|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. 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 23
1
A Disturbing Mosaic1
In The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century,2
Thomas Friedman asserts that the international economic playing field is
now “more level” than it has ever been.3 The causes of this “flattening”
include easier access to information technology and rising technical
competences abroad that have made it possible for US companies to locate
call centers in India, coordinate the complex supply chains and work flows
that enable manufacturing in China, and conduct “back office” service func-
tions abroad. It is not uncommon for radiologists in India, for example, to
read x-ray pictures of patients in US hospitals. Architects in the United
States have their drawings made in Brazil. Software is written for US firms
in Bangalore. Ireland has successfully put into place a set of policies to
attract companies and their research activities, as has Finland. The Euro-
pean Union is actively pursuing policies to enhance the innovation environ-
ment, as are Singapore, China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and many
other countries.
Friedman argues that, despite the dangers, a flat world is on balance a
good thing—economically and geopolitically. Lower costs benefit consum-
ers and shareholders in developed countries, and the rising middle class in
1Major portions of this chapter were adapted from an article of the same name by Wm. A.
Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering in the fall 2005 issue of The Bridge,
a journal of the National Academies.
2T. L. Friedman. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New
York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2005.
3An alternative point of view is presented in Box 1-1.
23
OCR for page 24
24 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
BOX 1-1
Another Point of View: The World Is Not Flata
Some believe that although the world is certainly a more competitive
place, it is not “flat.” It is more competitive because access to knowledge
is easier than ever before, but the rise of scientific competence and the
apparent flight of high-technology jobs abroad is no more likely to dis-
lodge the United States from its science and technology leadership than
were previous challenges from the Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s
or from Japan in the 1980s.
For example, Americans are alarmed to read of the large numbers of
well-educated, English-speaking young people in India vying with US
workers for jobs via the Internet. In fact, only about 6% of Indian students
make it to college; of those who do, only two-thirds graduate. Just a
small fraction of India’s citizenry can read English; of these, a smaller
fraction can speak it well enough to be understood by Americans. In
China, where the numbers of engineers and other technically trained
people are rising, government skepticism about the Internet and aspects
of free markets is likely to hinder the advance of national power.
China and India indeed have low wage structures, but the United
States has many other advantages. These include a better science and
technology infrastructure, stronger venture-capital markets, an ability to
attract talent from around the world, and a culture of inventiveness. Com-
parative advantage shifts from place to place over time and always has;
the earth cannot really be flattened. The US response to competition
must include proper retraining of those who are disadvantaged and adap-
tive institutional and policy responses that make the best use of opportu-
nities that arise.
aThis box was adapted from J. Bhagwati. The World Is Not Flat. Wall Street Journal, August
4, 2005. P. A12.
India and China will become consumers of those countries’ products as well
as ours. That same rising middle class will have a stake in the “frictionless”
flow of international commerce—and hence in stability, peace, and the rule
of law. Such a desirable state, writes Friedman, will not be achieved with-
out problems, and whether global flatness is good for a particular country
depends on whether that country is prepared to compete on the global play-
ing field, which is as rough and tumble as it is level.
Friedman asks rhetorically whether his own country is proving its readi-
ness by “investing in our future and preparing our children the way we need
to for the race ahead.” Friedman’s answer, not surprisingly, is no.
OCR for page 25
25
A DISTURBING MOSAIC
This report addresses the possibility that our lack of preparation will
reduce the ability of the United States to compete in such a world. Many
underlying issues are technical; some are not. Some are “political”—not in
the sense of partisan politics, but in the sense of “bringing the rest of the
body politic along.” Scientists and engineers often avoid such discussions,
but the stakes are too high to keep silent any longer.
Friedman’s term quiet crisis, which others have called a “creeping cri-
sis,” is reminiscent of the folk tale about boiling a frog. If a frog is dropped
into boiling water, it will immediately jump out and survive. But a frog
placed in cool water that is heated slowly until it boils won’t respond until
it is too late.
Our crisis is not the result of a one-dimensional change; it is more
than a simple increase in water temperature. And we have no single awak-
ening event, such as Sputnik. The United States is instead facing problems
that are developing slowly but surely, each like a tile in a mosaic. None by
itself seems sufficient to provoke action. But the collection of problems
reveals a disturbing picture—a recurring pattern of abundant short-term
thinking and insufficient long-term investment. Our collective reaction
thus far seems to presuppose that the citizens of the United States and
their children are entitled to a better quality of life than others, and that
all Americans need do is circle the wagons to defend that entitlement.
Such a presupposition does not reflect reality and neither recognizes the
dangers nor seizes the opportunities of current circumstances. Further-
more, it won’t work.
