In an announcement that stunned scientists, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has cancelled grant applications for what was supposed to be a $20-million, four-year green chemistry program.

The mysterious cancellation, announced on Friday, came less than three weeks before the April 25 deadline for the grant proposals. 

The federal grants, which were supposed to fund two new academic centers, would have been a major new source of funding for green chemistry, a field that seeks to design environmentally friendly chemicals and processes that can replace toxic substances.

The requests for proposals may be reissued, the EPA said Monday. But the program's sudden halt and uncertain future — and lack of explanation — have left scientists disheartened. Research labs had worked for months on their proposals and scientists now fear their hard work will be wasted.

"My reaction is shock that it happened and total dismay that what appeared to be a novel program was cancelled without warning or explanation," said Eric Beckman, a chemist at the University of Pittsburgh who was working on a proposal.

Terry Collins, a green chemist at Carnegie Mellon University and a pioneer in the field, said the announcement “stunned me.” Collins was on a team of green chemists and other environmental scientists that had been working for months to put together a funding proposal.

Beckman said he's never seen such a thing happen before — a government agency pulling the plug on a request for proposals so close to its deadline — in his more than 20 years in academia.

The $20 million in funding would be "one of the most significant sources of dedicated support for green chemistry so it is a blow to the community that the call for applications was cancelled without explanation," said Evan Beach, a green chemist at Yale University. "Everybody was in the home stretch on writing. The preparations took several months."

The EPA offered no reason for the last-minute cancellation.

“Given the new and emerging research areas… EPA determined that it was necessary to further explore these research areas and also consider changes to its usual review process," Kelly Widener, assistant director for research communications at EPA's National Center for Environmental Research, said in an email response to Environmental Health News.

Widener said the EPA anticipates re-issuing its requests for proposals in June or July.

Green chemistry, according to the EPA, is "the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances…across the life cycle of a chemical product, including its design, manufacture, and use."

The new program -- to create Centers for Material Life Cycle Safety and Centers for Sustainable Molecular Design -- was announced in late December as a part of the EPA's Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program.

The green chemistry centers were to draw together scientists from wide-ranging disciplines, including engineering, chemistry, social science and physics, to develop "improved methods for the design of next generation chemicals," the EPA said when it announced the available funding.

4 Comments

1. 1. econmagic 01:58 PM 4/10/12

   This should come as no surprise. The hope that technology and ingenuity will save the world is fading together with the health of the western economy. The rise of the east will mean that exploitation of the world and its inhabitants will be going full speed ahead, with complete disregard for the consequences.
   The window of opportunity to change this is closing fast.
   
   http://zoltansustainableecon.blogspot.com/2012/04/rio-20-part-three-eastern-europe-versus.html

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. geojellyroll 09:54 AM 4/11/12

   People still don't get it. The cookie jar is stuffed with IOUs. 15.5 trillion in debt and growing.
   
   Citizens refused to deal with the nation's financial reality so reality is now going to set in on its own terms.
   
   Instead folks are fascinated by the latest movie, trial, scandal or flavor of the day. Rome is burning but fiddle on.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. singing flea 03:44 PM 4/11/12

   Of course, it would be pure folly to drop the subsides we spend billions on every year for the oil barons.Ask any republican.
   
   You can bet the ranch that lobbyists for Monsanto and half a dozen major chemical companies had everything to do with this decision. 20 million is a drop in the bucket for these companies. Considering the demand for green products you would think they would underwrite these grants, but they have their own products to push and the last thing they want is those toxic products to become obsolete. There is more to this then just a tight economy. It is after all an election year.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. cautiousguy 12:44 AM 4/13/12

   I find it interesting that this comes on the heels of the FDA refusing to ban BPA from food containers, a decision that makes no sense unless you postulate that the FDA is only acting on behalf of the chemical industry. BPA was once considered for testing as a drug (estrogen mimic). Because of the numerous studies linking this chemical to a variety of problems in animals and humans, it would never make it as a drug. Yet, the same agency that would reject it as a drug says it is OK that we all get a dose of it everyday in our food!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this