United States

Be skeptical of claims about shortages of scientists

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:59:03 -0700

Description

At a Perimeter Institute-sponsored conference Science in the 21st Century, MIT professor David Kaiser reported on research he's been conducting on the training of physicists in the post-World War II period, and in particular on the discourse about the need to produce more scientists in response to international competition. Kaiser argues that there are clear similarities between arguments about competitiveness today and technical competition with the Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s. As the abstract for his talk explains,

In the wake of recent swings in the values of technology stocks and the prices of real estate, many people have become (painfully) familiar with the boom-and-bust cycles of speculative bubbles. Although playing out on longer time-scales, student enrollments in the sciences have followed a remarkably similar pattern during the decades since World War II. The characteristic pattern can be seen in several countries, including the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Enrollment patterns, and the specific policies that have been forged at various times to rapidly expand the number of trained scientists, sit at the intersection of science and society; they are where broad societal priorities and the infrastructure of higher education meet head on. Amid current discussions about globalization -- especially fears of potential challenges from booming scientific and technical training efforts in India and China -- the time is ripe to take stock of previous boom- and-bust cycles in our own recent past. How did they take hold, and what consequences have they had on the world of ideas? What intellectual trade-offs have been made, and with what impacts on the direction of scientific research? I will focus primarily on physics in the United States, which rose fastest and fell hardest during the postwar decades. The physicists� example highlights the promise as well as the special challenges inherent in runaway growth, as fields such as genomics and nanotechnology undergo their own frantic expansion today.

One of Kaiser's most significant points is that "we must treat talk of shortages of scientific and technical labor with great care. The numbers can be made to tell all kinds of stories." Arguments that the United States is falling behind China and India in the production of scientists are both familiar in their broad strokes, but can be problematic in the details.

Further, Kaiser argues, "more is at stake than an unstable labor market." The market for physicists crashed in the 1970s, and has never recovered; and some of the current debate over scientific competitiveness needs to be seen in the context of this rapid expansion and deflation. Further, "these boom-and-bust cycles can shape what counts as 'real' science in a given context."

Physics & Space Science

Source

http://www.science21stcentury.org/abstracts.html

Two Chinese universities now top feeders of American Ph.D.s

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:14:58 -0700

Description

For decades, American graduate schools have attracted students from all over the world. Over time, of course, the origins of international graduate students has shifted. For years, the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates has been following where Ph.D. recipients received their undergraduate degrees, and each year it publishes a list showing what universities and colleges graduate the largest number of students going on to get Ph.D.s in the U.S.

The latest survey shows that in 2006, two Chinese universities contributed more Ph.D. students to American graduate programs. This is notable because until now, American universities have dominated (but not monopolized) the top five slots. The top fifty schools, and the number of Ph.D.s their graduates received in 2006, are below.

1. Tsinghau University 571
2. Beijing University 507
3. UC Berkeley 427
4. Seoul National University 393
5. Cornell University 308
6. University of Michigan 272
7. University of Texas Austin 267
8. Brigham Young University 259
9. UCLA 248
10. University of Florida 243
10. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 243
12. Harvard University 241
12. University of Wisconsin-Madison 241
14. Penn State University 236
15. National Taiwan University 226
16. MIT 197
17. Yonsei University (Korea) 193
18. Rutgers University 190
19. Ohio State University 182
20. University of Virginia 180
21. UC Davis 177
22. Texas A&M 175
23. University of Minnesoa-Twin Cities 169
24. University of Maryland College Park 167
25. Stanford University 166
26. Yale University 164
27. Fuda Universityn University (China) 163
27. University of Science & Technology (China) 163
29. UC San Diego 162
30. Brown University 161
31. Princeton University 160
32. Michigan State University 159
33. Nanking University (China) 155
34. University of Mumbai (India) 153
34. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 153
36. Virginia Tech 151
37. Indiana University - Bloomington 150
38. University of Arizona 148
38. UC Santa Cruz 148
40. Nankai University (China) 147
40. University of Washington - Seattle 147
42. Shanghai Jiaotong University (China) 144
43. Middle East Technical University (Turkey) 134
44. University of Pennsylvania 133
45. UC Santa Barbara 127
46. Duke University 122
47. China University of Science & Technology Anhwei 120
48. Korea University 119
48. North Carolina State University 119
48. University of Colorado - Boulder 119
48. Zhejiang University (China) 119

(copied from Universities Weblog)

Fifteen of the top 50 universities in this list are outside the United States; nine are in China, three are in South Korea, and India, Taiwan, and Turkey each have one. The one thing that I find surprising is that more Indian universities aren't in this list. Given the number of graduate students I meet who are from one or another IIT, I would have expected at least one of the campuses to have been in the top 50.

Another way to into the data is to look at what countries overall send the largest number of Ph.D. recipients.

