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 75
Supplement 1 International Aspects of Physics: The U.S. Position in the World Community In the summaries of the progress in physics made in the past decade, and of the challenges and opportunities in physics that lie ahead, the Physics Survey has made little reference to the location of the research. Many of the advances have occurred abroad, and there is every reason to expect that physics abroad will continue to flourish. Because physics is truly international, it is important for us to understand the current position of the United States in the world physics community. It is our intent to provide a perspective on our position with respect to the European community and to the Soviet Union and Japan, to discuss the increasingly important international aspects of science, and to review our contri- butions to the education and training of foreign scientists, especially those from less-developed nations. No nation that aspires to a continuing leadership role in the political, cultural, and economic arenas of the world can forgo the effort to mount forefront research programs in physics, a discipline central to the sciences and a vital source of new technology. Nevertheless, the spiraling costs of research and limitations on the available resources preclude our achieving absolute leadership in all fields. Thus, while we sustain important research programs and launch new ones, we must also strengthen areas of international cooper- ation between scientists. Central to this effort is our responsibility to encourage the free flow of information and the unimpeded movement of scientists across national boundaries. In the years immediately following World War II, the United States found itself in a strong position with respect to science abroad, particularly in physics. Under the threat of war during the previous decade, many physi- cists—some very distinguished had emigrated to the United States. The trend continued unabated through the 1940s. The war devastated the manpower and the infrastructure of science in Western Europe, the Soviet Union, and Jap^an. One 75
OCR for page 76
76 PHYSICS THROUGH THE 1990s: AN OVERVIEW consequence of this was a scientific isolation abroad that persisted into the postwar period. In the United States, however, the war led to greater recognition of the importance of physics, primarily because of the profound changes wrought by the harnessing of nuclear fission for weapons, for energy production, and for research. The disparity between the ample resources and support for science in this nation and those available abroad provided an enormous advantage for the development of physics in the United States in the two decades following the war. Throughout this period, Western Europe, the Soviet Union, and Japan were still in a recovery phase. A striking indication of the dominant position that the United States attained in world science during these two decades is that English became the accepted language of scientific communication. It is now the standard language at interna- tional conferences, and it is the language in which many major foreign scientific journals are now published. More than four decades have elapsed since World War II, and it is now evident that the other major industrial nations of the world, particularly West Germany, France, Japan, and the Soviet Union, have resumed their rightful places as leaders in the international scientific community. As their economies prospered, these nations invested in education, experimental facilities, and new institutes that, in many cases, exceeded in quality and size the comparable efforts being made here. There is every reason to believe that these nations will continue to aspire to leadership in physics. Our standing in the international physics community a decade hence will depend in large measure on the priorities we set for ourselves today and on the investment that this nation makes in science and science education in the years ahead. EXPENDITURES FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD General Trends Comparisons of support for basic physics research in this country and abroad are difficult to make because, with some exceptions, data from other countries are either not available or are not separated from general research and development (R&D) expenditures. Nevertheless, the R&D expenditures provide a qualitative indication of trends that apply across all areas of science. One measure of the relative R&D expenditures for various countries for the years 1961-1983 is obtained by normalizing these expenditures as a percentage of the gross national product (GNP). (See Figure S1. 1. Note that Figure S1.1 includes defense and space as well as civilian R&D.) The United States outspent France, West Germany, and Japan combined ($48 billion to $46.3 billion) in the late 1970s. However, the fraction of the GNP devoted to R&D here compared with that of West Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union declined during this period. A possibly more useful way to identify the trends for support of basic science is to compare the estimated ratio of civilian R&D expenditures to GNP; these are shown in Figure S1.2 for selected countries. It is clear that West Germany and Japan our two most successful economic competitors not only surpass the United States but they are rapidly increas-
OCR for page 77
INTERNA TI ONA L A SPECTS OF PH YSI CS 77 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 By c: 2.0 UJ . · ~ — I / U.S.S.R. United · ... Kingdom \ United States \ / - · ~x ,- j^' /~' 1 .5 1.0 0.5 o - ~ J France /Japan / _, West Germany 1 1 961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 YEAR FIGURE Sl.1 National expenditures for performance of R&D as a percentage of GNP by country. ing their lead by encouraging R&D to grow faster than their national econo- mies. A substantially larger fraction of civilian R&D is devoted to energy in Western Europe and Japan, presumably because of their higher energy costs and almost total dependence on foreign oil and coal. One must exercise care in drawing what might seem obvious conclusions from these data. No one knows what, if there is one, is the optimum ratio of expenditures for R&D to GNP, nor can one readily attribute notable research accomplishments or successful technological applications to absolute expen-
OCR for page 78
78 PHYSICS THROUGH THE I990s: AN OVERVIEW 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 By lo a: LL Con 1.6 1.4 1 .2 1.0 West Germany / / \ // ~_i . , , _~ ~ , I' \' - / / / /~ / Japan ,~ ~ .1 United Kingdom ./ United statesman mine/ _ f France ol 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1970 1972 1 974 1 976 1978 1 980 1982 1 984 \ YEAR FIGURE Sl.2 Estimated ratio of "civilian" R&D expendi- tures to GNP for selected countries.