In 2001, the Hart–Rudman Commission on national security, which
foresaw large-scale terrorism in America and proposed the establishment of
a cabinet-level Homeland Security organization before the terrorist attacks
of 9/11, put the matter this way:4
The inadequacies of our system of research and education pose a greater threat
to U.S. national security over the next quarter century than any potential con-
ventional war that we might imagine.
President George W. Bush has said
“Science and technology have never been more essential to the defense of the
nation and the health of our economy.”5
4US Commission on National Security. Road Map for National Security: Imperative for
Change. Washington, DC: US Commission on National Security, 2001.
5Remarks by the President in a meeting with high-tech leaders, March 28, 2001.
OCR for page 26
26 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
A letter from the leadership of the National Science Foundation to the
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology put the case
even more bluntly:6
Civilization is on the brink of a new industrial order. The big winners in the
increasingly fierce global scramble for supremacy will not be those who sim-
ply make commodities faster and cheaper than the competition. They will be
those who develop talent, techniques and tools so advanced that there is no
competition.
This chapter addresses the relevant issues in three related clusters. Later
chapters examine each cluster in more detail and recommend ways to ad-
dress the problems that are identified.
CLUSTER 1: TILTED JOBS IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY
Is the world flat, or is it tilted? Many people who once had jobs in the
textile, furniture, apparel, automotive, and other manufacturing industries
might be forgiven for saying that world is decidedly slanted. They watched
their jobs run downhill to countries where the workforce earns far lower
wages. The movement of jobs has accelerated sharply in the past 5 years,
surprising many employers and employees and disrupting the lives of those
who have been underbid by “hungry,” skilled job-seekers abroad.
Large companies use various criteria in making a decision to relocate
administrative, production, or research and development (R&D) facilities,
and they often have a number of options. Some reasons cited for relocations
in past studies include capitalizing on:
• Foreign R&D personnel (scientists, engineers, and programmers)7
who are highly skilled and eager to work.8
• New science and technology in fresh environments.9
• Technological developments abroad.10
• Joint and cooperative research products.11
6The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. “Sustaining the Nation’s
Innovation Ecosystems.” Report on Information Technology Manufacturing and Competi-
tiveness, January 2004.
7D. H. Dalton, M. G. Serapio, Jr., and P. G. Yoshida. Globalizing Industrial Research and
Development. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Technology Administration,
Office of Technology Policy, 1999.
8G. Gross. “CEOs Defend Moving Jobs Offshore at Tech Summit.” InfoWorld, October 9,
2003.
9Dalton, 1999.
10Ibid.
11Ibid.
OCR for page 27
27
A DISTURBING MOSAIC
• Proximity to offshore manufacturing.12
• Lower costs of conducting R&D, particularly labor costs.13
• Reduced labor costs associated with employing foreign workers.14
• Proximity to growing markets.
• US regulation and R&D climates, including strict regulatory regimes,
high risks of legal liability, and technology transfer limitations.15
• High-technology centers with skilled personnel, world-class R&D
infrastructure, vibrant research cultures, government incentives, and
intellectual-property protection.16
• Lower corporate tax rates and special tax incentives.
• Increasingly high-quality research universities.
The global forces that affect employment have swirled into the service
sector, once thought secure from international competition. First, there was
outsourcing, which allows employers to reassign some jobs by contracting
them to specialty firms that can do the jobs better or more cheaply. At first,
jobs were outsourced within the United States, but “offshoring” soon sent
jobs overseas, beyond the reach of US workers. That practice has become
especially controversial, and there has been an outcry for measures to pro-
tect those jobs for the domestic market. In some states, legislation has been
proposed to curb outsourcing through such initiatives as Opportunity
Indiana, the Keep Jobs in Colorado Act, and the American Jobs Act of
Wisconsin.17
Offshoring has become established, however, and it is merely one logi-
cal outcome of a flatter world. Furthermore, protectionist measures have
historically proved counterproductive. For several years, US companies that
outsource information-technology jobs have all but ordered their contrac-
tors to send some portion of the work overseas to gain hiring flexibility, cut
employment costs—by 40% in some cases18—and cut overhead costs for
12B. Mehlman, Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy, US Department of Commerce.
“Offshore Outsourcing and the Future of American Competitiveness.” Speech to Business
Roundtable Working Group presented on July 31, 2003. Available at: http://www.
technology.gov/Speeches/BPM_2003-Outsourcing.pdf.
13Dalton, 1999.
14See, for example, “High Tech in China: Is It a Threat to Silicon Valley?” Business Week
online, October 28, 2002.
15B. Callan, S. Costigan, and K. Keller. Exporting U.S. High Tech: Facts and Fiction About
the Globalization of Industrial R&D. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1997.
