IChemE Matters - September/October 1023

President's column: Flying into the Future

Dr Ollie Folayan MBE is currently serving as IChemE’s 85th president

The bad news is time flies. The good news is you’re the pilot.” – Michael Altshuler

My first full month as president has flown by, and I can certainly attest to those words. It has been a whirlwind, but a rewarding entry into the cockpit. My focus is entirely on where we fly next – specifically, how we best position the future of chemical engineering to meet upcoming challenges.

A highlight of these past weeks was meeting our young members at the Young Engineers Awards for Innovation and Sustainability (YEAIS). Seeing their energy, creativity and commitment to sustainable solutions was inspiring. I loved hearing how one presentation team included humanities students to better centre people and improve social skills. The best part was the conversations immediate past president Raffaella Ocone and I had with these early-career professionals. Our future is in brilliant hands.

In early July, I attended a collaborative working lunch with representatives from the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), the Chemical Industries Association and the Society of Chemical Industry. I also attended the presidential address of RSC’s 95th president, Robert Mokaya.

These interactions reinforced two key thoughts. First, there is a major gap in public discourse regarding the future of industry. This space is currently dominated by polarised debate. It drastically needs the nuance that chemical engineers can provide regarding choices, costs and trade-offs on energy security, climate impacts and manufacturing.

Second, we have the people to fill this gap. At a recent Fellows’ lunch in Birmingham, I was struck by how many retired chemical engineers remain passionately connected to IChemE and are dedicated to supporting the next generation. We discussed how chemical engineers can maximise impact as the UK moves toward a low-carbon economy, ensuring the next generation is equipped for the transition rather than trained for the world we leave behind. I summed up the conversation with three words: clarity, continuity and connectivity.

Essential problem-solvers

This collective energy underpins our work scoping a new presidential inquiry launching this September, entitled Engineering Tomorrow: The Five Forces Shaping Chemical Engineering. Building on Raffaella Ocone’s inquiry into research, this initiative shifts focus on the discipline’s future direction, market relevance and public value.

The central purpose is to examine how chemical engineering can lead the major forces transforming industry, society and the economy. It explores how our profession remains visible and impactful, and how IChemE can support members, employers, educators and policymakers through this evolution.

Ultimately, the inquiry will position chemical engineers as essential problem-solvers for critical challenges ahead: decarbonisation, industrial resilience, the materials revolution, bio-integration, artificial intelligence, machine learning and modular manufacturing

---

Policy corner: The fine balance of chemical regulation

Mitchell Clark, IChemE head of policy 

For most governments, chemical regulation is centred around legislation that requires a substance to be approved before it can be used or imported at scale, as well as imposing controls where it is deemed necessary.

Perhaps most notable is the EU’s REACH regime, which was also transferred to a post-Brexit UK. These regulations require companies to generate and submit evidence about the substances they manufacture or import, and regulators have tools to restrict or authorise chemicals where risks are identified.

Recent news has drawn my attention to these regimes and the complex challenges they face. There are increased calls for the UK government to review its REACH legislation to promote industrial competitiveness or manage PFAS contamination and, until recently, the EU was undertaking a major overhaul of its REACH regime. Meanwhile, in New Zealand, amendments to the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act are making their way through parliament.

The motivations for these reforms are quite different, with many complex issues at play. However, we can see how a collection of these issues is an unfortunate byproduct of the pursuit of greater collective scientific knowledge.

Nuanced challenges

There is an ever-growing amount of information on how chemicals impact human health and the environment. As a result, companies that want to bring new products to market face an increasing burden of evidence to quantify their compounds’ hazards, and regulators are tasked with assessing huge amounts of data before they can comfortably approve a new chemical for use.

This also increases operating costs for both these parties. Businesses then need a stronger return on investment to make up for increased compliance costs while regulators need increased public funding, much to politicians’ chagrin.

As much as increased scientific knowledge creates certainty, it also reveals what we don’t know. And that generates considerable risk.

Chemical policy is often defined by the Precautionary Principle, which promotes conservative decision-making when faced with uncertainty. If there are questions about a chemical’s ecotoxicology, it may be given stricter controls on its use, or may not be approved for use at all.

This further limits a business’s ability to recoup costs as the controls may prevent it from being used in as many applications as expected.

The irony is that the desire for safer chemicals creates complexity that prevents access to them. Older, more harmful chemistry, approved under less stringent requirements, stays in use, while safer alternatives struggle to navigate complex regulatory systems and funding barriers.

That is not to say that any of these regulatory systems are unnecessary. It’s just one of the challenges facing policymakers in a modern world built on chemicals with complex risks.

Chemical regulation must strike a careful balance, protecting people and the environment while allowing safer, better chemistry to reach the market. Getting that balance right will be essential if regulation is to support both public protection and innovation.