from reinforced plastics to composite materials was not a radical break. It was nothing like a revolution since the technology of composites did not overthrow the more traditional reinforced plastics. The composites gradually emerged from polymer chemistry and they undoubtedly contributed to extend the domain of plastics and their successful substitution for wood, steel, or aluminum leading to "the plastic era". [39]

In the 1980s, composites became an independent field, quite distinct from polymer chemistry. Various reasons contributed to this emancipation. First, although a vast majority of the composites are made of a polymer matrix reinforced by fiberglass, composites can also be made up of metals or ceramics. The composite principle has been successfully applied to these materials. There are metals/ceramics composites, metal/metal, and ceramics/ceramics composites (the latter were crucial to extend the uses of ceramics because the fibers prevent catastrophic failures) [40] . No matter what the nature of the constituents, as long as the structure associates two phases. The term composite definitely superseded the traditional notion of fiber-reinforced plastics when new high-modulus fibers were introduced as reinforcing components for high performance materials in aerospace industry. Carbon fibers started to be used in the late 1960s. With these long fibers, Japan reinforced its leadership in advanced technology. Japanese companies took over and held a monopoly on carbon fibers. Moreover carbon fibers required a different treatment of composites. Unlike glass fibers they are used as long fibers. They are not spread all over the resin but carefully arranged with a definite orientation according to the main efforts during the functioning of the structure. Unlike fiberglass-reinforced plastics, carbon composite materials are anisotropic structures. They are mapped to respond to specific solicitations, with specified conditions of use. Each one offers a landscape of its own. Such composite materials share with fine arts pieces the privilege of being unique creatures.

In addition to white glass fiber and black carbon fiber, a "yellow" fiber was manufactured in 1971. Kevlar®, the first of a family of synthetic aramide fibers, emphasized the role of chemical industry in the emergence of materials science, since it was invented in Du Pont's laboratories in Wilmington, Delaware. The inventor was a woman scientist, Stephanie Kwolek. Her work exemplifies the close connection between products and processes in the technology of materials. The Du Pont research laboratory was looking for new products, new nylons. [41] But it was the study of a new process (room-temperature polymerization) that opened up an avenue to a new generation of polymers like Nomex®, Kevlar®, and Lycra®. The example of Kevlar® thus demonstrated the enormous potential of processes.

The composites technology contributed to a specific approach to materials design, also within MSE. The interaction of the four variables - structure, properties, performances and processes - is such that changes made in any of the four parameters can have a significant effect on the performance of the whole system and hence require a re-thinking of the whole device. A sample success story will help understand this synergism: The substitution of a composite material for the chrome-steel bumper in automotive structures. It was initially intended to gain weight and reduce energy consumption. It turned out that it allowed a redesign of the bumper with integration of various functions in the same piece (radiator grilles, ventilators, lights, etc). Not only functionality changed but so did design: gradually the car body was redesigned with curves and a new style of automobile was created. [42] However, this commercial success is limited. Composite materials cannot invade a mass-production market like automobiles because of their impact on the environment - composite materials are not easily recycled. There were also dramatic failures; for instance the Rolls-Royce Company was unable to develop a highly promising carbon fiber composite for the compressor blades of the engine in the Lockheed Tristar because it failed to meet the requisite service-reliability for such engines.

Failures are as instructive as successes, but they are more difficult to document because they are not usually advertised. The lesson to be learnt was that the traditional linear approach - "given a set of functions let's find the properties required and then design the structure combining them" - should give way to a systems approach. The systems approach makes use of computer simulation. It requires more than new techniques, and more than interdisciplinarity. The synergy between the four aspects calls for a synergy between various specialists.

Cross- and multidisciplinarity became the motto of all kinds of reports on materials research all over the world. I prefer to forge the term "mixed-discipline" by analogy with the Aristotelian notion of "mixt", a mixt being something more than the addition of its individual components. Remarkably the composite structure of materials is mirrored by a composite arrangement of human competences. At least, many attempts have been made to replace the sequential division of labor - from suppliers through manufacturers to customers - by a partnership involving all actors from the outset of the project. Both in the advanced materials and in the social organization of production, the aim is to obtain a synergy between the various components, i.e. that the properties of the whole structure should be more than the sum of its parts.

The systems approach had to be learnt through trial and error rather than through teaching. In this process academics were less committed than industrialists. At this point a striking contrast between advanced research and teaching becomes clear: the latter lags far behind.

The Presence-Absence of Chemistry

To what extent did this new paradigm and new approach change the face of materials science? Did they really challenge the prevalence of metallurgists and reinforce the role of chemists in the field? They certainly tilted the balance between science and engineering, when performances and processes became as important as structure and properties. However there is no evidence that this new approach changed the balance of power between the academic communities. Chemists did not suddenly rise to the top of materials science. Quite surprisingly, the proportion of chemists active in the field of MSE in US universities decreased rather than increased, as indicated by this chart published in 1985.

