Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$59.95



View/Hide Left Panel

3
How Is America Doing Now in Science and Technology?

By most available criteria, the United States is still the undisputed leader in the performance of basic and applied research (see Box 3-1). In addition, many international comparisons put the United States as a leader in applying research and innovation to improve economic performance. In the latest IMD International World Competitiveness Yearbook, the United States ranks first in economic competitiveness, followed by Hong Kong and Singapore.1 The survey compares economic performance, government efficiency, business efficiency, and infrastructure. Larger economies are further behind, with Zhejiang (China’s wealthiest province), Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany ranked 20 though 23, respectively.2 An extensive review by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) concludes that since World War II, US leadership in science and engineering has driven its dominant strategic position, economic advantages, and quality of life.3

1

IMD International. World Competitiveness Yearbook. 2005. Lausanne, Switzerland: IMD International, 2005. The United States leads the world (with a score of 100), followed in order by Hong Kong (93), Singapore, Iceland, Canada, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Australia, and Luxembourg (80).

2

Mainland China ranks 31st.

3

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard, 2003, R&D Database.” Available at: http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/92-2003-04-1-7294/. The scoreboard uses four indicators in its ranking: the creation and diffusion of knowledge; the information economy; the global integration of economic activity; and productivity and economic structure. In the United States, investment in knowledge—the sum of investment in research and development (R&D), software, and higher education—amounted to almost 7% of GDP in 2000, well above the share for the European Union or Japan.



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 68
3 How Is America Doing Now in Science and Technology? By most available criteria, the United States is still the undisputed leader in the performance of basic and applied research (see Box 3-1). In addition, many international comparisons put the United States as a leader in apply- ing research and innovation to improve economic performance. In the latest IMD International World Competitiveness Yearbook, the United States ranks first in economic competitiveness, followed by Hong Kong and Singapore.1 The survey compares economic performance, government effi- ciency, business efficiency, and infrastructure. Larger economies are further behind, with Zhejiang (China’s wealthiest province), Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany ranked 20 though 23, respectively.2 An extensive review by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) concludes that since World War II, US leadership in science and engineering has driven its dominant strategic position, economic advan- tages, and quality of life.3 1IMD International. World Competitiveness Yearbook. 2005. Lausanne, Switzerland: IMD International, 2005. The United States leads the world (with a score of 100), followed in order by Hong Kong (93), Singapore, Iceland, Canada, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Australia, and Luxembourg (80). 2Mainland China ranks 31st. 3Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Science, Technology and In- dustry Scoreboard, 2003, R&D Database.” Available at: http://www1.oecd.org/publications/ e-book/92-2003-04-1-7294/. The scoreboard uses four indicators in its ranking: the creation and diffusion of knowledge; the information economy; the global integration of economic activity; and productivity and economic structure. In the United States, investment in knowl- edge—the sum of investment in research and development (R&D), software, and higher edu- cation—amounted to almost 7% of GDP in 2000, well above the share for the European Union or Japan. 68

OCR for page 68
69 HOW IS AMERICA DOING NOW IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY? BOX 3-1 Pasteur’s Quadrant The writers of this report, like many others, faced a semantic question in the discussions of different kinds of research. Basic research, presum- ably pursued for the sake of fundamental understanding but without thought of use, generally is distinguished from applied research, which is pursued to convert basic understanding into practical use. This view, called the “linear model” is shown here: Applied Basic Production and Development Research Research Operations But that classification quickly breaks down in the real world because “basic” discoveries often emerge from “applied” or even “developmental” activities. In his 1997 book, Pasteur’s Quadrant,a Donald Stokes re- sponded to that complexity with a more nuanced classification that de- scribes research according to intention. He distinguishes four types: • Pure basic research, performed with the goal of fundamental under- standing (such as Bohr’s work on atomic structure). • Use-inspired basic research, to pursue fundamental understanding but motivated by a question of use (such as Pasteur’s work on the bio- logic bases of fermentation and disease). • Pure applied research, motivated by use but not seeking fundamental understanding (such as that leading to Edison’s inventions). • Applied research that is not motivated by a practical goal (such as plant taxonomy). In Stokes’s argument, research is better depicted as a box than as a line: Considerations of use? No Yes Pure Basic Use-inspired Yes Research Research Quest for (Bohr) Basic (Pasteur) Fundamental Understanding? Pure Applied Research No (Edison) In contrast to the basic–applied dichotomy, Stokes’s taxonomy explicitly recognizes research that is simultaneously inspired by a use but that also seeks fundamental knowledge, which he calls “Pasteur’s Quadrant.” aD. Stokes. Pasteur’s Quadrant. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1997.