16Dalton, 1999.
17D. C. Sharma and M. Yamamoto. “How India is Handling International Backlash.” CNET
news.com, May 6, 2004.
18The Gartner Group, an organization that analyzes the information-technology sector, esti-
mates that companies can achieve cost savings of 25-30% through successful outsourcing. But
Gartner also warns that offshoring could produce lower savings than estimated if backup
service and other costs are not considered.
OCR for page 28
28 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
the home company.19 Employers also hire offshore workers to gain access
to better-trained workers or those with specialized skills, to move the
workforce closer to manufacturing or production facilities, or to gain ac-
cess to desirable markets.20 In India, US companies can hire insurance-claims
processors, medical transcriptionists, accountants, engineers, computer sci-
entists, and other English-speaking workers for, on average, about one-fifth
the salaries those employees would earn here. Because about three-fourths
of all US jobs are now in the service sector,21 millions of US employees are
at risk of losing their jobs to overseas workers.22
Offshoring also could place downward pressure on wages at home.23
Fewer than a million jobs have been sent overseas so far,24 but even that
number could be broadly affecting the economy as displaced workers seek
jobs held by others or are forced to accept lower wages to keep their exist-
ing jobs.
Because offshoring of service-sector jobs is a recent phenomenon, few
analysts offer predictions about its long-term effects on the US economy.
The classical view of free trade, as articulated nearly two centuries ago by
British economist David Ricardo, states that if a nation specializes in mak-
ing a product in which it has a comparative cost advantage and if it trades
with another nation for a product in which that nation has a similar cost
advantage, both countries will be better off than if they had each made both
products themselves.25 But does that theory hold in a world where not only
goods but many services are tradable as well? Will wages merely fall world-
wide as more knowledge workers enter the jobs arena?
Most economists believe that Ricardo is still correct—that there will be
gains for all such nations. They acknowledge that there might be a transi-
tion phase in which wages for lower-skilled workers in a rich country like
the United States will fall. Some say that there is, however, no reason to
19J. King. “Its Itinerary: Offshore Outsourcing Is Inevitable.” Computerworld, September
15, 2003.
20R. Hira, Rochester Institute of Technology, presentation to Committee on Science, Engi-
neering, and Public Policy, Workshop on International Students and Postdoctoral Scholars,
National Academies, July 2004.
21G. Colvin. “Can Americans Compete? Is America the World’s 97-lb. Weakling?” Fortune,
July 25, 2005.
22Forrester Research, a technology and market research company, estimates that 3.3 million
white-collar jobs could be sent offshore by 2015. Tom Pohlman. “Topic Overview, Out-
sourcing, Q3 2005.” September 12, 2005. Available at: http://www.forrester.com/Research/
Document/0,7211,37613,00.html.
23R. Freeman. It’s a Flat World, After All. New York Times, April 3, 2005. Section 6,
Column 1, Magazine Desk, P. 33.
24Colvin, 2005.
25“Biography of David Ricardo.” The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Available at:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Ricardo.html.
OCR for page 29
29
A DISTURBING MOSAIC
believe that wages for highly skilled workers will fall in either the short run
or the long run.26 Economist Paul Romer27 argues that technological change
continues to increase the demand for workers with high levels of educa-
tion.28 As a result, wages for US workers with at least a college education
continue to rise faster than wages for other workers. The low wages for
highly skilled workers seen in such countries as China and India are not a
sign that the worldwide supply of highly skilled workers is so large that
worldwide wages are now falling or are about to fall, says Romer. In those
economies, wages for skilled workers are low because these workers were
previously cut off from the deep and rapidly growing pool of technological
knowledge that existed outside their borders. As they have opened up their
economies so that this knowledge can now flow in, wages for highly skilled
workers have grown rapidly.
With the collapse of the high-technology bubble, some highly skilled
workers in the United States have experienced a fall in their wages from the
values that prevailed at the peak. Moreover, at every level of education,
there is wide variation in compensation and career paths. Some engineers
and scientists, even now, are unemployed or underemployed, just as some
physicians, MBAs, and lawyers are unemployed or underemployed. It would
be a mistake, according to Romer, for public policy to limit the training of
new physicians only because some of them end up with careers that are not
as lucrative or rewarding as they had hoped. In the same way, public-policy
decisions about the supply of scientists and engineers should not be guided
by an attempt to provide a guaranteed high level of income for every recipi-
ent of an advanced degree. It is also important that scientists and engineers
tend, through innovation, to create new jobs not only for themselves but
also for workers throughout the economy.