1. China 4,323
2. India 1,524
3. Korea 1,219
4. Taiwan 431
5. Canada 363
6. Turkey 357
7. Russia 223
8. Japan 222
9. Thailand 199
10. Romania 187

Here, India shows up in the #2 spot, which indicates that its American-bound graduates are spread across a large number of institutions. Compare this with China, where fully a quarter of its American Ph.D.s come from Tsinghau and Beijing.

This list can't be read just as a sign of the decline of American competitiveness, as a couple reports have; rather, it reflects some of the peculiarities of the global education market. There are no European universities in the list, because there are world class graduate institutions there: a brilliant undergrad from Cambridge or Helsinki can get a great education-- and, depending on their field, build equally useful or better professional connections-- staying closer to home. (Notice that the only European country in that top 10 list is Romania.)

It's also worth noting that, as the Mercury News observes, "Many who come for doctoral study decide to stay - and contribute to the nation's innovation. One recent survey found that 93 percent of all new doctorate recipients holding permanent visas and 65 percent of temporary visa holders said they would remain in the United States after graduation."

Abstract:

China: Science & Technology

Source

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctorates/
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/doctorates/
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08301/
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9919746
http://www.universities-weblog.com/50226711/more_on_where_doctoral_candidates_come_from.php

U.S. nuclear industry faces skilled labor shortage

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:32:26 -0700

Description

The nuclear power industry in the U.S. projects it will face serious labor shortages in the coming decade, which will affect both construction of new plants and operation of existing facilities. As US News reported,

The nuclear industry views itself as especially vulnerable to the skilled-labor shortage. It hasn't had to recruit for decades. Not only were no nuke plants getting built, but workers in the 104 atomic facilities already in operation tended to stay in their well-paid jobs for years. But in the next five years, just as the industry hopes to launch a renaissance, up to 19,600 nuclear workers—35 percent of the workforce—will reach retirement age....

The nuclear industry faces a different world compared with when it last was hiring three decades ago. "Parents, guidance counselors, and society in general push high school students to complete their secondary education with the intention of then attending a four-year college program," concludes a recent white paper on the Southeast workforce issues prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute. "High-paying skilled labor jobs, once considered excellent career options, are now perceived as second class."

Carol Berrigan, senior director for industry infrastructure at NEI, says that the industry needs to do more to get the word out that the jobs actually require substantial training and offer a good quality of life. The median salary for an electrical technician is $67,500; for a senior reactor operator, $85,400.

Reuters reported in 2007,

A 2005 study by the Institute found that half of the industry's employees were over 47 years old, while less than 8 percent of employees were younger than 32. Most Americans retire after turning 65, and the survey found more than a quarter of nuclear workers were already eligible to stop working.

Even the government's regulator, the NRC, is scrambling to add 200 new employees this year just to monitor the sector.

As one industry veteran put it, "Handling nuclear technology is special.... You have to be totally respectful of the technology. You have to have a high level of comprehension of that and a willingness to constantly improve and to take safety into consideration every step of the way."

Science in the United States

Source

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/careers/2008/03/13/a-worker-shortage-in-the-nuclear-industry.html
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/26/workers_in_short_supply_for_us_nuclear_power/

The emergence of post-scientific society?

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:03:11 -0700

Description

In a recent article in the NAS Issues, science policy expert Christopher Hill argues that the United States is shifting from a scientific to a post-scientific society. As he explains it,

A post-scientific society will have several key characteristics, the most important of which is that innovation leading to wealth generation and productivity growth will be based principally not on world leadership in fundamental research in the natural sciences and engineering, but on world-leading mastery of the creative powers of, and the basic sciences of, individual human beings, their societies, and their cultures.

Just as the post-industrial society continues to require the products of agriculture and manufacturing for its effective functioning, so too will the post-scientific society continue to require the results of advanced scientific and engineering research. Nevertheless, the leading edge of innovation in the post-scientific society, whether for business, industrial, consumer, or public purposes, will move from the workshop, the laboratory, and the office to the studio, the think tank, the atelier, and cyberspace.

There are growing indications that new innovation-based wealth in the United States is arising from something other than organized research in science and engineering. Companies based on radical innovations, exemplified by network firms such as Google, YouTube, eBay, and Yahoo, create billions in new wealth with only modest contributions from industrial research as it has traditionally been understood. Huge and successful firms like Wal-Mart, FedEx, Dell, Amazon.com, and Cisco have grown to be among the largest in the world, not as much by mastering the intricacies of physics, chemistry, or molecular biology as by structuring human work and organizational practices in radical new ways. The new ideas and concepts that support these post-scientific society companies are every bit as subtle and important as the fundamental natural science and engineering research findings that supported the growth of firms such as General Motors, DuPont, and General Electric in the past half century. But innovation in these two generations of firms is fundamentally different.