OCR for page 68
70 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM Researchers in the United States lead the world in the volume of articles published and in the frequency with which those papers are cited by oth- ers.4 US-based authors were listed on one-third of all scientific articles worldwide in 2001.5 Those publication data are significant because they reflect original research productivity and because the professional reputa- tions, job prospects, and career advancement of researchers depend on their ability to publish significant findings in the open peer-reviewed literature. The United States also excels in higher education and training. A recent comparison concluded that 38 of the world’s 50 leading research institu- tions—those that draw the greatest interest of science and technology stu- dents—are in the United States.6 Since World War II, the United States has been the destination of choice for science and engineering graduate students and for postdoctoral scholars choosing to study abroad. Our nation—about 6% percent of the world’s population—has for decades produced more than 20% of the world’s doctorates in science and engineering.7 Because of globalization in the fields of science and engineering, how- ever, it is difficult to compare research leadership among countries. Re- search teams commonly include members from several nations, and indus- tries have dispersed many activities, including research, across the globe. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ADVANTAGE The strength of science and engineering in the United States rests on many advantages: the diversity, quality, and stability of its research and teaching institutions; the strong tradition of public and private investment in research and advanced education; the quality of academic personnel; the prevalence of English as the language of science and engineering; the avail- ability of venture capital; a relatively open society in which talented people of any background or nationality have opportunities to succeed; the US custom, unmatched in other countries, of providing positions for post- doctoral scholars;8 and the strength of the US peer-review and free- 4D. A. King. “The Scientific Impact of Nations.” Nature 430(6997)(July 15, 2004):311- 316. 5National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. Chapter 5. 6Shanghai’s Jiao Tong University Institute of Higher Education. “Academic Ranking of World Universities.” 2004. Available at: http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2004/2004Main.htm. The ranking emphasizes prizes, publications, and citations attributed to faculty and staff, as well as the size of institutions. The Times Higher Education Supplement citation has provided similar results in comparing universities worldwide. 7National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. P. 2-36. 8The National Academies. Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005. P. 81.

OCR for page 68
71 HOW IS AMERICA DOING NOW IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY? enterprise systems in weeding out noncompetitive academic and business pursuits. In addition to such tangible advantages, US leadership might also be attributed to many favorable public policy priorities: research activities funded by public and private sources that have led to new industries, products, and jobs; an economic climate that encourages investment in technology-based companies; an outward-looking international economic policy; and support for lifelong learning.9 However, things are changing, as noted in Innovate America, a 2004 report from the Council on Competitiveness:10 • Innovation is diffusing at an ever-increasing rate. It took 55 years for automobile use to spread to a quarter of the US population, 35 years for the telephone, 22 years for the radio, 16 years for the personal computer, 13 years for the cell phone, and just 7 years for the World Wide Web once the Internet had matured (through technology and policy developments) to the point of takeoff. • Innovation is increasingly multidisciplinary and technologically com- plex, arising from the intersection of different fields and spheres of activity. • Innovation is collaborative. It requires active cooperation and com- munication among scientists and engineers and between creators and users. • Innovation is creative. Workers and consumers demand ever more new ideas, technologies, and content. • Innovation is global. Advances come from centers of excellence around the world and are prompted by the demands of billions of customers. Central to the strength of US innovation is our tradition of public fund- ing for science and engineering research. Graduate education in the United States is supported mainly by federal grants from the National Science Foun- dation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to faculty re- searchers, buttressed by a smaller volume of federally funded fellowships. One study reported that 73% of applicants for US patents said that publicly funded research formed part or all of the foundation for their innovations.11 Much of the nation’s research in engineering and the physical sciences is performed in federal laboratories, part of whose mission is to assist the commercialization of new technology. 9K. H. Hughes. “Facing the Global Competitiveness Challenge.” Issues in Science and Tech- nology 21(4)(Summer 2005):72-78. 10Council on Competitiveness. Innovate America. Washington, DC: Council on Competi- tiveness, 2004. P. 6. 11M. I. Nadiri. Innovations and Technical Spillovers. Working Paper 4423. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1993.