Some economists believe that there might be a transition phase in some
fields during which wages fall, but they assert that there is no reason to
believe that such a dip would be permanent, because the global economic
pie keeps growing.29
It has also been argued that in a period of tectonic change such as the
one that the global community is now undergoing, there will inevitably be
nations and individuals that are winners or losers. It is the view of this
committee that the determining factors in such outcomes are the extent of a
nation’s commitment to get out and compete in the global marketplace.
26Friedman, 2005, p. 227.
27E-mail communication from P. Romer to D. Stine, September 22, 2005.
28D. Autor, L. Katz, and M. Kearney. Trends in U.S. Wage Inequality: Re-Assessing the
Revisionists. Working Paper 11627. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research,
2005, for a recent summary of the evidence on this point, see http://www.nber.org.
29Friedman, 2005, p. 227.
OCR for page 30
30 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
New generations of US scientists and engineers, assisted by progressive
government policies, could lead the way to US leadership in the new, flatter
world—as long as US workers remain among the best educated, hardest-
working, best trained, and most productive in the world.
That, of course, is the challenge.
CLUSTER 2: DISINVESTMENT IN THE FUTURE
The most effective way for the United States to meet the challenges of a
flatter world would be to draw heavily and quickly on its investments in
human capital. We need people who have been prepared for the kinds of
knowledge-intensive occupations in which the nation must excel. Yet the
United States has for a number of decades fallen short in making the kinds
of investments that will be essential in a global economy.
Loss of Human Capital
An educated, innovative, motivated workforce—human capital—is the
most precious resource of any country in this new, flat world. Yet there is
widespread concern about our K–12 science and mathematics education
system, the foundation of that human capital in today’s global economy. A
recent Gallup poll30 asked respondents, “Overall, how satisfied are you
with the quality of education students receive in kindergarten through grade
twelve in the United States today—would you say you are completely satis-
fied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or completely dissatisfied?”
More than 50% were either “completely dissatisfied” or “somewhat dissat-
isfied” with our schooling. According to the poll results, the critical re-
quired change would be to produce better educated, higher-quality teach-
ers.31 This committee shares that view, particularly in connection with
education in science and mathematics. By far the highest leverage to be
found in our education system resides with teachers, if for no other reason
than that they influence such a large number of future workers.
Students in the United States are not keeping up with their counterparts
in other countries. In 2003 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development’s (OECD’s) Programme for International Student Assess-
ment32 measured the performance of 15-year-olds in 49 industrialized coun-
30Gallup poll, August 8-11, 2005, ± 3% margin of error, sample size = 1,001. As found at:
http://www.gallup.com/ on September 14, 2005.
31Gallup poll, August 9-11, 2004, ± 3% margin of error, sample size = 1,017. As found at:
http://www.gallup.com/ on September 14, 2005.
32Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Program for International
Student Assessment.” Available at: http://www.pisa.oecd.org.
OCR for page 31
31
A DISTURBING MOSAIC
tries. It found that US students scored in the middle or in the bottom half of
the group in three important ways: our students placed 16th in reading,
19th in science literacy, and 24th in mathematics.33 In 1996 (the most re-
cent data available), US 12th graders performed below the international
average of 21 countries on a test of general knowledge in mathematics and
science.34
After secondary school, fewer US students pursue science and engineer-
ing degrees than is the case of students in other countries. About 6% of our
undergraduates major in engineering; that percentage is the second lowest
among developed countries. Engineering students make up about 12% of
undergraduates in most of Europe, 20% in Singapore, and more than 40%
in China. Students throughout much of the world see careers in science and
engineering as the path to a better future.
Higher Education as a Private Good
Our culture has always considered higher education a public good—or
at least we have seemed to do so. We have agreed as a society that educated
citizens benefit the whole society; that the benefit accrues to us all and not
just to those who receive the education. That was a primary reason for the
creation in the 1860s of the land-grant college system; it is why early in the
20th century universal primary and secondary schooling was supported; it
is why a system of superior state universities was created and generously
supported and scholarships were given to needy students; and it is why the
Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944—the GI Bill—was established and
why the National Defense Education Act was passed in 1958 shortly after
the launch of Sputnik.
Now, however, funding for state universities is dwindling, tuition is
rising, and students are borrowing more than they receive in grants. These
seem to be indications that our society increasingly sees higher education as
a private good, of value only to the individual receiving it. A disturbing
aspect of that change is its consequences for low-income students. College
has been a traditional path for upward mobility—and this has been particu-
larly true in the field of engineering for students who were first in their
family to attend college. The acceptance of higher education as a personal
benefit rather than a public good, the growth of costly private K–12 school-
ing, and the shift of the cost burden to individuals have made it increasingly
difficult for low-income students to advance beyond high school. In the
33The report included results from 49 countries, available at: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/
dataoecd/1/63/34002454.pdf.