The piece is well worth reading, as it has a number of provocative implications for science policy, innovation policy, and education. Essentially, Hill is arguing that a decline in America's monopoly on science-- even if that does happen-- is not to be lamented any more than the shrinking of the agricultural workforce: it doesn't reflect a weakness, but a more fundamental shift to a different kind of economy, in which the sources of value aren't facts, but what you do with them.

Amateur, DIY, and citizen science

Source

http://www.issues.org/24.1/c_hill.html

Third World science and US innovation

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:58:48 -0700

Description

Gregg Zachary poses a provocative question in an article in the New York Times: "might cheap science from low-wage countries help keep American innovators humming?" The piece turns the conventional wisdom about the decline of American science on its head, and argues that the shrinking production of scientists reflects a basic-- but positive-- shift in the character of the American knowledge economy.

Americans have long profited from low-cost manufactured goods, especially from Asia. The cost of those material "inputs" is now rising. But because of growing numbers of scientists in China, India and other lower-wage countries, "the cost of producing a new scientific discovery is dropping around the world":...

American innovators — with their world-class strengths in product design, marketing and finance — may have a historic opportunity to convert the scientific know-how from abroad into market gains and profits.... By tapping relatively low-cost scientists around the world, American innovators may actually strengthen their market positions....

Precisely because the gap between basic science and commercial innovations is large, Mr. Hill’s postscientific society makes sense to innovators on the front lines. One implication for the future is that the United States "won’t have to import so many scientists," says Stephen D. Nelson, associate director of policy programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The association, which for decades has generally favored policies to expand the ranks of American scientists, is devoting a portion of its annual policy seminar next month to talk about the “postscience” situation.

Industry, meanwhile, is adapting to a world where scientific goods can come from anywhere — and fewer scientists work on abstract problems unrelated to the market. "It is no accident that many corporate labs have fallen apart," Sean M. Maloney, executive vice president of Intel, says. "They were science farms looking for problems."

If this argument is correct, it suggests that innovation policy shouldn't worry too much about declining science enrollments, as knowledge of basic science won't be so important in the information economy of the future. However, the challenge is to identify new areas and knowledge that will be important.

Science in the United States

Source

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/technology/20ping.html

Undergraduate research opportunities and scientific careers

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:13:29 -0700

Description

In the last couple decades, undergraduate research programs have flourished in research-oriented universities, colleges, and two-year institutions alike. While sometimes criticized as a distraction from more basic training, it now appears that exposing undergraduates to research prepares them for careers in science. As Science reported in 2008, "undergraduates who participate in laboratory research are significantly more likely to pursue advanced degrees in science and engineering than those who don't get hands-on research experience. In addition to building technical and critical-thinking skills, a laboratory berth broadens students' understanding of what science is and provides a "passport" to the scientific community."

Grinnell College psychologist David Lopatto reported in 2004 that "undergraduate research enhances the educational experience of science undergraduates, attracts and retains talented students to careers in science." Scientists affiliated with the Atlanta-based Center for Behavioral Neuroscience argue that research programs in behavioral neuroscience "positively affect attitudes toward science, attitudes toward neuroscience, student confidence with neuroscience concepts, and student confidence with general science skills."

Even among students who don't become scientists, a survey by CarolAnn Kardash revealed that faculty mentors see the opportunity for students to learn how to "do science," as well as "think independently," increase student "originality, creativity, initiative, curiosity, enthusiasm, and resourcefulness," as substantial payoffs of these programs.

To date, most undergraduate research programs have been organized as stand-alone programs, and have not had a great effect on undergraduate science education (or university education more generally). However, Emory professor Robert L. DeHaan predicts an "impending revolution in undergraduate science education," and argues that "widespread promotion and adoption of the elements of scientific teaching by university science departments could have profound effects in promoting a scientifically literate society and a reinvigorated research enterprise." The Howard Hughes Medical Institute is sponsoring a $20 million program to provide "many more undergraduates with a real research experience" in the classroom.

Signals

Neuroscience summer programs and recruitment of new scientists

Community colleges as source of future scientists

Undergraduate research experience

American scientists are getting older, and younger

Neuroscience summer programs and recruitment of new scientists

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:11:12 -0700

Description

Scientists affiliated with the Atlanta-based Center for Behavioral Neuroscience argue that research programs in behavioral neuroscience "positively affect attitudes toward science, attitudes toward neuroscience, student confidence with neuroscience concepts, and student confidence with general science skills."

Although research experience typically is not initiated until late in undergraduate careers, early participation in research may attract and retain undergraduates in science before they defect to other majors. Even at the high school level, research experience may provide students with "insider interpretations" of what science is and how scientific inquiry is accomplished, leading to higher retention in science. Moreover, early participation in research may be especially important for recruitment of minorities and females into the sciences.

