Denny Hjeresen

A profile of Denny Hjeresen, Director of the Green Chemistry Institute, outlining his viewpoints on various aspects of green chemistry

Timeline

1974: BS in Physiological Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle

1981: MS in Physiological Psychology minor in Ecology, University of Washington, Seattle

1984: Ph.D. in Physiological Psychology (Neuroscience Program), University of Washington, Seattle

Denny Hjeresen was born in Great Falls, Montana, in 1950 as the fifth child of Danish immigrants. He moved to the Pacific Northwest as a teenager and attended high school and college in the Seattle area. He currently lives at 2300 m in the mountains of Northern New Mexico with his wife of 28 years and three children (Ashley 20, Amanda 16 and Dane 11). In addition to serving as Director of the Green Chemistry Institute, Denny is completing 18 years at Los Alamos National Laboratory where he serves as Pollution Prevention and Sustainability Program Manager.

Denny is a serious extreme ski junkie and can usually be found knee to chest deep in powder somewhere in North America during the winter. When not skiing he can usually be found in the gym playing basketball with kids half his age and twice his talent. He is also a gourmet cook and wine—what is the right term—user. He has truly enjoyed building international alliances and has traveled to over 40 countries to date.

He became interested in green chemistry by following waste management and control issues to their logical source—design and synthesis.

What is your educational background?

Not chemistry, but biology. I began in physiological psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle and focused on the neurophysiological effects of environmental factors. I’ve been interested in waste minimization issues for over 20 years and have kept working my way upstream.

Who are/were your role model(s)

I have a few that have been highly influential on my thinking over time. First, my undergraduate and graduate advisor Steven Woods (now at the University of Cincinnati) taught me to view my scientific training as a tool rather than an endpoint. His view was that the problems change every day, but the skills to address them are permanent. Second, my mentor at Battelle PNNL, Richard Phillips, who taught me the value of the written word. If you can’t explain it, you don’t get to do it, was his motto. Finally, the tandem of Paul Anastas and Joe Breen taught me that there are principles that must be pursued with fierce dedication.

Why and how did you first get interested in green chemistry?

I was actually working on transferring supercritical fluid technology for cleaning from Los Alamos to the private sector when I discovered an intersection between EPA pollution prevention interests and those of the private sector. I helped to organize a cooperative effort between government, industry and the private sector interests in supercritical fluids—the Joint Association for the Advancement of Supercritical Fluid Technology (JAAST). Paul Anastas was one of the founding board members. Over a several-year period, JAAST evolved into what became the Green Chemistry Institute.

What are your current responsibilities and how do they relate to green chemistry?

I have two jobs: as Pollution Prevention Program Manager at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico I have many opportunities to incorporate upstream green chemistry principles into an enormously complicated environmental cleanup and nuclear/hazardous materials management problem. As Director of the Green Chemistry Institute there isn’t an issue associated with green chemistry anywhere in the world that doesn’t interest me. GCI has programs and projects in education, information dissemination, R&D, government and international outreach. In this situation, it helps to be hyperactive.

Do you think there are legislative barriers to the implementation of green chemistry?

Not really, but nor are there many legislative incentives. Much of our regulatory system in the U.S. is based on the stick end of the carrot/stick motivational spectrum. Green chemistry has always been intended to be a non-regulatory alternative to regulatory command-and-control mechanisms but much more could be done to enhance the incentives of the voluntary approach.

Are there other barriers to the implementation of green chemistry?

There are many, but the one that annoys me most is the recalcitrance of the chemistry education profession. Green chemistry in many university chemistry departments is treated as a threat, an imposition or an abandonment of ‘science’. This during a period when creative students are avoiding chemistry careers like the plague. I think the answer lies in integration of green chemistry principles into current teaching rather than replacement of traditional chemical curricula, but attitudinal adjustment is definitely a problem. I believe another interesting problem is an underestimation of the scope of green chemistry. We often limit our discussions to technical disciplines (e.g., catalysis, alternative reaction conditions or even ionic liquids) and don’t talk about the impact of the technology alternatives on major global environmental issues (water quality, carbon emissions, or food production). Said another way, discussions often focus on the how of green chemistry rather than the why. This often limits the external perception of the field and its impacts.

Do you perceive any general funding problems for green chemistry, either in the USA or anywhere else?

Government funding of green chemistry in the U.S. is either static or declining. Part of the problem is the fragmented missions of different government agencies: the National Science Foundation sticks to basic research and avoids areas with industrial applications; the Department of Energy focuses only on the energy aspects of chemistry; and EPA is usually interested in remedial or monitoring methods and other agencies have even more divergent missions. Chemistry science funding is dropping across the board. This is another reason to focus attention on the larger impacts of green chemistry rather than the individual technical issues. However, this is only the government funding perspective. I believe, but can’t document, that industry funding for green chemistry is on the rise. While motivated by both environmental and economic issues, such funding is likely to have significant impact and influence the behaviour of both other companies and academic researchers.

Do you have a view on the educational/teaching aspects of green chemistry?

What strikes me first is the need for educational materials with increasing depth. For green chemistry to be taught, teachers must have materials to teach from. Ingraining green chemistry into mainline texts is an unmet task. There are a lot of materials available thanks to Oxford University Press, the Royal Society of Chemistry and the American Chemical Society but they are typically supplemental materials rather than the sole text for a chemistry or engineering class. My measure of success in this area will be the publication of a mainline organic chemistry text built on green chemistry principles. The other issue with education is the need for materials on an international basis. There is a huge unmet demand for teaching materials in developing countries.

You must speak to a lot of people on your travels. Do you get an impression that many people face similar problems with respect to green chemistry? If so, what are these problems?

First, the fun of green chemistry is the first thing that people share. People get the point often more readily in developing countries than in more developed parts of the world. It is the students that really drive things. The problems of funding, crowded curricula and fossilized senior colleagues seem to be universal.

Should green chemistry really be a separate subject area of research endeavour? If so, why?

I think not. Green chemistry is an approach to environmental and economic problem solving that can be applied to a huge range of processes. I believe that integrating green chemistry into a variety of disciplines will ultimately be more successful than expecting those disciplines to come to green chemistry. I have actively pursued this philosophy in the merger of the Green Chemistry Institute into the American Chemical Society. There are green chemistry efforts going on with education, international meetings and publications. Green chemistry programming cuts across divisions as divergent as agriculture, pharmaceutical, industrial and engineering → chemistry, nuclear and many others.

Which are the main green chemistry journals you contribute to and why?

I like writing technical materials for Environmental Science and Technology when the subject is the broad impact of green chemistry on a global problem (agricultural production, water, etc.). My intent is to reach across disciplines to a non-green chemistry audience. When the subject is specific to green chemistry then I put it in Green Chemistry. When the subject relates to environmental processes beyond the scope of green chemistry (e.g., treatment or recycling) I send them to the Clean Processes and Environmental Policy. Being on advisory boards for all three makes it a complicated choice sometimes.

What is your impression of the journal Green Chemistry?

The journal is making significant progress and attracting better-quality papers, which is critical to long-term success.

---