34National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. Chapter 1.
OCR for page 32
32 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
long run, the nation as a whole will suffer from the lack of new talent that
could have been discovered and nurtured in affordable, accessible, high-
quality public schools, colleges, and universities.
Trends in Corporate Research
The US research structure that evolved after World War II was a self-
reinforcing triangle of industry, academe, and government. Two sides of
that triangle—industrial research and government investment in R&D as a
fraction of gross domenstic product (GDP) have changed dramatically. Some
of the most important fundamental research in the 20th century was ac-
complished in corporate laboratories—Bell Labs, GE Research, IBM Re-
search, Xerox PARC, and others. Since that time, the corporate research
structure has been significantly eroded. One reason might be the challenge
of capturing the results of research investments within one company or
even a single nation on a long-term basis. The companies and nation can,
however, capture high-technology discoveries at least for the near term (5-
10 years) and enhance the importance of innovation in jobs.35 For example,
the United States has successfully capitalized on research in monoclonal
antibodies, network systems, and speech recognition. As a result, corporate
funding of certain applied research has been enhanced at such companies as
Google and Intel and at many biotechnology companies. Nonetheless, the
increasing pressure on corporations for short-term results has made invest-
ments in research highly problematic.
Funding for Research in the Physical Sciences and Engineering
Although support for research in the life sciences increased sharply in
the 1990s and produced remarkable results, funding for research in most
physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering has declined or remained
relatively flat—in real purchasing power—for several decades. Even to those
whose principal interest is in health or healthcare, that seems short-sighted:
Many medical devices and procedures—such as endoscopic surgery,
“smart” pacemakers, kidney dialysis, and magnetic resonance imaging—
are the result of R&D in the physical sciences, engineering, and mathemat-
ics. The need is to strengthen investment in the latter areas while not
disinvesting in those areas of the health sciences that are producing promis-
ing results. Many believe that federal funding agencies—perhaps influenced
by the stagnation of funding levels in the physical sciences, mathematics,
and engineering—have become increasingly risk-averse and focused on
35NAS/NAE/IOM. Capitalizing on Investments in Science and Technology. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press, 1999.
OCR for page 33
33
A DISTURBING MOSAIC
short-term results. For example, even the generally highly effective Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been criticized in this
regard in congressional testimony.36
Widespread, if anecdotal, evidence shows that even the National Science
Foundation and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have changed their
approach in this regard. A recent National Academies study37 revealed that
the average age at which a principal investigator receives his or her first grant
is 42 years—partly because of requirements for evidence of an extensive
“track record” to reduce risk to the grant-makers.38 But reducing the risk for
individual research projects increases the likelihood that breakthrough, “dis-
ruptive” technologies will not be found—the kinds of discoveries that often
yield huge returns. History also suggests that young researchers make dispro-
portionately important discoveries. The NIH roadmap39 established in fiscal
year (FY) 2004, recognizes this concern, but the amount of funds devoted to
long-term, high-payoff, high-risk research remains very limited.
CLUSTER 3: REACTIONS TO 9/11
Three other pieces in the mosaic also appear to provide short-term se-
curity but little long-term benefit. These relate to the events of 9/11, which
profoundly changed our world and made it necessary to re-examine na-
tional security issues in an entirely new context. This re-examination led to
changes in visa policies, export controls, and the treatment of “sensitive but
unclassified” information. There appears today to be a need to better bal-
ance security concerns with the benefits of an open, creative society.
New Visa Policies
Much has been written about new immigration and visa policies for stu-
dents and researchers. Although there have been improvements in the last
36See US Congress House of Representatives Committee on Science. Available at: http://
www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/may12/. The current director of DARPA, however,
points out that DARPA’s job has always been to mine fundamental research, looking for those
ideas whose time has come to move on to applied developmental research.
37National Research Council. Bridges to Independence: Fostering the Independence of New
Investigators in Biomedical Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004.
38Other observers note that part of the reason for this is the length of the biomedical PhD
and postdoctoral period and the difficulty of young biomedical researchers in finding initial
tenure-track positions, for which many institutions require principal-investigator status on an
NIH grant proposal. These trends, which are occurring in spite of the recent doubling of the
NIH grants budget, suggest an imbalance between demand for and supply of recent PhDs.
39The purpose of the roadmap was to identify major opportunities and gaps in biomedical
research that no single NIH institute could tackle alone but that the agency as a whole must
address to make the biggest impact on the progress of medical research.
OCR for page 34
34 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
several months (at this writing, the average time to process a student visa is
less than 2 weeks), there is still concern about response times in particular
cases. Some promising students wait a year or more for visas; some senior
scholars are subjected to long and sometimes demeaning review processes.