The program tended not to change participants' views of science-- they were already pretty positive, as one might expect-- nor, interestingly, did their knowledge of neuroscience improve mainly through lab work (that happened, but seems primarily to have happened in the classroom). In contrast, the program was important in introducing undergraduates to laboratory culture and the fundamentals of scientific practice, and confidence with laboratory work.

Science in the United States

Source

http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/2/175

Undergraduate research experience

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:03:04 -0700

Description

A 2008 Science article surveys arguments in favor of undergraduate research programs, particularly in community colleges:

A 2007 study found that undergraduates who participate in laboratory research are significantly more likely to pursue advanced degrees in science and engineering than those who don't get hands-on research experience. In addition to building technical and critical-thinking skills, a laboratory berth broadens students' understanding of what science is and provides a "passport" to the scientific community, says Kika Friend, who directs the CAMP program at UC Irvine. For community college students, working in a research lab means that "instead of flipping burgers to make ends meet, you become part of the culture of research," Friend says. "To have a faculty member take interest in what you're doing, to be given the key to the lab, and to be part of a team reinforce that sense that you can do it."

This is another data-point suggesting that undergraduate research may become more central to science education in the future.

Science in the United States

Source

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/2008_04_11/caredit_a0800056

Community colleges as source of future scientists

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:23:16 -0700

Description

Science reports on the growing importance of community colleges as a training-ground for future scientists, particularly scientists from less educationally or financially privileged backgrounds.

According to a study by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), 48% of people who received a bachelor's or master's degree in science or engineering in 2004 or 2005 had attended a 2-year college at some point. Most underrepresented minority students begin their journey in higher education at community colleges, and minority Ph.D. holders across all fields are more likely than whites to have begun their careers at a community college. Mexican Americans are especially likely to start at a community college: 23% of Mexican Americans with doctoral degrees began their postsecondary careers at a community college....

"There is a huge pool of talent to tap at the community colleges," concludes Shiva Singh, program director for NIH’s Bridges to the Future, an initiative aimed at increasing minority participation in bioscience. Students at the nation's 1200 community colleges account for almost half of all U.S undergraduates, and more than a third of them are black, Hispanic, American Indian, or Asian/Pacific Islander--minority groups underrepresented in science. "If we can provide community college students with the proper guidance and mentoring to take the right courses, in the right sequence, they can be competitive at the university level," says Singh.

There are a few organized efforts to recruit students from two-year institutions into scientific programs, but given that a growing proportion of undergraduates start out in community colleges, and community college graduates are described as often "older, more mature, and more committed to their education" than other students, they may be worth courting more aggressively. More generally, they also suggest the importance of paying attention to nontraditional students and the development of scientific communities in other countries: e.g., students at private universities that have marginal scholarly reputations but attract lots of ambitious students.

Science in the United States

Source

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/2008_04_11/caredit_a0800056
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/3430/community_college_students_an_untapped_source_of_future_scientists/(parent)/158

American scientists are getting older, and younger

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:01:27 -0700

Description

Science notes a two-part trend in the demographics of early-career scientists:

"young" scientists are getting older. The average age of a person receiving his or her first faculty appointment has increased rapidly, to about 36 today in the United States, in the biomedical sciences. The average age of a first-time National Institutes of Health (NIH) grantee is well into the 40s. By the time these scientists are fully vetted and enfranchised, they've started to go gray.

But there's a way in which today's scientists are younger, not older: Research has become a common experience among undergraduates bound for grad school. And the contributions of today's undergraduates to the pool of knowledge are real and substantial: It's not uncommon to see scientific publications in excellent journals with undergraduate first authors. But science undergraduates are not starting earlier than previous generations. They are also increasingly confident, able, and driven. They're taking more control of their science, their career decisions, and--more broadly--their futures as scientists.

What this shows is that the training period for scientists, and the time required to get their careers "formally" underway, is growing; and understanding what happens to people during that liminal period is more important.

Science in the United States

Source

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/2008_04_11/caredit_a0800053

William Wulf's "Disturbing Mosaic"

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:40:04 -0800

Description

In 2005, National Academy of Engineering president William Wulf argued that "the United States is trading the long-term health of U.S. research and education for the appearance of short-term security."

We are facing a number of problems-- not just outsourcing/offshoring-- each one like a tile in a mosaic. No problem by itself creates the sort of crisis that provokes action. But if you stand back and look at the whole collection of problems, a disturbing picture emerges-- a pattern of short-term thinking and a lack of long-term investment. It's a pattern for preserving the status quo rather than reaching for the next big goal. It's a pattern that presumes that we in the United States are entitled to a better quality of life than others and that all we have to do is circle our wagons to defend that entitlement. It's a pattern that does not balance the dangers and opportunities in current circumstances.