OCR for page 68
72 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM OTHER NATIONS ARE FOLLOWING OUR LEAD— AND CATCHING UP12 It is no surprise that as the value of research becomes more widely understood, other nations are strengthening their own programs and insti- tutions. If imitation is flattery, we can take pride in watching as other na- tions eagerly adopt major components of the US innovation model.13 Their strategies include the willingness to increase public support for research universities, to enhance protections for intellectual property rights, to pro- mote venture capital activity, to fund incubation centers for new businesses, and to expand opportunities for innovative small companies.14 Many nations have made research a high priority. To position the Eu- ropean Union (EU) as the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world and enhance its attractiveness to researchers worldwide, EU lead- ers are urging that, by 2010, member nations spend 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) on research and development (R&D).15 In 2000, R&D as a percentage of GDP was 2.72 in the United States, 2.98 in Japan, 2.49 in Germany, 2.18 in France, and 1.85 in the United Kingdom.16 Many nations also are investing more aggressively in higher education and increasing their public investments in R&D (Figure 3-1). Those invest- ments are stimulating growth in the number of research universities in those countries; the number of researchers; the number of papers listed in the Science Citation Index; the number of patents awarded; and the number of doctoral degrees granted (Table 3-1, Figures 3-2, 3-3, 3-4).17 China is emulating the US system as well. The Chinese Science Founda- tion is modeled after our National Science Foundation, and peer review methodology and startup packages for junior faculty are patterned on US practices. In China, national spending in the past few years for all R&D activities rose 500%, from $14 billion in 1991 to $65 billion in 2002. US 12For another point of view, see Box 3-2. 13Council on Competitiveness. Innovate America. Washington, DC: Council on Competi- tiveness, 2004. P. 6. 14K. H. Hughes. “Facing the Global Competitiveness Challenge.” Issues in Science and Technology 21(4)(Summer 2005):72-78. See also M. Enserink. “France Hatches 67 California Wannabes.” Science 309(2005):547. 15R. M. May. “Raising Europe’s Game.” Nature 430(2004):831; P. Busquin. “Investing in People.” Science 303(2004):145. 16National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. Appendix Table 4-43. 17D. Hicks. 2004. “Asian Countries Strengthen Their Research.” Issues in Science and Tech- nology 20(4)(Summer 2004):75-78. The author notes that the number of doctoral degrees awarded in China has increased 50-fold since 1986.

OCR for page 68
73 HOW IS AMERICA DOING NOW IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY? BOX 3-2 Another Point of View: US Competitiveness “Americans are having another Sputnik moment,” writes Robert J. Samuelson, “one of those periodic alarms about some foreign techno- logical and economic menace. It was the Soviets in the 1950s and early 1960s, the Germans and Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s, and now it’s the Chinese and Indians.”a Sputnik moments come when the nation wor- ries about its scientific and technological superiority and its ability to com- pete globally. And, according to Samuelson, the nation tends to be overly concerned. Sputnik led to the theory of a “missile gap that turned out to be a myth. The competitiveness crisis of the 1980s suggested that Japan would surge ahead of us because they were better savers, innovators, workers, and managers. But in 2004, per capita US income averaged $38,324 compared to $26,937 for Germany and $29,193 for Japan.” Similarly, Samuelson argues that our current fears are unfounded, another “illusion” in which “a few selective happenings” are transformed into a “full blown theory of economic inferiority or superiority.” He argues that low wages and rising skills in China and India could cost us some jobs, but that US gains and losses in response to the rising economic power of those countries will tend to balance out. Samuelson indicates that he believes “the apparent American deficit in scientists and engineers is also exaggerated.” He notes that only about one-third of our science and engineering graduates work in science and engineering occupations and that if there were a shortage, salaries for those jobs would increase and scientists and engineers would return to them. Of greater importance, Samuelson concludes, is that the United States must continue to draw on the strengths that overcome its weak- nesses: “ambitiousness; openness to change (even unpleasant change); competition; hard work; and a willingness to take and reward risk.” aR. J. Samuelson. Sputnik Scare, Updated. Washington Post, August 26, 2005. P. A27. R&D spending increased 140%, from $177 billion to $245 billion, in the same period.18 The rapid rise of South Korea as a major science and engineering power has been fueled by the establishment of the Korea Science Founda- 18Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development. Science, Technology and In- dustry Outlook 2004. Paris: OECD, 2004. P. 190. The United States spends significantly more than China on R&D in gross terms and in percentage of R&D. However, if China’s US$65 billion in R&D spending were adjusted based on purchasing power parity, it would approach US$300 billion.

OCR for page 68
74 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM 3.5 Japan 3.0 United States 2.5 Percent of GNP Korea 2.0 European Union 1.5 Canada 1.0 Russian Federation 0.5 China 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 FIGURE 3-1 R&D expenditures as a percentage of GNP, 1991-2002. These expen- ditures are beginning to rise worldwide. SOURCE: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Main Science and Engineering Indicators. Paris: OECD, 2005. TABLE 3-1 Publications and Citations in the United States and European Union per Capita and per University Researcher, 1997-2001 United States European Union Publications 1,265,608 1,347,985 Publications/population 4.64 3.60 Publications/researcher 6.80 4.30 Researchers/population 0.68 0.84 Citations 10,850,549 8,628,152 Citations/population 39.75 23.03 Citations/researcher 58.33 27.52 Top 1% publications 23,723 14,099 Top 1% publications/population 0.09 0.04 Top 1% publications/researcher 0.13 0.04 NOTES: Number of publications, citations, and top 1% publications refer to 1997-2001. Population (measured in thousands) and number of university researchers (measured in full- time equivalents) refer to 1999. Each cited paper is allocated once to every author. European Union totals are adjusted to account for duplications by removing papers with multiple EU national authorship to give an accurate net total. SOURCE: G. Dosi, P. Llerena, and M. S. Labini. “Evaluating and Comparing the Innovation Performance of the United States and the European Union.” Expert report prepared for the Trend Chart Policy Workshop. June 29, 2005. Available at: http://trendchart.cordis.lu/ scoreboards/scoreboard2005/pdf/EIS%202005%20EU%20versus%20US.pdf.