Those cases, not the shorter average processing time, are emphasized in the
international press. The United States is portrayed less as a welcoming land of
opportunity than as a place that is hostile to foreigners.
Immigration procedures implemented since 9/11 have discouraged stu-
dents from applying to US programs, prevented international research lead-
ers from organizing conferences here, and dampened international collabo-
ration. As a result, we are damaging the image of our country in the eyes of
much of the world. Although there are recent signs of improvement, the
matter remains a concern.
This committee is generally not privy to whatever evidence lies in the
government’s library of classified information, but it is important to recog-
nize that our nation’s borders have been crossed by more than 10 million
people who are still residing illegally in the United States. Set against this
background, a way is needed to quickly, legally, and safely admit to our
shores the relatively small numbers of highly talented people who possess
the skills needed to make major contributions to our nation’s future com-
petitiveness and well-being.
Some observers are also concerned that encouraging international stu-
dents to come to the United States will ultimately fill jobs that could be
occupied by American citizens. Others worry that such visitors will reduce
the compensation that scientists and engineers receive—diminishing the de-
sire of Americans to enter those professions. Studies show, however, that
the financial impact is minimal, especially at the PhD level. Furthermore,
scientists and engineers tend to be creators of new jobs and not simply
consumers of a fixed set of existing jobs. If Americans make up a larger
percentage of a graduating class, a larger percentage of Americans will be
hired by corporations. In the end, the United States needs the smartest
people, wherever they come from throughout the world. The United States
will be more prosperous if those people live and work in the United States
rather than elsewhere. History has emphatically proven this point.
The Use of Export Controls
Export controls were first instituted in the United States in 1949 to
keep weapons technology out of the hands of potential adversaries. They
have since been used, on occasion, as an economic tool against competitors.
The export of controlled technology requires a license from the Depart-
ment of Commerce or from the Department of State. Since 1994, the disclo-
sure of information regarding a controlled technology to some foreign na-
OCR for page 35
35
A DISTURBING MOSAIC
tionals—even when the disclosure takes place inside the United States, a
practice sometimes called “deemed export”—has been considered the same
as the export of the technology itself and thus requires an export license.
Some recent reports40 suggest that implementation of the rules that gov-
ern deemed exports should be tightened even further—for example, by al-
tering or eliminating the exemption for basic research and by broadening
the definition of “access” to controlled technology.
The academic research community is deeply concerned that a literal
interpretation of these suggestions could prevent foreign graduate students
from participating in US-based research and would require an impossibly
complex system of enforcement. Given that 55% of the doctoral students in
engineering in the United States are foreign-born and that many of these
students currently remain in the United States after receiving their degrees,
the effect could be to drastically reduce our talent pool.
The United States is not the world’s only country capable of perform-
ing research; China and India, for example, have recognized the value of
research universities to their economic development and are investing
heavily in them. By putting up overly stringent barriers to the exchange of
information about basic research, we isolate ourselves and impede our own
progress. At the same time, the information we are protecting often is avail-
able elsewhere.
The current fear that foreign students in our universities pose a security
risk must be balanced against the great advantages of having them here. It
is, of course, prudent to control entry to our nation, but as those controls
become excessively burdensome they can unintentionally harm us. In this
regard, it should be noted that Albert Einstein, Edward Teller, Enrico Fermi,
and many other immigrants enabled the United States to develop the atomic
bomb and bring World War II to an earlier conclusion than would other-
wise have been the case. In addition, immigrant scientists and engineers
have contributed to US economic growth throughout the nation’s history
by founding or cofounding new technology-based companies. Examples
include Andrew Carnegie (US Steel, born in Scotland), Alexander Graham
Bell (AT&T, born in Scotland), Herbert Henry Dow (Dow Chemical, born
in Canada), Henry Timken (Timken Company, born in Germany), Andrew
Grove (Intel, born in Hungary), Davod Lam (Lam Research, born in China),
Vinod Khosla (Sun Microsystems, born in India), and Sergey Brin (Google,
born in Russia).
40Reports from the inspectors general of the US Departments of Commerce, Defense, and
State. As an example, see Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Inspections and Program
Evaluations. “Deemed Export Controls May Not Stop the Transfer of Sensitive Technology to
Foreign Nationals in the U.S.” Final Inspection Report No. IPE-16176-March 2004.
OCR for page 36
36 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
Similarly, it has been noted that
• Many students from abroad stay here after their education is com-
plete and contribute greatly to our economy.
• Foreign students who do return home often are our best ambassadors.
• The United States benefits economically from open trade, and our
security is reinforced by rising living standards in developing countries.