OCR for page 79
INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF PHYSICS 79 diture levels. Optimal support is linked to the effective use of available sources at one's command, the supply of properly trained scientists and engineers, a wise and responsive science policy, and, most important, the challenges and opportunities that fundamentally motivate the expenditures. Although time lags of 5 to 10 years are not uncommon between R&D expenditures and research and technological realizations, the general trends of the past two decades are clear. They indicate a rapidly growing base of support in Western Europe and Japan, relative to our own, which portrays an increasingly competitive posture on their part in all aspects of science and technology and, one can infer, in their economic development. Trends in Specific Areas of Physics Nuclear physics and elementary-particle physics are two areas in which one can meaningfully compare research expenditures in the United States with those in other countries. In the United States, essentially all funding for research in these two fields comes from the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) and goes toward the support of national and university-based laboratories and university user groups. Thus, relatively precise information is available from primary funding sources. Abroad, likewise, nearly all funding for research in nuclear and elementary- particle physics is of direct governmental origin. Comparisons of absolute expenditures can be misleading because they do not take into account such factors as the relative numbers of participating scientists and differing rates of inflation. Again, it is probably more relevant to normalize expenditures to the GNP or the per capita GNP. For basic nuclear research, this comparison for Canada, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom is shown in Figure S1.3 for 1982. As a percentage of the GNP, the U.S. investment in nuclear research is lower than all but that of the United Kingdom, and significantly less than that of those nations with a per capita GNP in excess of $8000 a year. These figures are consistent with the observations of American physicists who frequently find that nuclear research laboratories abroad are better equipped and staffed than those at home. A study has been made of the comparative total funding history for elementary-particle physics as a percentage of the GNP in Western Europe, Japan, and the United States (see Figure S1.4~. The commitment of the 12 member nations to the support of Conseil European de Recherche Nucleaire (CERN) is demonstrated by the fact that their expenditures have remained roughly constant, whereas ours noticeably declined during the 1970s. Perhaps most striking is the rate of growth of the Japanese effort in this field during this decade; its expenditure/GNP ratio is rapidly approaching our own. The relative trends in support of atomic, molecular, and optical (AMO) physics and in condensed-matter (CM) physics are more difficult to quantify because of the diverse nature of these fields and their sources of funds. In AMO physics, a marked decline in basic research support at American universities occurred when the Department of Defense (DOD) agencies with- drew much of their support in the early 1970s. In subsequent years little of the
OCR for page 80
80 PHYSICS THROUGH THE I990s: AN OVERVIEW lost support was made up for by other agencies. At the same time, these areas were vigorously supported in Europe, particularly in West Germany and France. Consequently, the strength of the European effort relative to ours has grown significantly over the past decade. Condensed-matter physics is an area of the much broader field of materials science. There is a direct interplay between basic and applied research in this field, with significant support coming from both the private and governmental sectors. The United States has held a commanding lead in this field, in no small part owing to the large and scientifically impressive efforts of industrial research laboratories, notably Bell and IBM. Although no comparable indus- tr~al research laboratories exist abroad, increasing emphasis is being placed on materials science, including CM physics, in nationally funded laboratories in Japan and Western Europe. As an example, a major effort in surface science is being mounted at the kernforschungsanlage in Julich, West Germany, and another in high magnetic fields at the Institute for Solid State Physics in Tokyo. There has been a slow growth in the support base for materials science in the United States, but it is widely perceived to fall short of the rate at which it has grown in Western Europe and Japan. 300 ~ z 111 ~ A 0 c: ~ _ ~ Z 0 200 6 m - z LL ~ en 100 en Al > cn z cue >- oo I o 0 2 4 6 8 10 ~11 lN Lo, Ed 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 12 14 16 1981 GNP PER INHABITANT (thousands of U.S. $) FIGURE S1.3 Comparison of investment in basic nuclear research in other countries with that of the United States for 1982. "Other countries" are.Italy, the United Kingdom, Belgium, The Netherlands, West Germany, Switzerland, and Canada.
