Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$58.25



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 9


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 8
>~b,~,' ~~ +~^ L ~L~P~2L MEL ~ Ll [~ S. ~ ,~,p ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ b `~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ \^ I~ - I'+~ ~ ~ ~ ~~! [~= =l t~ . ~] ~ ~ I} [~l 11 Led ~ ~ ~I ^~l ~= Mary L. Good, Chairman Alliance for Science and Technology Research in America (ASTRA) INTRODUCTION ASTRA is a newly established policy research collaboration compris- ing 48 of America's leading science and technology companies, associa- tions, professional societies, universities, and research institutions. ASTRA's underlying companies and institutions in turn represent hundreds of thousands of science and technology professionals across dozens of scientific disciplines through their workplaces, professional or- ganizations, and academic institutions. ASTRA's mission is quite simple: we strive to increase public funding for basic research in the physical, mathematical, and engineering sciences based upon overwhelming evi- dence that underfunding and imbalance in the current federal research portfolio has reached crisis proportions. Finding 1: Federalfunding of basic research in the physical, mathematical, and engineering sciences is in long-term decline and needs to be significantly increased over time. This decline is long term and began in the late 1980s. By any mea- surement, it is part of a persistent and long-standing pattern. For ex- ample, the share of federal R&D as a percentage of gross domestic prod- uct (GDP) has now reached an all-time low (see Figure 1~. The decline in federal R&D as a percentage of GDP is a good index to cite because it reflects long-term swings in public and political support for science funding and demonstrates that these swings are not attributable to par- 02_R0116--Astra 8 11/7/03, 12:26 PM

OCR for page 8
IA1N CE ~ (OR ~ C~E ~ ~D ~~E CH\T0t 2.50% - . 2.00% ~ 1.50% - 1.00% - 0.50% - 0.00% - ~ 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 197.7 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 Year FIGURE l Federal R&D as percentage of GDP 1953-2000. Source: National Sci- ence Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators 2000. tisan differences, but rather competing policy priorities between 1953 and the present. ASTRA believes the recent decline is due to several factors, including: the Cold War "build down," which left a gap in defense science budgets, the overall need to redress chronic budget deficits by a succession of ad- ministrations and Congresses, and a strongly supported policy decision to increase research funding for the life sciences in the mid-199Os. Underfunding creates imbalance in the scientific research portfolio, disrupts academic recruiting and grant making, stymies faculty develop- ment, and thwarts infrastructure investment. This in turn hampers the traditional educational "pipeline," which is tasked with creating new sci- ence and engineering (SHE) workers for industry, academe, and other re- search institutions. The consequences of such underfunding have been the subject of many public and private studies, perhaps the most compelling of which was the prescient February 2001 Report of the U.S. Commission on National Security (Hart-Rudman Commission), whose assessment has been borne out by painful loss. The commission called for a doubling of federal science and technology (S&T) funding across the board over the next decade. The Hart-Rudman report details the need for "recapitalizing" America's science and technology educational structure, and it suggests many excellent steps for averting future crises in the areas of U.S. indus- trial competitiveness, national security, and technological leadership. Similarly, the fuly 2001 Report of the Committee on Trends in Federal Spending on Scientific and Engineering Research of the Board on Science, Tech- nology, and Economic Policy (STEP) of the National Research Council de- 02_R0116--Astra 9 11/7/03, 12:26 PM