• The quality of life in the United States has been improved as a result
of shared scientific results. Some foreign-born students do return home to
work as competitors, but others join in international collaborations that
help us move faster in the development and adaptation of new technology
and thereby create new jobs.
Yet, Section 214b of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires ap-
plicants for student or exchange visas to provide convincing evidence that
they plan to return to their home countries—a challenging requirement.
Sensitive but Unclassified Information
Since 9/11, the amount of information designated sensitive but unclas-
sified (SBU) by the US government has presented a problem that is less
publicized than visas or deemed exports but is a complicating factor in
academic research. The SBU category, as currently applied, is inconsistent
with the philosophy of building high fences around small places associated
with the traditional protection of scientific and technical information. There
are no laws, no common definitions, and no limits on who can declare
information “SBU,” nor are there provisions for review and disclosure after
a specific period. There is little doubt that the United States would profit
from a serious discussion about what kinds of information should be classi-
fied, but such a discussion is not occurring.
THE PUBLIC RECOGNIZES THE CHALLENGES
Does the public truly see the challenge to our prosperity? In recent
months, polls have indicated persistent concern not only about the war in
Iraq and issues of terrorism but also, and nearly equally, about jobs and the
economy. One CBS-New York Times poll showed security leading economic
issues by only 1%;41 another42 showed that our economy and job security
41CBS News-New York Times poll, June 10-15, 2005; of 1,111 adults polled nationwide,
19% found the war in Iraq the most important problem, 18% cited the economy and jobs.
Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/bush616.pdf.
42ABC News-Washington Post poll, June 2-5, 2005; of 1,002 adults polled nationwide, 30%
rated the economy and jobs of highest concern, 24% rated Iraq of highest concern.
OCR for page 37
37
A DISTURBING MOSAIC
are of slightly greater concern to respondents than are issues of national
security and terrorism. On the eve of the 2004 presidential election, the
Gallup organization asked respondents what issues concerned them most.
Terrorism was first, ranked “extremely important” by 45% of respondents;
next came the economy (39%), health care (33%), and education (32%).43
Only 35% say that now is a good time to find a high-quality job; 61% say
that it is not.44 Polls, of course, only provide a snapshot of America’s think-
ing, but presumably one can conclude that Americans are generally worried
about jobs—if not for themselves then for their children and grandchildren.
Investors are worried, too. According to a Gallup poll, 83% percent of
US investors say job outsourcing to foreign countries is currently hurting
the investment climate “a lot” (61%) or “a little” (22%). The numbers who
are worried about outsourcing are second only to the numbers who are
worried about the price of energy, according to a July 2005 Gallup poll on
investor concerns.45
DISCOVERY AND APPLICATION:
KEYS TO COMPETITIVENESS AND PROSPERITY
A common denominator of the concerns expressed by many citizens is
the need for and use of knowledge. Well-paying jobs, accessible healthcare,
and high-quality education require the discovery, application, and dissemi-
nation of information and techniques. Our economy depends on the knowl-
edge that fuels the growth of business and plants the seeds of new indus-
tries, which in turn provides rewarding employment for commensurately
educated workers. Chapter 2 explains that US prosperity since World War
II has depended heavily on the excellence of its “knowledge institutions”:
high-technology industries, federal R&D agencies, and research universities
that are generally acknowledged to be the best in the world.
The innovation model in place for a half-century has been so successful
in the United States that other nations are now beginning to emulate it. The
governments of Finland, Korea, Ireland, Canada, and Singapore have mapped
and implemented strategies to increase the knowledge base of students and
researchers, strengthen research institutions, and promote exports of high-
technology products—activities in which the United States has in the past
43D. Jacob, Gallup chief economist, in “More Americans See Threat, Not Opportunity, in
Foreign Trade: Most Investors See Outsourcing as Harmful.” Available at: http://www.gallup.
com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci=14338.
44F. Newport, Gallup poll editor-in-chief, in “Bush Approval, Economy, Election 2008,
Iraq, John Roberts, Civil Rights.” August 9, 2005. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/
content/?ci=17758&pg=1.
45Gallup poll, June 24-26, 2005, ± 3% margin of error, sample size = 1,009. As found at:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=17605&pg=1 on September 14, 2005.
OCR for page 38
38 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
excelled.46 China formally adopted a pro-R&D policy in the middle of the
1990s and has been moving rapidly to raise government spending on basic
research, to reform old structures in a fashion that supports a market
economy, and to build indigenous capacity in science and technology.47
The United States is now part of a connected, competitive world in
which many nations are empowering their indigenous “brainware” and
building new and effective performance partnerships—and they are doing
so with remarkable focus, vigor, and determination. The United States must
match that tempo if it hopes to maintain the degree of prosperity it has
enjoyed in the past.