OCR for page 81
INTERNA TIONAL ASPECTS OF PHYSICS 81 0.030 0.024 cat Z 0.018 11 o of 111 Cal 0.012 0.006 _ \ _'' At. - \ Western Europe _ - ol~ 1 1966 ~ I I I ~ U.S.A. Jam / - 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 YEAR FIGURE S1.4 Funding for high-energy physics as a percentage of the GNP. THE U.S. POSITION IN BASIC PHYSICS RESEARCH In attempting to assess the standing of the United States in physics research relative to other countries, one must first establish a set of criteria by which reasonable comparisons can be made. One test might be the quantity of research that has been produced per year during the past decade, which can be reasonably reliably measured by the total number of research publications. An assessment of quality could be derived from the distribution of international prize awards, such as the Nobel Prize in Physics. Another measure, more controversial, would be to try to identify the most significant advances in recent years in each of the subdiscipline areas. Lastly, a concrete indication of our position in the world physics community can be obtained by considering the major research centers that have been created and the contemplated plans for new ones, both here and abroad. This aspect the "physical plant" in
OCR for page 82
82 PHYSICS THROUGH THE 1990s: AN OVERVIEW which a substantial portion of the research is pursued in fields such as elementary-particle, nuclear, and plasma physics, is documented in the panel reports for the various subfields, and we will not pursue the matter further here. However, it must be realized that the successes of the past and the success that we can hope for in the future are intimately tied to the existence of forefront research facilities, especially in the fields just mentioned. The most easily measured factor is the number of publications. All signifi- cant research is published in the journals of the physics societies in the various countries, or in specialty journals produced by the leading commercial scien- tific publishers. In the years 1973 through 1980, the percentage~of all physics publications worldwide that originated in the United States was as follows*: Year 1973 1975 1977 1978 1979 1980 % 33 32 30 31 30 30 Some clarifying remarks concerning these figures are needed. First, multiple authorship of a single publication often results from collaborations that are international in nature. In experimental elementary-particle physics, this is the rule rather than the exception, and it is becoming increasingly true in other areas of physics as well. Hence, attaching a quantitative measure based on national origins to particular research publications involves some ambiguity. With this disclaimer, it is nevertheless significant to note that the overall percentage of the research publications in physics that originated in the United States is more remarkable for its size and relative constancy than it is for the slight decline that occurred during the past decade (33 percent in 1973 to 30 percent in 1980~. That this is the case, despite the constantly growing proportionate investment being made abroad in R&D relative to our own, attests to the 5- to 10-year lag in realization of the fruits of research invest- ments. It should also be noted that the relative production of our physics research over the same period roughly parallels that in other scientific fields such as chemistry and biology. Less easily measured is the quality of research. Originality, the depth of the discovery, and the probable effect on the future course of scientific thought are some of the qualities that we should consider in judging the importance of a particular research advance. In terms of awards given to recognize major breakthroughs in physics, none is more highly regarded than the Nobel Prize awarded annually by the Swedish Academy of Sciences. The recipients of the Nobel Prize in Physics in the past two decades, along with their countries of residence, are shown in Table S1.1. It is clear that the United States has done extremely well in terms of number of recipients of this distinguished award. At the same time, we must be aware that recognition was bestowed from 5 to 20 years after the work was completed. Furthermore, in the case of experimental research, the facilities needed to accomplish the prized research were often planned and funded years before execution. Thus pride in our recent achieve- ments is no reason for complacency with respect to the future. Trying to judge what are thought to be the most significant developments in * Science Indicators, 1982; National Science Board (NSF), 1983.