OCR for page 68
75 HOW IS AMERICA DOING NOW IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY? 1,000 United States Other Established Economies Sources of US Patent Applications Fastest Growing Economies (thousands, logarithm scale) 100 Other Established Economies Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom 10 Fastest Growing Economies China, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan 1 1989 1992 1994 1998 2000 2002 2004 FIGURE 3-2 US patent applications, by country of applicant, 1989-2004. SOURCE: Task Force on the Future of American Innovation based on data from National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. Arlington, VA: APS Office and Public Affairs, 2004. FIGURE 3-3 Total science and engineering articles with international coauthors, 1988-2001. NOTE: Internationally coauthored articles were counted more than once so each country represented on the author list was included. So if an article was written by authors from the United States and Switzerland, it would be included in the count for both countries. SOURCES: Task Force on the Future of American Innovation based on data from National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. Arlington, VA: APS Office and Public Affairs, 2004.

OCR for page 68
76 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM Share of Total Citations Engineering Clinical Medicine Physical Preclinical Medicine Science and Health US Mathematics Biology EU15 UK Environment FIGURE 3-4 Disciplinary strengths in the United States, the 15 European Union nations in the comparator group (EU15), and the United Kingdom. NOTE: The distance from the origin to the data point is proportional to citation share. SOURCE: D. A. King. “The Scientific Impact of Nations.” Nature 430(2004):311- 316. Data are from citations in ISI Thompson. tion—funded primarily by the national sports lottery—to enhance public understanding, knowledge, and acceptance of science and engineering throughout the nation.19 Similarly, the government uses contests and prizes specifically to stimulate the scientific enterprise and public appre- ciation of scientific knowledge. Other nations also are spending more on higher education and provid- ing incentives for students to study science and engineering. To attract the best graduate students from around the world, universities in Japan, Swit- zerland, and elsewhere are offering science and engineering courses in En- glish. In the 1990s, both China and Japan increased the number of students pursuing science and engineering degrees, and there was steady growth in South Korea.20 Some consequences of this new global science and engineering ac- tivity are already apparent—not only in manufacturing but also in ser- vices. India’s software services exports rose from essentially zero in 1993 to about $10 billion in 2002.21 In broader terms, the US share of global 19Korean Ministry of Science and Engineering (MOST). Available at: http://www.most. go.kr/most/english/link_2.jsp. 20National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. P. 2-35. 21S. S. Athreye. “The Indian Software Industry.” Carnegie Mellon Software Industry Center Working Paper 03-04. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, October 2003.

OCR for page 68
77 HOW IS AMERICA DOING NOW IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY? 40,000 30,000 20,000 Millions of Dollars 10,000 0 –10,000 –20,000 –30,000 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 FIGURE 3-5 United States trade balance for high-technology products, in millions of dollars, 1990-2003. SOURCE: Task Force on the Future of American Innovation based on data from US Census Bureau Foreign Trade Statistics, U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services. Compiled by the American Psychological Society Office of Public Affairs. exports has fallen in the past 20 years from 30 to 17%, while the share for emerging countries in Asia grew from 7 to 27%.22 The United States now has a negative trade balance even for high-technology products (Fig- ure 3-5). That deficit raises concern about our competitive ability in important areas of technology.23 Although US scientists and engineers still lead the world in publishing results, new trends emerge from close examination of the data. From 1988 to 2001, world publishing in science and engineering increased by almost 40%,24 but most of that increase came from Western Europe, Japan, and several emerging East Asian nations (South Korea, China, Singapore, and Taiwan). US publication in science and engineering has remained essen- 22For 2004, the dollar value of high-technology imports was $560 billion; the value of high- technology exports was $511 billion. 23D. R. Francis. “U.S. Runs a High-Tech Trade Gap.” Christian Science Monitor 96(131) (June 2, 2004):1-1. 24National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. Chapter 5.