How are we to explain this surprising diminishing importance of chemists? One conceivable explanation is that academic chemists entering the field of MSE were so well integrated in the emerging community that they were counted among the MSE scientists rather than as chemists. But no: chemists neither integrated easily into the research field nor did chemistry enter into the curricula of MSE. Merton C. Flemings and Robert W Cahn recently pointed out this failure: "Of all subfields of MSE, the one that has proved hardest to integrate with the rest is that of polymers. Polymer chemistry has remained entirely distinct, with large numbers of its own journals (…) Many universities have found polymers difficult to integrate into MSE curricula since many concepts of polymer science seem remote from those of traditional inorganic materials. It may well be that the long-term strength of MSE as a discipline will depend on how well it eventually succeeds in integrating polymers into its academic programs." [44]

A number of chemists deeply involved in materials science deplored the lack of recognition of their importance in MSE. A feeling of marginality is clearly expressed in 1987, on the occasion of the 25^th anniversary of the creation of the interdisciplinary laboratories. [45] George Whitesides and his collaborators developed a lengthy argument to demonstrate the importance of chemistry for materials science. They first pointed out that chemists pioneered the age of materials by design since conventional organic polymers already illustrated the making of materials with desirable properties. If organic remained on the margins of the emergent field of MSE in the 1960s, it was because they did not present the desired properties such as high-temperature stability, electrical or thermal conductivity, or oxidation resistance. However the situation changed with the dramatic development of composites. The paper emphasized that chemists directly contributed to rendering interfaces and surfaces a new field of research - a molecular surface science - which is aimed at understanding electrical, magnetic, and optical properties of surfaces at the molecular level. [46] This new focus was a direct consequence of the emergence of composite technologies. Since the mechanical properties of heterogeneous structures depend upon the quality of the interface between fiber and polymer, it was crucial to develop additive substances favoring chemical bonds between the glass and the resin. Chemists were indispensable for the synthesis of many small components of advanced materials such as adhesives, lubricants, and surfactants. More broadly, as Whitesides emphasized, the chemists' ability to manipulate structures at the molecular level should allow them to play a leading role in the shaping of MSE.

Moreover it could be argued that chemistry contributed more than organic materials. Inorganic chemists had been involved in ceramics and to a certain extent their participation in this field paralleled the role that solid-state-physics had played in metallurgy a few decades earlier. Solid-state chemistry related the macroscopic behavior of solids to their microscopic crystalline structure. This approach made possible such strategic materials as advanced solid electrolytes for high performance batteries and other novel solid-state electrochemical devices, ionic supra-conductors, and conductive polymers. Here we may find one reason for the relative marginality of chemists in the field of MSE. Solid-state chemistry remained a relatively small subject in the US academic community as compared to Germany and France. According to Frank DiSalvo, "there were still no more than 15 solid-state chemists in the US in 1985". [47]

Another plausible reason for the poor recognition of the role of chemistry is that many of the chemists involved in materials research were active in industrial laboratories rather than in university departments. Although it is difficult to know the number of chemists employed in industrial research, given the dispersion of sites, many significant contributions to materials science were made in the corporate world. Kwolek's invention of kevlar in 1971 illustrates the gap between industrial research and academic research in chemical technologies. She entered Du Pont with a bachelor's degree and was unaware of the theoretical predictions made by Paul Flory on condensation polymers. Her invention did not result from fundamental research. While basic science was not crucial at this stage, her discovery of liquid crystalline solutions (in which the molecules all line up pointing in the same direction) proved to be a tremendous advance in fundamental science as well as the starting point for the large-scale production of new fibers. Fundamental and theoretical knowledge were no longer the driving force, academic research was no longer upstream with industrial applications downstream. This new regime is also examplified by the invention of new materials for solid batteries which all came from industrial laboratories such as Ford Motor company for beta-alumina, then from Hydro-Quebec for polymers and from Exxon laboratories for titanium disulfide electrodes [48] . Not only new materials but also new instruments were discovered in industrial laboratories. For instance, two industrial researchers, Heinrich Rohrer and Gerd Binnig developed a vacuum tunneling technique at the Zurich IBM laboratories, in 1978. Their Nobel Prize winning contribution allowed the construction of a new instrument, the scanning tunnelling microscope, and opened up a new era in materials research.

To sum up, this second period enlarged and reinforced the field of MSE. First a conceptual framework was clearly identified, more closely intertwining science and engineering. All practitioners, whatever their background, had to learn a new way of thinking, the systems approach. It was during this decade that materials science became a discipline taught at school and went through the whole process of institutionalization that has become the standard of discipline formation since the 19^th century. An annual review of materials science started in 1971, insisting that it was a booming field of activity based on the general characteristics of materials. In 1973, a Materials Research Society was created in the USA organizing two annual meetings and publishing a Journal and a Bulletin. The European Materials Research Society was founded in 1983. [49] And there is now an International Union of Materials Research Societies.