ACTION NOW
Indeed, if we are to provide prosperity and a secure environment for
our children and grandchildren, we cannot be complacent. The gradual
change in England’s standing in the world since the 1800s and the sudden
change in Russia’s standing since the end of the Cold War are but two
examples that illustrate how dramatically power can shift. Simply main-
taining the status quo is insufficient when other nations push ahead with
desire, energy, and commitment.
Today, we see in the example of Ireland how quickly a determined
nation can rise from relative hunger to burgeoning prosperity. In the 1980s,
Ireland’s unemployment rate was 18%, and during that decade 1% of the
population—mostly young people—left the country, largely to find jobs.48
In response, a coalition of government, academic institutions, labor unions,
farmers, and others forged an ambitious and sometimes painful plan of tax
and spending cuts and aggressively courted foreign investors and skilled
scientists and engineers. Today, Ireland is, on a per capita basis, one of
Europe’s wealthiest countries.49 In 1990, Ireland’s per capita GDP of
$12,891 (in current US dollars) ranked it 23rd of the 30 OECD member
countries. By 2002, Ireland’s per capita GDP had grown to $32,646, mak-
ing it 4th highest among OECD member countries.50 Ireland’s unemploy-
46Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Main Science & Technol-
ogy Indicators, 2005.” Available at: http://www.oecd.org/document/26/0,2340,en_2649_
34451_1901082_1_1_1_1,00.html.
47“China’s Science and Technology Policy for the Twenty-First Century—A View from the
Top.” Report from the US Embassy, Beijing, November 1996.
48W. C. Harris, director general, Science Foundation Ireland, personal communication, Au-
gust 15, 2005.
49T. Friedman. The End of the Rainbow. New York Times, June 29, 2005.
50Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. “OECD Factbook 2005.”
Available at: http://puck.sourceoecd.org/vl=2095292/cl=23/nw=1/rpsv/factbook/.
OCR for page 39
39
A DISTURBING MOSAIC
ment rate (as a percentage of the total labor force) was 13.4% in 1990. By
1993, it had risen to 15.6%. By 2004 the unemployment rate declined to
4.5%.51 Since 1995, Ireland’s economic growth has averaged 7.9%. Over
the same time period, economic growth averaged 2% in Europe and 3.3%
in the United States.52
History is the story of people mobilizing intellectual and practical tal-
ents to meet demanding challenges. World War II saw us rise to the military
challenge, quickly developing nuclear weapons and other military capabili-
ties. After the launch of Sputnik53 in 1957, we accepted the challenge of the
space race, landed 12 Americans on the moon, and fortified our science and
technology capacity.
Today’s challenge is economic—no Pearl Harbor, Sputnik, or 9/11 will
stir quick action. It is time to shore up the basics, the building blocks with-
out which our leadership will surely decline. For a century, many in the
United States took for granted that most great inventions would be home-
grown—such as electric power, the telephone, the automobile, and the air-
plane—and would be commercialized here as well. But we are less certain
today who will create the next generation of innovations, or even what they
will be. We know that we need a more secure Internet, more-efficient trans-
portation, new cures for disease, and clean, affordable, and reliable sources
of energy. But who will dream them up, who will get the jobs they create,
and who will profit from them? If our children and grandchildren are to
enjoy the prosperity that our forebears earned for us, our nation must
quickly invigorate the knowledge institutions that have served it so well in
the past and create new ones to serve in the future.
CONCLUSION
A few of the tiles in the mosaic are apparent; many other problems
could be added to the list. The three clusters discussed in this chapter share
a common characteristic: short-term responses to perceived problems can
give the appearance of gain but often bring real, long-term losses.
51Ibid.
52R. Samuelson. “The World Is Still Round.” Newsweek, July 25, 2005.
53The fall 1957 launch of Sputnik I, the first artificial satellite, caused many in the United
States to believe that we were quickly falling behind the USSR in science education and re-
search. That concern led to major policy reforms in education, civilian and military research,
and federal support for researchers. Within a year, the National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
ministration and DARPA were founded. In that era, science and technology became a major
focus of the public, and a presidential science adviser was appointed.
OCR for page 40
40 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
This report emphasizes the need for world-class science and engineer-
ing—not simply as an end in itself but as the principal means of creating
new jobs for our citizenry as a whole as it seeks to prosper in the global
marketplace of the 21st century. We must help those who lose their jobs;
they need financial assistance and retraining. It might even be appropriate
to protect some selected jobs for a very short time. But in the end, the
country will be strengthened only by learning to compete in this new, flat
world.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
labor force