OCR for page 68
78 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM tially constant since 1992.25 Since 1997, researchers in the 15 EU countries have published more papers than have their US counterparts, and the gap in citations between the United States and other countries has narrowed steadily.26 The global increase in the production of scientific knowledge eventually benefits all countries. Yet trends in publication could be a trou- bling bellwether about our competitive position in the global science community. INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION FOR TALENT The graduate education of our scientists and engineers largely follows an apprenticeship model. Graduate students and postdoctoral scholars gain direct experience under the guidance of veteran researchers. The important link between graduate education and research that has been forged through a combination of research assistantships, fellowships, and traineeships has been tremendously beneficial to students and researchers and is a critical component of our success in the last half-century. One measure of other nations’ successful adaptation of the US model is doctoral production, which increased rapidly around the world but most notably in China and South Korea (Figure 3-6). In South Korea, doctorate production rose from 128 in 1975 to 2,865 in 2001. In China, doctorate production was essentially zero until 1985, but 15 years later, 7,304 doc- torates were conferred. In 1975, the United States conferred 59% of the world’s doctoral degrees in science and engineering; by 2001, our share had fallen to 41%. China’s 2001 portion was 12%.27 Another challenge for US research institutions is to attract the over- seas students on whose talents the nation depends. The US research enter- prise, especially at the graduate and postdoctoral levels, has benefited from the work of foreign visitors and immigrants. They came first from Eu- rope, fleeing fascism, and more recently they have come from China, In- dia, and the former Soviet Union, seeking better education and more eco- nomic opportunity. International students account for nearly half the US doctorates awarded in engineering and computer science28 (Figure 3-7). Similarly, more than 35% of US engineering and computer science univer- sity faculty are foreign-born.29 According to US Census data from 2000, 25Ibid., Table 5-30. 26D. A. King. “The Scientific Impact of Nations.” Nature 430(6997)(July 15, 2004):311- 316. 27National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. Appendix Table 2-38. 28National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. 29Ibid.

OCR for page 68
96 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM Grade 4 SCALE SCORE 500 238 240 235* 226* 230 224* 224* 220 220* 210 213* 0 ’90 ’92 ’96 ’00 ’03 ’05 YEAR PERCENT 100 36 32* 24* 21* 21* 18* 13* 50* 59* 64* 63* 65* 77* 80 0 ’90 ’92 ’96 ’00 ’03 ’05 YEAR Grade 8 SCALE SCORE 500 279 278* 280 273* 272* 270 270* 268* 260 263* 250 0 ’00 ’03 ’05 ’90 ’92 ’96 YEAR PERCENT 100 30 29* 26* 24* 23* 21* 15* 52* 58* 62* 61* 63* 68* 69 0 ’90 ’92 ’96 ’00 ’03 ’05 YEAR 0 *Significantly different from 2005. SOURCE: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990-2005 Mathematics Assessments. At or above Accommodations not permitted Proficient Accommodations permitted At or above Basic Accommodations Accommodations not permitted permitted FIGURE 3-14 Average scale NAEP scores and achievement-level results in math- ematics, grades 4 and 8: various years, 1990-2005. SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/.

OCR for page 68
97 HOW IS AMERICA DOING NOW IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY? HOW TO READ THESE FIGURES • The italicized percentages to the right of the shaded bars represent the percentages of students at or above Basic and Proficient. • The percentages in the shaded bars represent the percentages of students within each achievement level. Significantly different from 2000. NOTE: Percentages within each science achievement-level range may not add to 100, or to the exact percentage at or above achievement levels, due to rounding. SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 and 2000 Science Assessments. FIGURE 3-15 Percentage of students within and at or above achievement levels in science, grades 4, 8, and 12, 1996 and 2000. SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/. subject in college or are not certified to teach it. The situation is worse for low-income students: 70% of their middle school mathematics teachers majored in some other subject in college. Meanwhile, an examination of curricula reveals that middle school mathematics and science courses lack focus, cover too many topics, repeat material, and are implemented inconsistently. That could be changing, at

OCR for page 68
98 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM least in part because of new science and mathematics teaching and learning standards that emphasize inquiry and detailed study of fewer topics. Another major challenge—and opportunity—has been the diversity of the student population and the large variation in quality of education be- tween schools and districts, particularly between suburban, urban, and ru- ral schools. Some schools produce students who consistently score at the top of national and international tests; while others consistently score at the bottom. Furthermore, accelerated mathematics and science courses are less frequently offered in rural and city schools than in suburban ones. How to achieve an equitable distribution of funding and high-quality teaching should be a top-priority issue for the United States. It is an issue that is exacerbated by the existence of almost 15,000 school districts, each con- taining an average of six schools. Student Interest in Science and Engineering Careers The United States ranks 16 of 17 nations in the proportion of 24-year- olds who earn degrees in natural sciences or engineering as opposed to other majors (Figure 3-16A) and 20 of 24 nations when looking at all 24- year-olds (Figure 3-16B).54 The number of bachelor’s degrees awarded in the United States fluctuates greatly (see Figure 3-17). About 30% of students entering college in the United States (more than 95% of them US citizens or permanent residents) intend to major in science or engineering. That proportion has remained fairly constant over the past 20 years. However, undergraduate programs in those disciplines report the lowest retention rates among all academic disciplines, and very few stu- dents transfer into these fields from others. Throughout the 1990s, fewer than half of undergraduate students who entered college intending to earn a science or engineering major completed a degree in one of those subjects.55 Undergraduates who opt out of those programs by switching majors are 54National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. Appendix Table 2-23 places the following countries ahead of the United States: Finland (13.2), Hungary (11.9), France (11.2), Taiwan (11.1), South Korea (10.9), United Kingdom (10.7), Sweden (9.5), Australia (9.3), Ireland (8.5), Rus- sia (8.5), Spain (8.1), Japan (8.0), New Zealand (8.0), Netherlands (6.8), Canada (6.7), Lithuania (6.7), Switzerland (6.5), Germany (6.4), Latvia (6.4), Slovakia (6.3), Georgia (5.9), Italy (5.9), and Israel (5.8). 55L. K. Berkner, S. Cuccaro-Alamin, and A. C. McCormick. Descriptive Summary of 1989-90 Beginning Postsecondary Students: 5 Years Later with an Essay on Postsecondary Persistence and Attainment. NCES 96155. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1996; T. Smith. The Retention and Graduation Rates of 1993-1999 Entering Science, Math- ematics, Engineering, and Technology Majors in 175 Colleges and Universities. Norman, OK: Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis, University of Oklahoma, 2001.