At this stage it would certainly be possible to agree with most of the authors of textbooks and editors of reports that MSE was a maturing or already matured discipline. [50] However this biological metaphor, used and overused by materials scientists, is misleading. It tends to assimilate scientific disciplines to maturing organisms it suggests a natural and predetermined process of growth.

[17] For the case of MIT, where the change of name occurred in 1974-75, see Michael B. Bever, Metallurgy and Materials Science and Engineering at MIT: 1865-1988, (Cambridge, MIT, 1988), pp. 91-98.

[18] This measure can be interpreted as a consequence of the decline in space research and of the students' protest against military presence in universities. However, the impact of the students' movement on the research policy of American universities is difficult to assess. In the case of MIT, I noticed a few mentions of the problem in the minutes of the Research Committee until 1985 and it was not perceived as so serious an issue as to threaten the research orientation of a number of MIT labs. The question of scientific communication and national security (October 7 1985), of the policy of classified research (Nov 4 1985), on restrictions imposed by NASA on the involvement of foreign nationals in research and their access to data bases (November 2 1987) were more frequently discussed, especially in 1985.

[19] The new definition of interdisciplinary research was: "Investigators in different disciplines tackle focussed problem areas simultaneously and synchronize their efforts, exchange findings and publish jointly or separately. Such problems may be concerned with specific materials or phenomena that are of common interest. Evolving lines of investigation are directly influenced by the findings of other members of the group MRL." (Program Policy Statement (by NSF), MIT Office of the Associate Provost and Vice-President for Research 1976-1988, AC 149 BOX 11)

[20] See Materials Research laboratories Program Policy Statement, March 1973 in (MIT Office for the Associate Provost and Vice president for Research, 1943-1989, box 81). Interestingly N.J. Grant, the director of the Center for Materials Science and Engineering overlooked this important shift in his comment on this note and only retained the willingness to increase competitiveness in the MRL program by increasing funding of the better laboratories and reducing the less well performing schools (MIT Office for the Associate Provost and Vice president for Research, 1943-1989, box 81).

[21] Lyle H. Schwartz "Materials Research Laboratories: Reviewing the First Twenty-Five Years", in Peter A Psaras, H. Dale Langford (eds.), Advancing Materials Science, op.cit., p. 41.

[22] See National Materials Advisory Board, Problems and Legislative Opportunities in the Basic Materials Industries (Washington D.C., National Academy of Sciences, 1975). See also Philip H. Abelson, Allen L Hammond (eds.), Materials: Renewable and Nonrenewable Resources (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1976)

[23] S. Victor Radcliffe "World Changes and Chances: Some New Perspectives for Materials", in Philip H Abelson, Allen L Hammond (eds.), Materials: Renewable and Nonrenewable Resources, op. cit. pp. 24-31.

[25] Thomas W. Eagar, « The real Challenge in Materials Engineering » in Forester, Tom (ed.), Materials Revolution: Superconductors, New Materials and the Japanese Challenge, op.cit. supra, pp. 241-253, quote on p. 253.

[26] Federal agencies granted exclusive or non exclusive licenses with preference given to small business A return on government investment was required for an exclusive license and profits earned by universities would be reinvested into research. See "Uniform Patent legislation" by Arthur Smith, (MIT copyright 1981 in MIT Office of Associate Provost and Vice President for research (1976-88) AC 149, Box 6 folder 19).

[27] Robert Huggins who set up the Materials Research Center in Stanford emphasized the inadequacy of the current academic interpretation of MS centered on the relation between the structure and properties of materials as a basis for their design, preparation and utilization and the new focus on properties rather than availability. Materials means something different for academic materials scientists and those concerned with resources. In his view, the technical aspects of materials resource questions belonged to antiquated technologies rather than science and were not really interesting. (See Robert Huggins "Basic research in materials" in Philip H Abelson, Allen L Hammond (eds.), Materials: Renewable and Nonrenewable resources (American Association for the Advancement of Science 1976).

[28] Christophe Lecuyer "The making of a science based technological university: Karl Compton, James Killian, and the reform of IT, 1930-1957" Historical Studies in Physical Sciences, 23/1 (1992), 153-180. See also See Servos John W. "The Industrial Relations of Science: Chemistry at MIT", Isis, 71 (1980), 531-49.