Wulf clustered the problems into two sets: "reactions to 9/11," and "disinvestment in the future." Restrictive visa policies and new ID requirements for entering scientists; tighter export controls; and the growing the use of "sensitive but unclassified" designations on basic science all "trade the appearance of near-term security for the reality of long-term damage to our system of research and education—and hence to our real security." At the same time, the declining support for basic research within corporations, and government funding for basic research in physical science and engineering; low enrollments in undergraduate engineering programs compared to Asian countries; and the erosion of the ideal of higher education as a public (not just private) good, all pose a threat to our long-term ability to discover and innovate.

Science in the United States

Source

http://www.nae.edu/NAE/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/MKEZ-6GDK3W?OpenDocument

Does Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce Threaten U.S. Economic Leadership?

Jess Hemerly — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:12:02 -0800

Description

Abstract:

This paper develops four propositions that show that changes in the global job market for science and engineering (S&E) workers are eroding US dominance in S&E, which diminishes comparative advantage in high tech production and creates problems for American industry and workers:

(1) The U.S. share of the world's science and engineering graduates is declining rapidly as European and Asian universities, particularly from China, have increased S&E degrees while US degree production has stagnated.

(2) The job market has worsened for young workers in S&E fields relative to many other high-level occupations, which discourages US students from going on in S&E, but which still has sufficient rewards to attract large immigrant flows, particularly from developing countries.

(3) Populous low income countries such as China and India can compete with the US in high tech by having many S&E specialists although those workers are a small proportion of their work forces. This threatens to undo the North-South pattern of trade in which advanced countries dominate high tech while developing countries specialize in less skilled manufacturing.

(4) Diminished comparative advantage in high-tech will create a long period of adjustment for US workers, of which the off-shoring of IT jobs to India, growth of high-tech production in China, and multinational R&D facilities in developing countries, are harbingers.

To ease the adjustment to a less dominant position in science and engineering, the US will have to develop new labor market and R&D policies that build on existing strengths and develop new ways of benefiting from scientific and technological advances in other countries.

Science in the United States

Source

Freeman, Richard B. "Does Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce Threaten U.S. Economic Leadership?." NBER Working Paper No. W11457, 2005.

Endowments Widen a Higher Education Gap

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:52:31 -0800

Description

The New York Times reports on the growing endowment gap between the better-off Ivy League universities:

[T]he wealth amassed by elite universities... through soaring endowments over the past decade has exacerbated the divide between a small group of spectacularly wealthy universities and all others.... The result is that America’s already stratified system of higher education is becoming ever more so, and the chasm is creating all sorts of tensions as the less wealthy colleges try to compete. Even state universities are going into fund-raising overdrive and trying to increase endowments to catch up.

The wealthiest colleges can tap their endowments to give substantial financial aid to families earning $180,000 or more. They can lure star professors with high salaries and hard-to-get apartments. They are starting sophisticated new research laboratories, expanding their campuses and putting up architecturally notable buildings.

The increased stratification has come from private universities' more aggressive investment strategies, and a decline in funding levels for state universities, which tend to have smaller endowments and greater constraints on their spending.

Source

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/education/04endowment.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Federal support for research in nearly all disciplines in now in decline (AAAS)

Jess Hemerly — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:29:47 -0800

Description

From the overview:

- Total federal support of research (basic and applied) would fall 2.1 percent to $55.5 billion, even after large proposed increases for physical sciences and related research in NSF, DOE’s Office of Science, and NIST. A rare cut in NIH research funding and steep cuts in research funding at DOD, NASA, USDA, and other agencies would more than offset the ACI gains. In real terms, federal research spending would fall for the fourth year in a row, down 7.4 percent from 2004

Science in the United States

Source

AAAS Report XXXII: Research and Development FY 2008. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2007.

Foreign science and engineering graduate students returning to U.S., but numbers still below 2001

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:48:00 -0800

Description

The NSF reports that:

Enrollment of first-time, full-time foreign graduate students on temporary visas studying science and engineering (S&E) grew by 16 percent in 2006, following a 4 percent increase in 2005. The increases in the past two years reflect a reversal of the declines in enrollments of new foreign S&E graduate students experienced after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

"The numbers indicate a rebound of first-time, full-time foreign S&E enrollment in U.S. graduate schools, which declined 19 percent between 2001 and 2004 after 9/11," said Project Officer Julia Oliver, of the National Science Foundation (NSF), which cosponsored the study with the National Institutes of Health.

A variety of factors may be affecting these trends in foreign S&E graduate student enrollment, including improvements in the quality and attractiveness of S&E education in other countries as well as application and approval rates for U.S. student visas.

Total enrollment of S&E graduate students on temporary visas in U.S. universities also increased in 2006. While the growth in total enrollment was a more modest 2 percent, it represented a reversal of declines seen in 2004 and 2005. Enrollment of U.S. citizens and permanent residents also grew by 2 percent.

Despite the recent increases, both first-time, full-time and total enrollments in 2006 for foreign S&E graduate students are still somewhat below the peaks seen earlier in the decade.