OCR for page 83
INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF PHYSICS 83 TABLE S1.1 Recipients of the Nobel Prize in Physics (1963-1985) 1963 M. Goeppert-Mayer U.S.A. J. H. D. Jensen Federal Republic of Germany E. P. Wigner U.S.A. 1964 N. G. Basov U.S.S.R. A. M. Prokhorov U.S.S.R. C. H. Townes U.S.A. 1965 R. P. Feynman U.S.A. J. S. Schwinger U.S.A. S. Tomonaga Japan 1966 A. Kastler France 1967 H. A. Bethe U.S.A. 1968 L. W. Alvarez U.S.A. 1969 M. Gell-Mann U.S.A. 1970 L. Neel France H. Alfven Sweden 1971 D. Gabor Great Britain 1972 J. Bardeen U.S.A. L. N. Cooper U.S.A. J. R. Schrieffer U.S.A. 1973 I. Giaever U.S.A. L. Esaki Japan B. D. Josephson Great Britain 1974 M. Ryle Great Britain A. Hewish Great Britain 1975 J. Rainwater U.S.A. B. Mottelson Denmark A. Bohr Denmark 1976 B. Richter U.S.A. S. C. C. Ting U.S.A. 1977 J. H. Van Vleck U.S.A. P. W. Anderson U.S.A. N. F. Mott Great Britain 1978 P. Kapitsa U.S.S.R. A. Penzias U.S.A. R. Wilson U.S.A. 1979 S. Weinberg U.S.A. S. L. Glashow U.S.A. A. Salam Pakistan 1980 J. W. Cronin U.S.A. V. L. Fitch U.S.A. 1981 N. Bloembergen U.S.A. A. Schawlow U.S.A K. M. Siegbahn Sweden 1982 K. G. Wilson U.S.A. 1983 S. Chandrasekhar U.S.A. W. A. Fowler U.S.A. 1984 C. Rubbia CERN (Italy) S. van der Meer CERN (The Netherlands) 1985 K. von Klitzing Federal Republic of Germany
OCR for page 84
84 PHYSICS THROUGH THE 1990s: AN OVERVIEW the various subfields of physics in recent times is a difficult task. Here one comes closer to the forefront, and the influence of the discoveries is, in some cases, yet to be realized. Taste and style, the numbers of researchers involved in the work in particular areas, and the relative merits of different approaches to the same problem, all play a role in any attempt to judge the significance of research. If we consider just two fields- elementary-particle physics and condensed- matter physics—we might hope to find a reasonable consensus as to which are the most significant developments in the past decade. For example, in particle theory one might number the following among the 10 important achievements: 1. Asymptotic freedom 2. Grand Unified Theories of weak, electromagnetic, and strong interac- tions 3. Monopole solutions of gauge theory equations 4. Supersymmetry 5. Generation of baryon number asymmetry 6. Inflationary universe 7. Bag models of hadrons 8. Semiclassical methods in field theory 9. Lattice gauge theory 10. Kobayashi-Maskawa model of CP violation All but 3, 4, and 10 originated in work begun in the United States. For the past decade, any listing of major experimental advances in elemen- tary-particle physics would include Discovery and study of the charm quark at SLAC and BNL (U.S.) 2. Discovery of the ~ lepton at SLAC (U.S.) 3. Discovery of parity-violating neutral currents in electron-proton scatter- ing at SLAC (U.S.) 4. Discovery of gluon jets at DESY (West Germany) 5. Discovery of the bottom quark at FNL (U.S.) 6. Study of the bottom quark at Cornell (U.S.) and DESY (West Germany) 7. Most recent discovery of the W and Z intermediate bosons at CERN (Europe) One might add to this the `'nondiscovery" of proton decay, work that was performed in the United States and is of fundamental importance to Grand Unified Theories. It must, however, be-emphasized again that, with few exceptions, all elementary-particle physics experiments are multinational in conception and execution. The possible choices for the major advances in condensed-matter physics since 1970 would make a very long list. Certainly, among them would be these: nomena 1. Renormalization group techniques and their application to critical phe- 2. Superfluid phases of 3He 3. Organic conductors 4. Localization and disorder 5. Normal and fractional quantized Hall effect 6. Charge density waves
OCR for page 85
INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF PHYSICS 85 7. Artificially structured materials 8. Chaotic phenomena in space or time 9. Effects of reduced dimensionality 10. Valence fluctuations Almost without exception, in each of the above instances research was started in the United States, or major efforts were mounted here immediately following their initiation elsewhere. These examples from the fields of elementary-particle physics and con- densed-matter physics provide convincing evidence that the United States has been in the forefront of major advances in physics during the past decade or so. There is every reason to believe that we can continue to make outstanding contributions in the years ahead, but we must be willing to invest the resources that are needed to sustain forefront research. INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION AND COOPERATION We have examined our position in the international physics community with respect to support trends and our relative standing in recent achievements. While these approaches are useful in establishing benchmarks for overall policy setting, they belie the growing needs for, and trends toward, the increasing