[29] MIT Office of the President Records 1943-1989, AC 12, Box 87. Interestingly four years after the opening of the Materials Processing Center another project was submitted to the National Academy of Science aiming directly to respond to the Japanese leadership. "This nation has been slow to respond to the materials processing/manufacturing challenge from abroad" stated the author of the memorandum submitted to the national Academy of Science. Memorandum to the National academy of Sciences Committee on Materials research « Toward an advanced materials processing and analysis center (AMPAC), MIT Office of the Associate Provost and Vice President for Research (1976-88), AC 149 BOX 6, p. 5.

[30] The revenge of process over the couple structure-properties is emphasized in Tom Forester (ed), The Materials Revolution: Superconductors, New Materials and the Japanese Challenge (Cambridge, MIT Press, 1988).

[31] The first published occurrence of the tetrahedron that I have found was in National Research Council, Materials Science and Engineering for the 1990s - Report of the Committee on Materials Science and Engineering (Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1989).

[32] See Cohendet P., Ledoux M.J., Zuscovitch, E. Les matériaux nouveaux. Dynamique économique et stratégie européenne, (Paris, Economica, 1987) ; Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, Eloge du mixte. Matériaux nouveaux et philosophie ancienne (Paris, Hachette littératures, 1998).

[34] This notion of property as "a response of the material to a given set of conditions" is remarkably emphasized in a textbook for engineers (Charles O. Smith, The Science of Engineering Materials, Englewood Cliff, Prenctice Hall, 1969, 1977, 1986; In the 3^rd edition 1986, p.4). In the report Materials and Man's Needs (1975) the interdependence was also expressed by means of a comparison "The main feature of the approach to the science of materials is the recognition of the importance of structural interrelationship, just as on an engineering level it is the awareness of the interrelationship between a given component or the device and the larger system in which it is operating; correspondingly on the social level, each family's needs and deeds must fit in with others to make a world of nations". (p. I-40).

[36] In 1978 the MRS organized a conference on In situ Composites. In the 1980s many conferences on composites materials were held in China (1987), London (1987), Bordeaux (1989), Stuttgart (1990) Bordeaux (1992), London (1996).

[37] Originally the term "composite" was used in conjonction with "reinforced plastics". The US Society for Plastic Industries had a Reinforced Plastics Division that was renamed Reinforced Plastics and Composites Division, in 1967. In France, a bi-monthly magazine entitled Plastique renforcé/Verre textile published by the professionial organization bearing the same name, started in 1963 and was rechristened in 1983 Composites with Plastique renforcé/verre textile as a subtitle.

[38] Bryan Parkyn, "Fibre reinforced Composites", in Susan T.I. Mossman & Peter.J.T. Morris (eds.), The Development of Plastics (London: The Science Museum, 1994), pp. 105-114.

[40] See J.D. Birchall, "Will Ceramics ever be as strong as steel?", in Andrew Briggs (ed.) The Science of New Materials, Wolfson College, Blackwell, 1992, pp. 32-57.

[41] To cut a long story short: The strategy of the Pionnering Research Laboratory headed by Hale Charch was diversification through research. They wanted other nylons and they had no doubts about the success of the products of their creativity. The emphasis was on the search for new products instead of improving rentability of existing processes or products. Unexpectedly, the path to the discovery began about 1950 when low-temperature processes for the preparation of condensation polymers were developed in Paul Morgan's laboratory where Kwolek was working. There was quick recognition that these room-temperature processes could be useful in preparing unmeltable or thermally unstable polymers (see David. A. Hounshell, Science and Corporate Strategy: Du Pont R&D, 1902-1980 (Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989) pp. 425-439). See also the transcript of the interviews of Stephanie Kwolek, conducted within the Program for Oral History of the Chemical Heritage Foundation, Philadelphia).

[42] For more details on this example see Hélène Teulon, Fonctions, Concurrence et Progrès technique. La diffusion des innovations en matériaux, Thèse de doctorat en économie industrielle (CERNA, Ecole des Mines de Paris,1992).

[44] Flemings M.C., Cahn R.W., « Organization and Trends in Materials Science and Engineering Education in the US and Europe », 2000 Acta metallurgica, 48, 2000, 371-383,

[45] See George M. Whitesides, Mark S. Wrighton, George Parshall, "The role of Chemistry in Materials Science", in Peter A Psaras, H. Dale Langford (eds) Advancing Materials Science (Washington DC, National Academy of Science, 1987), pp. 203-224.

[50] W.O. Baker was particularly fond of this metaphor: "Materials science in the United States is now in its early youth - not old enough to protest, but at an age in which it demands full understanding, patience, and the beginnings of self-discipline (). Thus with respect to the present I report this adolescence of our field", in Rustum Roy (ed), Materials Science & Engineering in the USA (University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1970), pp. 44-64.

Faculty	1970	1975	1985
Materials Science and Engineering (includes metallurgy, geo-sciences)		27%	35%
Physicists	35%	31%	35%
Chemists	25%	19%	17%
Other engineering	16%	23%	12%
Other	5%	2%
Total Number	600	532	400