OCR for page 68
99 HOW IS AMERICA DOING NOW IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY? Percent 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Singapore (1995) China (2001) France South Korea Finland Taiwan (2001) Ireland Iran Italy Mexico United Kingdom (2001) Germany (2001) Japan (2001) Israel Thailand (1995) United States Sweden FIGURE 3-16A Percentage of 24-year-olds with first university degrees in the natural sciences or engineering, relative to all first university degree recipients, in 2000 or most recent year available. SOURCE: Analysis conducted by the Association of American Universities. 2006. National Defense Education and Innovation Initiative based on data from Appendix Table 2-35 in National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. often among the most highly qualified college entrants,56 and they are dis- proportionately women and students of color. The implication is that po- tential science or engineering majors become discouraged well before they can join the workforce.57 56S. Tobias. They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different. Stalking the Second Tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation, 1990; E. Seymour and N. Hewitt. Talking About Leaving: Why Un- dergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997; M. W. Ohland, G. Zhang, B. Thorndyke, and T. J. Anderson. Grade-Point Average, Changes of Major, and Majors Selected by Students Leaving Engineering. 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Session T1G:12-17, 2004. 57M. F. Fox and P. Stephan. “Careers of Young Scientists: Preferences, Prospects, and Real- ity by Gender and Field.” Social Studies of Science 31(2001):109-122; D. L. Tan. Majors in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Gender and Ethnic Differences in Persis- tence and Graduation. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma, 2002. Available at: http:// www.ou.edu/education/csar/literature/tan_paper3.pdf; Building Engineering and Science Tal- ent (BEST). The Talent Imperative: Diversifying America’s Science and Engineering Workforce. San Diego: BEST, 2004; G. D. Heyman, B. Martyna, and S. Bhatia. “Gender and Achieve- ment-related Beliefs Among Engineering Students.” Journal of Women and Minorities in Sci- ence and Engineering 8(2002):33-45.

OCR for page 68
100 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM Finland France Taiwan South Korea United Kingdom Sweden Australia Ireland Spain Japan New Zealand Netherlands Canada Switzerland Georgia Italy Iceland Israel Germany United States Kyrgyzstan Norway Czech Republic Belgium 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Percent FIGURE 3-16B Percentage of 24-year-olds with first university degrees in the natural sciences or engineering relative to all 24-year-olds, in 2000 or most recent year available. NOTE: Natural sciences and engineering include the physical, biological, agricul- tural, computer, and mathematical sciences and engineering. SOURCE: National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004.

OCR for page 68
101 HOW IS AMERICA DOING NOW IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY? 130,000 120,000 Social Sciences 110,000 100,000 90,000 Biological/Agricultural Sciences Number of Degrees 80,000 Engineering 70,000 60,000 50,000 Psychology 40,000 Computer Physical/ 30,000 Sciences Geosciences 20,000 Mathematics 10,000 0 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2000 FIGURE 3-17 Science and engineering bachelor’s degrees, by field: selected years, 1977-2000. NOTES: Geosciences include earth, atmosphere, and ocean sciences. Degree produc- tion for many science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields increased and computer science decreased in 2001. See graphs in the Attracting the Most Able US Students to Science and Engineering paper located in Appendix D. SOURCE: National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. Appendix Table 2-23.