Science in the United States

Source

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111036&govDel=USNSF_51
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08302/

Move over US -- China to be new driver of world's economy and innovation?

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:00:00 -0800

NOTE: This content was aggregated from RSS feed. Original source is http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/giot-mou012408.php

EurkeAlert reports on a Georgia Tech "study of worldwide technological competitiveness suggests China may soon rival the United States as the principal driver of the world's economy -- a position the US has held since the end of World War II."

The study’s indicators predict that China will soon pass the United States in the critical ability to develop basic science and technology, turn those developments into products and services – and then market them to the world. Though China is often seen as just a low-cost producer of manufactured goods, the new “High Tech Indicators” study done by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology clearly shows that the Asian powerhouse has much bigger aspirations.

“For the first time in nearly a century, we see leadership in basic research and the economic ability to pursue the benefits of that research – to create and market products based on research – in more than one place on the planet,” said Nils Newman, co-author of the National Science Foundation-supported study. “Since World War II, the United States has been the main driver of the global economy. Now we have a situation in which technology products are going to be appearing in the marketplace that were not developed or commercialized here. We won’t have had any involvement with them and may not even know they are coming.”

Georgia Tech’s “High Tech Indicators” study ranks 33 nations relative to one another on “technological standing,” an output factor that indicates each nation’s recent success in exporting high technology products. Four major input factors help build future technological standing: national orientation toward technological competitiveness, socioeconomic infrastructure, technological infrastructure and productive capacity. Each of the indicators is based on a combination of statistical data and expert opinions.

A chart showing change in the technological standing of the 33 nations is dominated by one feature – a long and continuous upward line that shows China moving from “in the weeds” to world technological leadership over the past 15 years.

The 2007 statistics show China with a technological standing of 82.8, compared to 76.1 for the United States, 66.8 for Germany and 66.0 for Japan. Just 11 years ago, China’s score was only 22.5. The United States peaked in 1999 with a score of 95.4.

Changes in Competitiveness, 1993-2007: Chart shows the change in technological standing for several nations from 1993 to 2007.

China: Science & Technology

NSF makes shocking proposal: More money for science!

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:34:25 -0800

Description

The National Science Board recently released the 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators. Along with the statistics, it published a report on R&D in America, arguing that:

1. The federal government should take action to enhance the level of funding for, and the transformational nature of, basic research;
2. Industry, government, the academic sector and professional organizations should take action to encourage greater intellectual interchange or synergy between industry and academia, with industry reserachers encouraged to also participate as authors and reviewers for articles in open, peer-reviewed publications.
3. New data are critically needed, and this need should be expeditiously addressed by relevant federal agencies to track the implications for the U.S. economy of the globalization of manufacturing and services in high technology industry.

I suspect that arguments regarding the need for more money for basic research isn't going to be terribly controversial, but I can't ever recall reading an NSF report that didn't conclude with calls for increased funding.

Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0803/nsb0803.pdf
2008 Science and Engineering Indicators: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/
Press Release 08-005: National Science Board Releases Science and Engineering Indicators 2008: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110984&govDel=USNSF_51

Signals

2006 trends in science funding: US, Europe, and Japan are still in the lead... but for how long?

Does Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce Threaten U.S. Economic Leadership?

Move over US -- China to be new driver of world's economy and innovation?

China to expand nuclear power capabilities

Philip Cho — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:40:20 -0800

Description

China currently has 6 nuclear power plants with 11 reactor units in commercial operation having a total capacity of 9068 MW, 600MW of which come from pressurized water reactors. Eight more reactor units having a total capacity of 7900MW are under construction. According to the government’s nuclear power development plan, this capacity will expand to 24,968MW by 2015, and 44,968MW by 2020. To meet these goals, China has already explored 13 locations for new nuclear stations. (see attached table)

Much of the technology will come from Russia, the US, and France. In 2007, Russia’s Atomstroyexport agreed to build two AES-91 reactor units at the Tianwan plant. Westinghouse will build four AP100 third-generation reactors. France’s Areva will build two pressurized-water reactors in Taishan.

In addition, on November 21st, 2006 China joined the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor Program (ITER) to pursue fusion technology. China will invest approximately 10 billion euros in the project, which involves the EU, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the US. The China National Nuclear Corporation Southwest Institute for Physics and the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Plasma Physics will be the two main institutes participating.

As much of the world increasingly turns to nuclear power, one can expect the same geopolitical and economic pressures driving oil over 100 USD a barrel to bear on uranium. This will shift the calculus of energy relations to involve both familiar suppliers such as Niger and Algeria but also possible new ones such as Mongolia, Australia, and even China itself. The China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) has set up the China Nuclear International Uranium Corporation to acquire uranium resources around the world. The concentration of nuclear facilities in China’s coastal provinces will also compel a re-evaluation of strategies for domestic energy development and consumption.

