competition

Possibility of a new Indian-Chinese rivalry, this time in space

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 23:35:11 -0700

Description

The Times writes on a warming rivalry between India and China in space:

India and China are taking their rivalry into orbit, with Delhi determined to catch up with Beijing in what is starting to look like an Asian version of the Cold War “space sace”.

General Deepak Kapoor, India’s Chief of Army Staff, has spoken publicly for the first time of his fears about China’s military space programme and the need for India to accelerate its own.

“The Chinese space programme is expanding at an exponentially rapid pace in both offensive and defensive content,” he told a conference attended by India’s military top brass this week. “The Indian Army’s agenda for exploitation of space will have to evolve dynamically. It should be our endeavour to optimise space applications for military purposes.”

Describing space as “the ultimate high ground”, he called for the establishment of an interservices space command to supervise surveillance, reconnaissance and rapid response.

India & South Asia: Science & Technology

Source

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4182216.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093

We haven't yet approached the bottom of the decline in American scientific competitiveness

William Gunn — Tue, 20 May 2008 12:09:58 -0700

Description

The current decline in scientific competitiveness hasn't been reached overnight, and won't be turned around overnight. With that in mind, it's worth considering which way the trend is going. The level of science education received by high school students is a signal that points towards a continued decrease in our competitiveness.

HOW THE STUDY WAS DONE

Between March 5 and May 1, 2007, 939 teachers participated in the study, either by mail or by completing an identical questionnaire online. Our overall response rate of 48% yielded a sample that may be generalized to the population of all public school teachers who taught a high school–level biology course in the 2006–2007 academic year, with all percentage estimates reported in this essay's tables and figures having a margin of error of no more than 3.2% at the 95% confidence level. Detailed discussion of the methods of the survey and assessments of non-response can be found in Text S1. Our results confirm wide variance in classroom instruction and indicate a clear need to focus not only on state and federal policy decisions, but on the everyday instruction in American classrooms.

EXPLAINING DIFFERENCES IN TEACHERS' EMPHASIS

Those teachers who stressed evolution by making it the unifying theme of their course spent more time on it. Overall, only 23% strongly agreed that evolution served as the unifying theme for their biology or life sciences courses; these teachers devoted 18.5 hours to evolution, 50% more class time than other teachers. When we asked whether an excellent biology course could exist without mentioning Darwin or evolutionary theory at all, 13% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that such a course could exist.

Figure 2. High School Biology Teachers' Personal Beliefs Concerning Human Origins, Compared with a Representative Sample of the General Public, Spring 2007

Notably, we find that teachers' personal beliefs are linked to classroom instruction. The teachers who chose the “young earth” creationist position devoted 35% fewer class hours to evolution (9.6 hours) than all other teachers (14.7 hours).

TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS

The No Child Left Behind Act requires that all teachers of core subjects be “highly qualified.” Definitions of “highly qualified” vary by state, but most include demonstrated competence in the teacher's teaching assignment. Our data suggest that high school teachers who completed the largest number of college-level credits in biology and life science classes and whose coursework included at least one class in evolutionary biology devote substantially more class time to evolution than teachers with fewer credit hours. The best prepared teachers devote 60% more time to evolution than the least prepared.

Had no class on evolution Completed a course devoted to evolution

Up to 24 credits 10.2 11.9

25-40 credits 11.6 16.2

over 40 credits 12.6 16.2

Table S6. Hours devoted to human evolution and general evolution (combined), by
number of college-level biology credits and course devoted to evolution (N=909)

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that requiring all teachers to complete a course in evolutionary biology would have a substantial impact on the emphasis on evolution and its centrality in high school biology courses. In the long run, the impact of such a change could have a more far reaching effect than the victories in courts and in state governments.

Knowing where we came from is essential to knowing where we're going to go in the future. While certainly more students now are being taught the current scientific consensus on where we came from than were taught this in past decades, the gap between what they need to know to remain competitive and what we're teaching them is growing ever wider. The increase in this knowledge gap points towards further decline in competitiveness.

Biomedical Sciences and Biotechnology

Source

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124

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?

	Had no class on evolution	Completed a course devoted to evolution
Up to 24 credits	10.2	11.9
25-40 credits	11.6	16.2
over 40 credits	12.6	16.2