OCR for page 68
102 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM Graduate school enrollments in science and engineering in the United States have been relatively stable since 1993, at 22-26% of the total enroll- ment. More women and under represented minorities participate than has been the case in the past, but a relative decline in the enrollment of US whites and males in the late 1990s has been reversed only since 2001.58 Indeed, for the past 15 years, growth in the number of doctorates awarded is attributable primarily to the increased number of international students. Attrition is generally lower in the doctoral programs than among under- graduates in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, but doc- toral programs in the sciences nonetheless report dropout rates from 24 to 67%, depending on the discipline.59 If the primary objective is to maintain excellence, a major challenge is to determine how to continue to attract the best international students and still encourage the best domestic students to enter the programs—and to remain in them. Student interest in research careers is dampened by several factors. First, there are important prerequisites for science and engineering study. Stu- dents who choose not to or are unable to finish algebra 1 before 9th-grade— which is needed for them to proceed in high school to geometry, algebra 2, trigonometry, and precalculus—effectively shut themselves out of careers in the sciences. In contrast, the decision to pursue a career in law or business typically can wait until the junior or senior year of college, when students begin to commit to postgraduate entrance examinations. Science and engineering education has a unique hierarchical nature that requires academic preparation for advanced study to begin in middle school. Only recently have US schools begun to require algebra in the 8th-grade curriculum. The good news is that more schools are now offering integrated science curricula and more districts are working to coordinate curricula for grades 7–12.60 For those students who do wish to pursue science and engineering, there are further challenges. Introductory science courses can function as “gate- keepers” that intentionally foster competition and encourage the best stu- 58National Science Foundation. Graduate Enrollment Increases in Science and Engineering Fields, Especially in Engineering and Computer Sciences. NSF 03-315. Arlington, VA: Na- tional Science Foundation, 2003. 59Council of Graduate Schools. “Ph.D. Completion and Attrition: Policy, Numbers, Leader- ship, and Next Steps.” 2004. The Council of Graduate Schools’ PhD Completion Project’s goal is to improve completion and attrition rates of doctoral candidates. This 3-year project had provided funding to 21 major universities to create intervention strategies and pilot projects and to evaluate the impact of these projects on doctoral completion rates and attrition patterns. 60National Research Council. Learning and Understanding: Improving Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in US High Schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002.

OCR for page 68
103 HOW IS AMERICA DOING NOW IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY? dents to continue, but in so doing they also can discourage highly qualified students who could succeed if they were given enough support in the early days of their undergraduate experience. Beyond the prospect of difficult and lengthy undergraduate and gradu- ate study and postdoctoral requirements, career prospects can be tenuous. At a general level, news about companies that send jobs overseas can foster doubt about the domestic science and engineering job market. Graduate students are sometimes discouraged by a perceived mismatch between edu- cation and employment prospects in the academic sector. The number of tenured academic positions is decreasing, and an increasing majority of those with doctorates in science or engineering now work outside of academia. Doctoral training, however, still typically assumes students will work in universities and often does not prepare graduates for other ca- reers.61 Finally, it is harder to stay current in science and engineering than it is to keep up with developments in many other fields. Addressing the issues of effective lifelong training, time-to-degree, attractive career options, and appropriate type and amount of financial support are all critical to recruit- ing and retaining students at all levels. Where are the top US students going, if not into science and engineer- ing? They do not appear to be headed in large numbers to law school or medical school, where enrollments also have been flat or declining. Some seem attracted to MBA programs, which grew by about one-third during the 1990s. In the 1990s, many science and engineering graduates entered the workforce directly after college, lured by the booming economy. Then, as the bubble deflated in the early part of the present decade, some returned to graduate school. A larger portion of the current crop of science and engineering graduates seems to be interested in graduate school.62 In 2003, enrollment in graduate science and engineering programs reached an all- time high, gaining 4% over 2002 and 9% over 1993, the previous peak year. Increasingly, the new graduate students are US citizens or permanent residents—67% in 2003 compared with 60% in 200063—and their pros- pects seem good: In 2001, the share of top US citizen scorers on the Gradu- 61NAS/NAE/IOM. Reshaping Graduate Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995; National Research Council. Assessing Research-Doctorate Programs: A Method- ology Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003. 62W. Zumeta and J. S. Raveling. The Best and the Brightest for Science: Is There a Problem Here? In M. P. Feldman and A. N. Link, eds. Innovation Policy in the Knowledge-Based Economy. Boston: Klewer Academic Publishers, 2001. Pp. 121-161. 63National Science Foundation. Graduate Enrollment in Science and Engineering Programs Up in 2003, but Declines for First-Time Foreign Students. NSF 05-317. Arlington, VA: Na- tional Science Foundation, 2005.