China National Nuclear Corporation:
http://www.cnnc.com.cn/

ITER China:
http://www.iter.org.cn/
http://www.iterchina.org.cn/

China’s “National Plan for Medium and Long-term Nuclear Power Development (2005~2020)”
http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2007-11/02/content_793797.htm
http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/2007/2007112145723883.pdf

Signals

The Science Adviser

Jane McGonigal — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:08:11 -0800

NOTE: This content was aggregated from RSS feed. Original source is http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/01/the_science_adviser.php

You really have to feel for physicist John Marburger, President Bush's long-serving and controversial science adviser. Not only was Marburger appointed very late in 2001—seemingly as an afterthought—but when he finally got the job, it came with a diminished title. Unlike his most recent predecessors, Marburger was not named "Assistant to the President" on science matters. Furthermore, many of Bush's most contested science policy decisions, on issues like embryonic stem cell research and climate change, had been announced before Marburger achieved his official Senate confirmation. As a result, the physicist often found himself defending administration stances even though he hadn't been at the table when some of them were set.

The top democratic presidential contender, Hillary Clinton, has officially pledged to right the wrongs against Marburger—or at least, against his office. If elected, Hillary says, her science adviser will be named early, get the "Assistant to the President" title back, and report directly to her. That's great for the science adviser post—and once again, terrible for Marburger. He may wind up being book-ended in history by advisers who had much more power and influence than he himself possessed.

Note: This is interesting in as far as potentially changing role of science advisors within government...

American biomedical real estate expands as funding decreases

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:31:58 -0800

Description

Dan Greenberg recently argued that there could a "real estate bubble" developing in American biomedical science. In the early 2000s universities saw growing NIH budgets, and claims of a revolution in biomedical sciences driven by bioinformatics, neuroscience, stem cells, etc., and decided to start building new labs appropriate to this coming (and well-funded) revolution. However, as these labs come online, the research funds are stagnating.

Research universities across America are building new laboratories on an unprecedented scale. The new buildings should make possible many important contributions to science, but the construction boom involves serious, often overlooked risks for academe. A bubble is swelling, and the similarities with dot-coms and the real-estate market suggest that science could easily be in for some painful economic shocks.

The problem is that as the laboratories are going up, the money for research is going down or standing still. And although warnings of worse financial times ahead for research have been common for years, now they are far more plausible than in the past....

With awesome federal deficits, the NIH budget for the 2006 fiscal year remained unchanged, thus dropping a bit in purchasing power. That is a stunning reversal for an agency that had experienced annual budget growth in every year between 1970 and 2005....

Meanwhile, new labs are springing up — from Harvard University, with its new campus in Allston, to the University of California at San Francisco, which is doubling its research space in what it calls "the largest biomedical university expansion in the country." Most of them focus on the medical and biological sciences, as that's where scientific opportunity intersects with NIH money, inadequate as the supply may be.

Greenberg points out that one systemic problem is that labs and research are funded in entirely different ways: alumni, universities, and state governments pay for labs, while research money comes largely from the U.S. government.

Sooner or later, bubbles burst. Greenberg himself suggests four consequences of this one:

The consequences of an overbuilt, underfinanced research enterprise can already be glimpsed, but the full effects of the imbalance can only be guessed at. First, research buildings without research obviously represent the squandering of resources that could otherwise be employed productively.

Second, worsening odds for success in grantsmanship are likely to foment unsociable behavior among scientists — perhaps even scientific misconduct. The pursuit of commercial deals to finance research in the new buildings could intensify, with competition leading to lowered standards of academic suitability and the greater secretiveness that is common to industrial research but anathema to university science.

Third, universities depend heavily on federal research grants to cover indirect costs, for maintenance, administration, security, and other services.... No research means no federal money to help keep up the new buildings. Private foundations and other nongovernment sources rarely come close to those percentages for indirect costs.

Finally, the spectacle of great new laboratories with scant money to run them is not likely to encourage young people to pursue careers in science.

On the other hand, Stanford economist Brian Arthur argues that serious innovation happens after bubbles burst: he points to the history of American railroads, where serious build-out happened after the speculators had been ruined. So following this line of reasoning, the bubble may have more upside than downside.

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i03/03b02001.htm

Signals

World's biggest medical research laboratory planned for London

So many labs, so little money

2006 trends in science funding: US, Europe, and Japan are still in the lead... but for how long?