OCR for page 8
PA ~ '0~1~:~3~AL ~ tIM:~T tailed alarming erosion of federal funding in specific disciplines and made very worthwhile recommendations on improvements. While it may be difficult to assess why individual students choose their particular courses of study, there is a clear correlation between stu- dent degree choice and federal research funding for the mathematical, engineering, and physical sciences (MEPS). Moreover, the percentage of students entering into the life sciences as opposed to other disciplines has reached an extreme point, as demonstrated in Figure 2. Finding 2: Dysfunction in the SHE educational "pipeline" is closely related to lack of consistent federal support beginning in the late 1980s. U.S. bachelor's degree production in non-life sciences and engineering continues its long-term decline. The graduation rates for different disciplines between 1975 and 1998 are shown in Figure 2. From these data, ASTRA has calculated the peak year of undergraduate enrollment and the increase or decrease since that time. Only the "life sciences" category has increased dur- ing the period 1975-1998. This comes at a time when Asia and Europe are increasing their number of overall science degrees significantly (see Figure 3~. Perhaps more disconcerting, participation by foreign students in U.S. SHE doctoral degree production is now essential. Depending upon the scientific discipline being measured, anywhere from about 35 percent of doctoral degrees in the natural sciences to about 48 percent of doctorates awarded in engineering are being awarded to non-U.S. citizens (see Fig- 90,000 - . 80,000 - u, $ 70,000- 60,000 o ~ 50,000 m 40,000 o ~, 30,000 Q 20,000 1 0,000 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~ - ~~ / ~ ,,,,i,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~.... .~ ~ `_,,,,,_,_,_'''' ~_~ '~C= ~ ~9~ ~9~ ,~9~ ,~9` ,~99~ ~99~ ~990O MOO Life Sciences Increase of 21% Peak Year = 1998 E. . —a- nglneerlng Decrease of 21% Peak Year = 1985 Computer Sciences Decrease of 30% Peak Year = 1987 Physical and Geosciences Decrease of 19% Peak Year = 1981 Mathematics Decrease of 34% Peak Year = 1975 FIGURE 2 U.S. bachelor's degrees in non-Life Sciences and Engineering continue long-term decline 1975-1998. Source: National Science Foundation, Science and En- gineering Indicators 2002 and ASTRA. 02_R0116--Astra 10 11/7/03, 12:26 PM

OCR for page 8
IAN CE ~ (OR ~ C~E ~ ~D ~~E CH\T0t ~ ~ ~ au 20~o au o 0~) 1 0-f000 5:~o ,, . Europe i! "'-'''--'' -------------------------- ~'-----------.-.-.- --.--- -.- .~- - - ~` .~:1 19-7's 1978 1981 1984 1.~7 '19-~O 19~ 1996 1999 FIGURE 3 U.S. Natural Science and Engineering doctoral degrees 1975-2000 com- pared with global competitors. Degree totals for U.S. include foreign nationals enrolled in U.S. academic institutions. Source: National Science Foundation, Sci- ence and Engineering Indicators 2002. ure 4~. The significant immigration of foreign-born S&E workers over the past two generations has allowed the U.S. to sustain its long dominance of most scientific and technological fields. Reliance upon foreign student matriculation has profound implications for the federal S&E workforce in particular. It is estimated that more than 50 percent of federal S&E workers will elect to retire from the workforce over the next 10 years. Because restrictions on non-U.S. citizen employment within the federal S&E workforce apply to many sensitive areas of federal research, and science degree conferral upon U.S. residents continues to drop, no solution is in sight if demand continues at past levels. Failure of U.S. students to undertake science training and possible reasons for this state of affairs have been analyzed by others. Many fac- tors are at play, and they may include cultural, gender-based, economic, and educational disincentives for science education and the relative at- tractiveness (money, prestige, ease of learning) of other professions to our brightest students. The teaching of mathematics the language of sci- ence also presents special problems throughout the educational con- tinuum. Finding 3: Serious imbalance in thefederal R&D portfolio threatens the avail- ability, quality, and preparedness of the U.S. scientific and technology workforce. Finding 4: Student choice of science discipline correlates strongly with the availability offederalfundingfor science research. Viewed in light of Figure 5, Figure 6 demonstrates, through cross analysis of different data sets, an incontrovertible relationship between 02_R01 1 6--Astra 1 1 1 1/7/03, 12:26 PM

OCR for page 8
PA ~ '0~1~:~3~AL ~ tIM:~T I, ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . I,. C''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' , ...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . . ~ . .2.2.2.2.2.2.2. . .2.2.2.2.2.2.2. . _ ad. .. ~ I'm beld ' ~ ad. CIal and . . . 40: ~ FIGURE 4 Foreign students now constitute nearly a majority of graduates in key scientific disciplines. Source: National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators 2002. federal science funding and student degree choice for MEPS. This pattern is particularly pronounced at the B.S. level, where initial career decisions tend to be made by individuals. Analysis of these data also seems to demonstrate that individual choice of science discipline is affected less by actual labor market demand and more by the availability of grants and stipends for particular scien- tific disciplines, such as in the life sciences. Finding 5: "Basic" research funding is a government responsibility, and the federal science research budget needs to be morefocused on basic scientific research. One unfortunate consequence of mergers, consolidations and the slow recovery in the high-technology sector is that Wall Street and the invest- 02_R0116--Astra 12 11/7/03, 12:26 PM