internationalization of science. Thus, while arguing that we should maintain a competitive position in all the major subfields of physics, as is appropriate to a leading scientific and technological society, we must also recognize the need for increasing emphasis on supporting efforts aimed at international cooperation. Increased Internationalization of the Physics Community Physics, like all science, is fundamentally international; ideas and talent know no national boundaries. Because new research is disseminated at tremendous speed today, every new development in theory and experiment is quickly internationalized. Communities of interest that transcend national barriers are scattered throughout all the fields of physics. International alliances in physics are not primarily facilities-driven; funda- mentally, it is the commonality of interest that generates and nurtures them. The NSF-funded Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, California, provides an illustration. Every effort is made to bring together world leaders in the forefront areas by means of extended workshops. At any time, as many as half of the physicists in residence are from abroad. Scale and Costs In some of the forefront areas of physics, the facilities and instrumentation required are so costly as to be beyond the resources of all but the largest and wealthiest nations. Clearly, the accelerators of elementary-particle physics and nuclear physics fall into this category, but so do the tokamaks used in fusion research in plasma physics and the neutron-scattering and synchrotron- radiation facilities used in condensed-matter physics. The most successful example of international collaboration in physics is CERN the high-energy
OCR for page 86
86 PHYSICS THROUGH THE 1990s: AN OVERVIEW physics facilities in Geneva, representing a 12-nation West European collabo- rative venture. CERN is an undoubted scientific success and a monument to the benefits of international collaboration. Another institution that merits recognition is the neutron research reactor facility at the Institute Laue Langevin in Grenoble, France, the largest one of its kind. It is entirely funded by France, West Germany, and Great Britain. Each of these facilities is second to none in the world, and the realization of either of them would have clearly taxed the capabilities of any one of the participating nations if they had attempted it alone. Avoiding Duplication Closely related to the issues discussed above is the question of how to use finite resources of manpower and funding most efficiently. Fusion-oriented research exemplifies this issue. All the major industrial nations have good reasons for developing a workable system to extract power from the fusion process. Fundamental research has made substantial progress in the past decade with respect to plasma confinement and heating. Each test facility, however, whether it employs magnetic or inertial confinement, represents a major investment in scientific manpower and money. The United States is engaged in a broad program, allowing for alternative fusion concepts. Never- theless, we have benefited from extensive exchanges with West European and Soviet scientists on the planning of facilities. The exchanges help to minimize duplication of effort in a field where costs are high and time needed to erect facilities is long. In elementary-particle physics there is also a growing effort to avoid duplication of research. Future accelerators are being planned to complement existing facilities in other countries, extending the range of energies and the interactions that can be probed. A true regard for the international character of science and a willingness to collaborate at the deepest level with scientists abroad who share a common interest are essential to this planning. Maintaining Breadth and Depth in Forefront Areas No nation can excel in every area of physics. From cooperative ventures with other countries, we can benefit in areas where they have special expertise or unusual facilities; and others can benefit from interactions with scientists at our institutions. Notable examples are the collaborative exchange programs between the United States and France, Japan, and Brazil. These programs are jointly sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the corresponding organizations in the affiliated nations. Such collaborations enable U.S. physi- cists to use and participate in major research with the facilities at CERN and the Institute Laue Langevin. Physicists from abroad might choose to pursue research at FNAL or SLAC. It is noteworthy that, during the single year 1980, approximately 200 foreign physicists participated in collaborative research at SLAC for periods longer than 3 months. For small nations with limited scientific manpower and other resources, the opportunity to work at a major institution, whether it be ANL, BNL, or Bell Laboratories, may be the only way that they can maintain breadth and depth in physics.