OCR for page 68
104 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM ate Record Exam quantitative scale (above 750) heading to graduate school in the natural sciences and engineering was 31% percent higher than in 1998. That group had declined by 21% in the previous 6 years.64 There is still ample reason for concern about the future. A number of analysts expect to see a leveling off of the number of US-born students in graduate programs. If the number of foreign-born graduate students de- creases as well, absent some substantive intervention, the nation could have difficulty meeting its need for scientists and engineers. BALANCING SECURITY AND OPENNESS Science thrives on the open exchange of information, on collaboration, and on the opportunity to build on previous work. The United States gained and maintained its preeminence in science and engineering in part by em- bracing the values of openness and by welcoming students and researchers from all parts of the world to America’s shores. Openness has never been unqualified, of course, and the nation actively seeks to prevent its adversar- ies from acquiring scientific information and technology that could be used to do us harm. Scientists and engineers are citizens too, and those commu- nities recognize both their responsibility and their opportunity to help pro- tect the United States, as they have in the past. This has been done by harnessing the best science and engineering to help counter terrorism and other national security threats, even though that could mean accepting some limitations on research and its dissemination.65 But now concerns are growing that some measures put in place in the wake of September 11, 2001, seeking to increase homeland security, will be ineffective at best and could in fact hamper US economic competitiveness and prosperity.66 New visa restrictions have had the unintended consequence of discouraging talented foreign students and scholars from coming here to work, study, or participate in international collaborations. Fortunately, the federal agencies responsible for these restrictions have recently implemented changes.67 Of principal concern now are other forms of disincentive: 64W. Zumeta and J. S. Raveling. “The Market for PhD Scientists: Discouraging the Best and Brightest? Discouraging All?” AAAS Symposium, February 16, 2004. Press release available at: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-02/uow-rsl021304.php. 65See, for example, National Research Council. Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Sci- ence and Technology in Countering Terrorism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2002. 66Letter from the Presidents of the National Academies to Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, June 24, 2005. Available at: http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/ 20050624.html. 67The National Academies. Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005. Pp. 56-57.

OCR for page 68
105 HOW IS AMERICA DOING NOW IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY? • Expansion of the restrictions on “deemed exports,” the passing of tech- nical information to foreigners in the United States that requires a formal ex- port license, is expected to cover a much wider range of university and industry settings.68 Companies that rely on the international members of their R&D teams and university laboratories staffed by foreign graduate students and schol- ars could find their work significantly hampered by the new restrictions. • Expanded or new categories of “sensitive but unclassified” informa- tion could restrict publication or other forms of dissemination. The new rules have been proposed or implemented even though many of the lists of what is to be controlled are sufficiently vague or obsolete that it could be difficult to ascertain compliance.69 The result could be to force researchers to err on the side of caution and thus substantially impede the flow of scientific information. Both approaches could undermine the protections for fundamental re- search established in National Security Decision Directive 189 (NSDD-189), the Reagan Administration’s 1985 executive order declaring that publicly funded research, such as that conducted in universities and laboratories, should “to the maximum extent possible” be unrestricted.70 Where restric- tion is considered necessary, the control mechanism should be formal clas- sification: “No restrictions may be placed upon the conduct or reporting of federally-funded fundamental research that has not received national secu- rity classification, except as provided in applicable U.S. statutes.” The NSDD-189 policy remains in force and has been reaffirmed by senior offi- cials of the current administration, but it appears to be at odds with other policy developments and some recent practices. 68In 2000, Congress mandated annual reports by the Office of Inspector General (IG) on the transfer of militarily sensitive technology to countries and entities of concern; the 2004 reports focused on deemed exports. The individual agency IG reports and a joint interagency report concluded that enforcement of deemed-export regulations had been ineffective; most of the agency reports recommended particular regulatory remedies. 69Center for Strategic and International Studies. Security Controls on Scientific Information and the Conduct of Scientific Research. Washington, DC: CSIS, June 2005. 70Fundamental research is defined as “basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific commu- nity, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, pro- duction and product utilization, the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons.” National Security Decision Directive 189, September 21, 1985. Available at: http://www.aau.edu/research/ITAR-NSDD189.html.

OCR for page 68
106 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM CONCLUSION Although the United States continues to possess the world’s strongest science and engineering enterprise, its position is jeopardized both by evolv- ing weakness at home and by growing strength abroad.71 Because our eco- nomic, military, and cultural well-being depends on continued science and engineering leadership, the nation faces a compelling call to action. The United States has responded energetically to challenges of such magnitude in the past: • Early in the 20th century, we determined to provide free education to all, ensuring a populace that was ready for the economic growth that followed World War II. • The GI Bill eased the return of World War II veterans to civilian life and established postsecondary education as the fuel for the postwar economy. • The Soviet space program spurred a national commitment to science education and research. The positive effects are seen to this day—for ex- ample, in much of our system of graduate education. • The decline of the US semiconductor manufacturing industry in the middle 1980s was met with SEMATECH, the government–industry consor- tium credited by many with stimulating the resurgence of that industry. Today’s challenges are even more diffuse and more complex than many of the challenges we have confronted in our past. Research, innovation, and economic competition are worldwide, and the nation’s attention, unlike that of many competitors, is not focused on the importance of its science and engineering enterprise. If the United States is to retain its edge in the technology-based industries that generate innovation, quality jobs, and high wages, we must act to broker a new, collaborative understanding among the sectors that sustain our knowledge-based economy—industry, academe, and government—and we must do so promptly. 71Note that some do not believe this is the case. See Box 3-2.