OCR for page 8
IAN CE ~ OR ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ CH\T0t ~ ~ ~ FIGURE 5 Percentage change in federal research funding by discipline 1993-1999. Source: National Research Council, Trends in Federal Support of Research and Gradu- ate Education, 2001. 80000 - . 70000 - . _ ~ A_ 0 ~ Q. —O 50000- ~ ~5 0 (9 ~ off ~ I,, 30000- ~ 0 ~ 20000 IL 1 0000 - 60000 - 40000 - fi~$ I' ~ ~ ~ <. Dollars <,: ~ - / Students rr f - o 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year - 1 80000 - 1 60000 in cry - 140000 0-' In -1 20000 Hi, - 100000 ~ .m - 80000 c' -60000 At' in - 40000 0 - 20000 m FIGURE 6 Student choice of scientific discipline (U.S. degrees) follows federal R&D funding patterns 1950-2000. Source: Mayo, Bruggeman, and Sargent, 2002 (unpublished). 02_R011 6--Astra 13 1 1/7/03, 12:26 PM

OCR for page 8
PA~ '0~1~AL StIMMIT ment community generally disfavor companies that cannot show near- term and consistent profitability. ASTRA's industry members tell us that the accelerating shift by industry away from pure research makes the fed- eral government's role in basic scientific research all the more important. Only the federal government can afford some of the massive invest- ment in infrastructure and equipment needed to keep U.S. science com- petitive. And this is all the more necessary when viewed in context with an increasingly sophisticated global research community. Unfortunately, government's role in basic research is lagging other types of research. Ba- sic research now constitutes 41 percent of nondefense R&D and only 3 percent of defense R&D (see Figure 7~. Finding 6: Of all citations in U.S. industry patents, 73 percent originate from research conducted through publicly supported institutions (universities, colleges, certain nonprofit research institutions)- aboutfive citations per patent. Paradoxically, U.S. industry performs less "directed basic research" now than in the past, due in part to market demands for immediate profitability. Figures 8, 9, 10, and 11, prepared by Dr. Gregory Tassey, senior economist at the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) analyze current industry trends in basic research investment and risk reduction over the technology life cycle and suggest possible policy op- tions available: - -A Am: ~ pit 4% ~ ~ r ~- ^~ ~anl<:i Dm~pme~: 23% an,,, ....~. ........................................ .-.- ~ ................................................................. \ 8::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; \:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:~:.:.:) ~ V.-.-.-.-.- -.~? ~~pn3ent B8% . ,.~ It ~ ~rn~) ~E ~ ~~ ~ En=~ =D ~ ~p~m at Amp, HAS ~ I ~ H;aallb ~d Horns Ins, a I: I ~~j=' ~~ w ~j=~ 0~= ~& 8~. ~~, 03~ _ 0~. ~~ - IF FIGURE 7 Projected federal obligations for R&D and R&D plant, by agency and character of work: FY 2001. Source: National Science Foundation, Science and Engi- neering Indicators 2002. 02_R01 1 6--Astra 14 1 1/7/03, 12:26 PM

OCR for page 8
IAN CE ~ OR ~ c~ ~ ~~ ~~ CH\T0t ~ ~ ~ W0el~:~:~~ ~udl::Planne~ill: I~mts~:~ I :~ 0~.h :. :Pi~ning '14 13 {) Percent Bind .,~e I. Ace: : _ 6~4~t ~$~ ~~ ~~t ~~` : .3 '14 40: .:: 1~4 13 S? -it: 1~S ~ 27 -~9 IW6~ I~7 .~: -6 ~:~:~7 I: ~41 -: I~8 I~4 Us I] i.' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~1~4 3~ ~~1 :::: ~7 26~ -at ~:~-~1 1 7 ~~ -AT ~:~ I~? :~ ~~: FIGURE 8 Industrial Research Institute (IRI) member firms' annual planned in- vestments in directed basic research. Source: IRI as reported by Gregory Tassey, National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST). rib - :. ~~: be. ''fib. i- `., At. -~0 . ~~: R~:h Id: Hi; ` ~ yes ~ R`` W~ : j Beef : ::: ~ ~ - A.., At. ,~ 3 - -~ ! ~ ~ Ebb ~ _: . ~ . ; ~ ~ ~ To,, ~ ~ ~ I HAT —~ _. ~ I' ~ X4.. :&' :! : ~ :~:: FIGURE 9 Risk reduction over a technology life cycle. Source: Gregory Tassey, National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST). 02_R0116--Astra 15 11/7/03, 12:26 PM