OCR for page 87
INTERNA TIONAr ASPECTS OF PHYSICS 87 The scientific, technological, and educational programs of some countries with smaller GNP are designed to attract scientific talent from the nations with larger GNP. The Netherlands, Australia, and South Africa provide examples of this type of planning. In attracting foreign scientists to their universities, they have enriched their own institutions while at the same time countering some of the loss due to their own scientists' going abroad. The United States, though not overtly seeking physicists from abroad, has nevertheless been a magnet. In addition to the outstanding scientific resources here, the international character of our scientific leadership in the post-World War II period made the United States attractive to physicists from abroad. The result was a brain drain from the Western European nations that has abated only in recent years. As those nations continue to strengthen their scientific institutions, however, the net flow of talent may well reverse itself. FREEDOM FOR SCIENTISTS AND THE FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION International cooperation presents difficulties as well as rewards (see Ener- gizing Issues in Science and Technology, 1982, NSF). For science to flourish, scientists must be free to communicate freely and to move freely. Any interference with these basic principles is a loss for science, a loss for the offending nation, and a loss for the dignity of mankind. In recent times, there has been an increasing tendency to regard certain scientific and technical information as "privileged." Attempts have been made to restrict or prevent its flow to our political adversaries by means that fall short of actual classification. The ultimate objective of such measures is to slow down the acquisition of our technology by those with whom we are currently at political odds. However, attempts to impede the dissemination of scientific information will inevitably impede our own progress. Scientific secrets are not state secrets; they are held by nature. Our adversaries are as free to try to learn them as we are, without violating national security. We all share the concern that unfriendly governments have acquired our technology at a rate that some regard as alarming. To stem this outflow, however, our government has taken or is contemplating measures that could be detrimental to the very system that has given us our lead in science and technology. It is the judgment of those who have studied this complex matter that national security is best served by a policy that stresses scientific and technical accomplishments rather than curbs on the free flow of information. (See Scientific Communication and National Security, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1982.) There will be narrow, gray areas in which restraints on dissemination will be warranted, but they should be the exception to the rule of free exchange of scientific ideas. EDUCATION OF FOREIGN PHYSICISTS IN THE UNITED STATES A major contribution that the United States makes to the world scientific and technological community, albeit a contribution often overlooked, is the edu- cation and training of foreign students in science and engineering. Data are available on the numbers of foreign students enrolled in graduate physics programs in the United States: for the academic year 1982-1983, the numbers
OCR for page 88
88 PHYSICS THROUGH THE 1990s: AN OVERVIEW and countries of origin are given in Table S1.2. Among first-year graduate students in Ph.D. programs, 885 were foreign, as opposed to 1407 U.S. citizens; hence 39 percent of our first-year Ph.D. students were from abroad. Thus foreign students now constitute a significant fraction of our graduate student population. In 1981, 26.1 percent of the doctoral degrees in physics and astronomy were awarded to foreign students. This represents a substantial increase over that of a decade earlier, when the proportion was 18.6 percent. The situation with respect to physics postdoctorates is more striking yet, particularly in recent years. From 1977 to 1982, the total number of foreign postdoctorate grew from 462 to 672, while U.S. postdoctorate declined from 907 to 652. The majority of postdoctoral physicists in the United States are now foreign. On the one hand, we are fortunate to attract this population of young scientists who play an essential role in carrying forward our research; on the other hand, the increasing reliance on foreign scientists raises serious questions about the number of U.S. students that we are training. The cost to the United States to educate foreign physicists may be roughly estimated. A yearly expenditure of approximately $15,000 to train each individual is not unreasonable, when averaged over different experimental and theoretical programs. For the approximately 3000 foreign graduate students or postdoctoral associates, the United States thus makes a $45 million annual contribution to the advanced education and training of physicists from abroad. If one also takes into account the 10 to 20 times larger enrollment in undergraduate engineering programs each of which has a substantial physics teaching component the total contribution to foreign education in physics and physics training of engineers probably exceeds $70 million each year. In considering these factors, it is important to note that the United States benefits both