World investment in science

"Made in USA" scientific innovation on the decline

Jerry Sheehan — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:55:14 -0800

Description

The last three years have seen increasing concern over the scientific and technological competitiveness of the United States vis a vis other industrialized and developing nations. These concern reached a zenith in 2006 with the publication of “Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future” by the National Academies of Science.[1]

Examining any number of objective metrics shows that the “times are a changing” when it comes to scientific discovery: A) PhDs in Science and Engineering: By 2010 the European Union will grant roughly 2 PhDs in Science and Engineering for every one American PhD [2]. B) Scientific Publications: Since 1998 there has been an increase in scientific publications with international co-authorship with the EU, Japan, China, and Asia becoming increasingly prolific. C) Patents: American inventors in 2002 accounted for 52% of all patents granted in the United States. However, foreign patent applicants grew from 44% (1996) to 48% (2003) [3].

While there are numerous reasons for these changes (increasing population size and focus on science and engineering in China and India, more supportive basic research agenda, tax credits, etc) the conclusion that scientific and technological innovation will become more globally distributed seems certain.

The decentralization of technological and scientific innovation poses clear economic challenges for the United States. As Adam Segal noted in his 2004 article “Is America Losing its Edge” in Foreign Affairs: “For 50 years, the United States has maintained its economic edge by being better and faster than any other country at inventing and exploiting new technologies.”

One of the primary reasons this competitive edge existed was because basic research conducted in American Universities was transferred quickly to from the lab bench to the marketplace by industry. There exists a unique synergy between public research and private sector markets in the United States that can perhaps best be demonstrated by looking at the interaction and leveraged public and private sector investment that occurred from 1965 to 2000 in the area of information technology (see attached graph from National Academy of Sciences, 2003).

So, what are the likely impacts of growing decentralization of scientific and technological innovation?

First, in the short term that there will be an almost xenophobic reaction to the loss of primary production of scientific discovery in the United States that will manifest itself in concern for national security. As the Task Force on American Innovation led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich noted “A robust research portfolio is a necessary part of a national security strategy that relies on knowledge and technology to keep the United States safe in a dangerous world.” These concerns will lead to short-term increases in research funding domestically but these will be tempered by the Iraq war, record budget deficits, and the entitlement crisis.

Second, American Universities will become increasingly involved in international scientific projects and global research partnerships. This trend will become increasingly dynamic as global problems such as climate change become crisis on the research agenda at the same time that new research talent is being produced in Asia and India.

Third, and most importantly, the American marketplace will need to develop new mechanisms for benefiting from technological innovations that are not produced in the American marketplace [5]. In these regards, the United States still appears to have a competitive edge in understanding how basic academic research can lead to applied research with industry. Increasingly, as seen in the recent King Abdullah University for Science and Technology (KAUST) recruitment efforts, American universities will be targeted not just for their academic skills but also for insight into how to build sustainable models for technology transfer.

[1]NAS Gathering Storm Report, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463
[2] Richard Freeman, National Bureau of Economic Research, July 2005.
[3]+ [4] National Science Board, National Science Indicators, 2006
[5] Richard Freeman, Does Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce Threaten U.S. Economic Leadership, July 2005, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=755693

Signals

Move over US -- China to be new driver of world's economy and innovation?

Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future

Does Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce Threaten U.S. Economic Leadership?

Simulation and the future of science

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:57:58 -0800

Description

In a 2006 interview, University of Texas computer scientist J. Tinsley Oden discussed the impact that simulation is having on scientific research:

Simulation has really opened the horizons of research -- enabling new scientific discoveries and the design of new engineered systems -- to a point that was unimaginable even a few years ago. We're reaching a point in our history in which the capabilities of modern large-scale computing systems, the development of new algorithms, and interest in a list of new medical, manufacturing, and imaging technologies have made simulation indispensable in advancing science, in preserving the competitiveness of the United States, and maintaining the security and health of its citizens. We very strongly believe that this is a discipline that will impact every aspect of human existence, and it needs to be embraced by the major academic institutions, funding agencies, and other entities that are stewards of science and technology in this country.

[I]t's interesting to me how the philosophy of science and how we try to learn about the behavior of the physical universe have blended in with many aspects of simulation and computation. Traditionally, humankind made hypotheses about the way nature behaved. Theory stands as long as no contradictions are observed. Conversely, we also made observations and then tried to develop or validate theories. Now, we can expand the realm of theoretical science through computer simulation, and we can augment and expand observation through simulation as well. What simulation-based engineering science is about is that the very tools that enable the expansion of theory and observation can be used for prediction, and prediction is the essence of engineering. This is the idea behind simulation-based engineering.

Traditional education in science and engineering presented a largely qualitative view of nature, with quantitative analysis reserved for only simple systems describable by meager calculations. New computer simulation has transformed science and engineering into very quantitative disciplines that provide amazing tools for predictions -- for virtual looks into the future at the way things work that obey scientific principles.

Its growing importance in science suggests that simulation could become an everyday tool in management, work, and ordinary decision-making, much as the ARPAnet evolved from a computer playground in the 1970s to the ubiquitous Web of today.

'Easy to talk about, almost impossible to do,' NCSA (12 December 2006), http://access.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Stories/Oden/