OCR for page 8
PA~ '0~1~AL StIMMIT :: : R&~ PI Ins : ~ How I: R&~D~ : ~ ~ ~~:~:~t m~£~:~g ;~ne~l~o ~~:~ame~e .~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ . - : AS t At: ll~g ]~0G l~ ~S ~~f,~ W~ all: :iD~$C mom ~ Al ~~ to roughly $~B .~ ~ ~d ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I- Feder~ ~~overmlle~:speM~ as ~~ ~~ ~L: ~~s of- 4 :, ,~ ~ : ~ : ,~ :, ;~:~om dined as flit :` oc~s At on~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ re~h ~ ~~s _ r ~L) Aft; gOf Wait ~t -~In~:;as~e :~ Rams:. Her ~ ~~ Ad: ~ ~~e mc~:om:~c sit (Jones ~~ lam:) · I - : : : A t 1— in ~ ~ 1 ~' . eta c~ ~~ ~ i:~ In ~3 ~s ~~ 'c~ newt by ~ ::: in ~:::IS :::: ~~:~r FIGURE 10 Various scenarios for setting the level of federally funded R&D. Source: Gregory Tassey, National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST). ~ ~ :4~: : ~~.~ ~ ~ i: ~ r .~£12 .. 1, . am' p. it, I: t it : :: : :: : : : ::::: r rat .~ rat ,~ ~ 'lt~ ~`'~~ ' i: :} : t ~i: : I ': 1. i: i : i 1:: i: : It,: :~ _: ,,,r: - ,~: : ~ -a,,:: f # ~ 1: ,~ `: ~ ,,~, ~ ~ ~ -N ~ Hi:. i: fir pl~t 'go] ~ :,,,~Y:::: : :: : : ~ :: t-: . : . ~2~#r~i~*S~rr—~:riz~ Is Apse : ~'~~ :~ :: ,t: ,,,: i: :~ : ,-1 :H' :~:i ~`Z:~-~ - n='l,:~, ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ :^,: : P`rwess ~ I. ~ ~ ~ as, :~D ~ Jo: ~ :~ ~ r I IF I A/ I: :'. ~ :. am.. Ha. ~ : I ~~ ~t~tch:lhi~logy 1 ~ ' '~ t{~.prh · :: ~~liS~ ~~:~U,~:: ~~n . ::be~~ ~~: Ha: hi, - I: ::~ :: -boas - ~: ::` ~- · - : : — Time : :: : .. myeloPnmnt FIGURE 11 Relative expenditures by phase of R&D over technology life cycle. Source: Gregory Tassey, National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST). 02_R0116--Astra 16 11/7/03, 12:26 PM

OCR for page 8
IAN CE ~ OR ~ c~ ~ ~~ ~~ CH\T0t ~ ~ ~ RECOMMENDATION A sustained, multiyear increase in science research budgets must be undertaken immediately. ASTRA advocates a doubling of all budgets in the physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics as a first step toward addressing past neglect and to stanch the flow of talent out of core scien- tific disciplines. CONCLUSIONS ASTRA appreciates the opportunity to review SHE funding in light of the prolonged decline in federal investment in the physical sciences, math- ematics, and engineering. We firmly believe that the most critical step at this point in time is to change the trend, fund all science agencies adequately, and develop a long-range vision of the outcomes we as a nation need from our strong commitment to public science. The imperative to renew this commitment is urgent. 02_R0116--Astra 17 11/7/03, 12:26 PM