directly and indirectly from the flux through its institutions of foreign students and postdoctorates. Many of the young scientists from abroad are among the intellectual elite of their countries; these scientists provide strength and diversity to our programs through their mutual interactions with our physicists. During periods in which too few of our students enter physics as a profession, foreign graduate students and postdoctoral associates often elect to remain here and fill the needs of educational, industrial, and govern- mental institutions. The United States remains in many ways a nation of great and varied opportunities for scientists from abroad, particularly for those from countries with less-developed scientific establishments. Most foreign students and postdoctoral associates, however, do not remain in the United States permanently, and for that reason one might question the significant expenditures we make on their education and training. By any measure, our nation remains one of the most advanced in physics education and training. Unquestionably, then, we share the responsibility with the other developed nations to make good use of the opportunities that we can offer. The opportunities are substantial. Ninety-five percent of the world's new science is produced by only 25 percent of the countries of the world. Unless the talents of capable individuals in the underdeveloped nations can be effectively used, the bases for creating technological changes in these nations will not be realized. The education and training of scientists from less-developed.countries, with
OCR for page 89
INTERNA TIONAL ASPECTS OF PHYSICS 89 TABLE S1.2 Foreign Students Enrolled in Graduate Physics Programs in the United States (Academic Year 1982-1983) UNITED STATES 4208 LATIN AMERICA 171 Argentina 19 ASIA 1200 Brazil 21 India 335 Colombia 17 Taiwan, Hong Kong 252 Venezuela 22 China 347 Caribbean Nations 8 Korea 144 Mexico 36 Japan 44 Other Latin America 48 Far East 66 Other Asia 12 AFRICA 38 Nigeria 13 EUROPE 338 South Africa 6 Britain 41 Other Africa 19 Austria, Switzerland 16 Benelux Countries 17 CANADA 70 Germany 51 Greece 58 AUSTRALIA 17 Italy 32 Scandinavia 27 OTHER 5 Spain 8 Eastern Europe 56 Other Europe 32 MIDDLE EAST 226 Israel 13 Egypt 21 TOTAL ANSWERING 6273 North Africa 26 Iran 86 Mideastern Countnes 80 SOURCE: American Institute of Physics. a Total enrollment, including part-time students, is known to be 10,500 for 1982-1983 The number above (6273) was obtained from responses to a questionnaire sent out by AIP. the expectation that they will return home to staff their research and education institutions, is cost-effective by any measure. If we were to elect to donate the money that it costs to educate foreign physicists here, it is unlikely that we could find any other way in which it could be used as quickly and efficiently to raise the scientific and technological level in the recipient's home country. Greece is an example of a small country where a sizable effort is being made to raise the level of scientific teaching and research, with the aim of ultimately strengthening the country~s industry and economy. About three quarters of the scientists at universities and research centers there received their doctorates at
OCR for page 90
90 PHYSICS THROUGH THE 1990s: AN OVERVIEW American universities. It is difficult to imagine how the United States could have bestowed a more valuable gift. SUMMARY The United States dominated the world of physics in the decades following World War II. The nations of Western Europe, the Soviet Union, and Japan have now emerged from the protracted recovery phase for science following that war and have resumed their rightful places as leaders in the scientific community. The United States remains at the forefront in physics, as judged by scientific achievements in that period. Among the indicators are these: the United States is responsible for about 30 percent of the world's research publications in physics; the number of Nobel Prize winners has been high; analyses of major achievements in two fields, elementary-particle physics and condensed-matter physics, reveal that many originated in the United States. There is a growing need for international cooperation, and in response to this need physics is becoming increasingly internationalized. The great expense of major research facilities increasingly demands international cooperation to secure adequate support, and the expense of some programs, such as fusion, requires international cooperation to avoid duplication of effort. For international cooperation to be effective, there must be freedom to cooperate. Scientists must be free to travel and to collaborate with other scientists, and the flow of scientific information must not be hindered except for the most urgent reasons. Foreign students now constitute a significant portion of our graduate-school population in physics. In 1983, 39 percent of our entering graduate students in physics were foreign citizens, and more than half of our postdoctoral workers were born abroad. The United States makes a major contribution to the less-developed and underdeveloped countries by training scientists who will return home to teach and carry out research. It would be difficult to find any other way that is as cost-effective for raising the scientific and technological level in those coun- tries.
Representative terms from entire chapter: