Posted on 08/22/2004 12:02:47 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Hidden amid the hoopla of finding planets orbiting other stars, decoding the human genome and discovering miracle materials with nanotechnology, there's a seemingly improbable but perhaps even more important story — U.S. science may be in decline.
After 50 years of supremacy, both scientifically and economically, America now faces formidable challenges from foreign governments that have recognized scientific research and new technology as the fuels of a powerful economy.
"The Chinese government has a slogan, 'Develop science to save the country,' " said Paul Chu, a physics professor at the University of Houston who also is president of Hong Kong University of Science & Technology. "For a long time they have talked about it. Now they are serious."
According to the National Science Foundation and other organizations that track science indicators, the United States' share of worldwide scientific and engineering research publications, Nobel Prize awards, and some types of patents is falling.
A recent trend in the number of foreign students applying to U.S. schools is even more troubling, scientists say.
As American students have become less interested in science and engineering, top U.S. graduate schools have turned increasingly toward Europe and Asia for the best young scientists to fill laboratories. Yet now, with post-Sept. 11 visa rules tightening American borders, fewer foreign students are willing to endure the hassle of getting into the country.
"Essentially, the United States is pushing the best students from China and other countries away," Chu said.
The new restrictions also hassle students who are already here, like Lijun Zhu, a physics graduate student at Rice University since 1998 who returned two years ago to China to get married. The honeymoon became a nightmare when he and his new wife were stranded for more than two months, awaiting visa renewals.
"I was afraid of going outside my home for even a moment and missing the call from the consulate," Zhu recalled.
Losing future students like Zhu would cost more than just prestige in ivory towers. It could very well mean losing the nation's technological leadership, with implications for the nation's job market and security, to say nothing of culture.
Decline called 'ridiculous' Although President Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, dismisses as "ridiculous" the notion that America could lose its scientific prestige, scientists and policy-makers lay the blame in several areas: the drying well of foreign students, limited stem cell research and less federal funding for basic science research.
Since the visa restrictions were tightened in 2002, foreign-student applications to U.S. universities have fallen from 400,000 a year to 325,000, a 19 percent drop. Graduate school applications nationally are down even further, by up to 40 percent, said Jordan Konisky, vice provost for research and graduate studies at Rice University.
The problem, he said, is that when additional screening requirements were added, extra staffing in U.S. consulates to handle the workload was not.
And the atmosphere in these foreign offices, simmering with tension from terrorism's threat, breeds caution.
"No bureaucrat wants to make a mistake and approve a visa for someone that comes to this country and causes a problem," Konisky said. "So they tend to be very conservative about this, and that's good. But I think they're being overly conservative."
Graduate science programs at Rice and elsewhere are heavily dependent on foreign students.
Nearly half of engineering graduate students are foreign, as are more than one-third of all natural sciences graduate students.
These students invigorate research, professors say. They publish papers, bring new ideas and play a major role in patent applications.
Afraid to leave the U.S. In 2003, the Rice graduate physics program admitted 16 foreign students. Two were delayed more than six months, and three were permanently blocked from entering the United States. Southern Methodist University has a smaller program, and in 2002, the two foreign students who were accepted didn't get visas. School officials briefly considered ending the program, but enough students gained visas in 2003 and this fall to keep it open, said Fredrick Olness, the SMU physics department chairman.
Yet even if students make it into the United States, their visa troubles, as evidenced by the plight of Zhu, aren't over.
Scientific conferences are held worldwide, and many students with families or looming deadlines at school opt not to travel for fear that they won't be able to come back. Likewise, meeting planners say the number of foreign scientists attending conferences in the United States has dropped because they don't want to bother with obtaining a temporary visa.
Then there are the physicists who want to work at some of the world's best particle accelerators, which are in Switzerland and Germany.
"All of the foreign faculty we have are afraid to leave the country because of visa problems," Olness said. "If this keeps up, the United States is going to take a hit on its stature in the worldwide physics community."
Seizing the opportunity Marburger, himself a physicist, said changes to streamline visa problems, including adding staff in U.S. consular offices abroad, should be announced soon.
"This has very high visibility in Washington, all the way up to the president," Marburger said.
The winner, for now at least, is clear — scientific enterprise everywhere else.
At Hong Kong University, applications from Chinese students have more than doubled in the past three years. Chu says his faculty is thrilled.
Chu said Great Britain and Australia have seized the opportunity and opened recruiting offices in China. The European Union, too, has set a goal of having the most competitive and knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010.
What concerns U.S. scientists is that a decades-long brain drain into America may be coming to an end.
America began attracting scientists in the 1930s when the shadow of Hitler's political and religious persecution fell over Europe. Hordes of leading scientists such as Albert Einstein and Enrico Fermi, whose work with nuclear chain reactions led to the atomic bomb, immigrated to the United States.
Focus on science funding After the war, the United States began spending billions of dollars on basic and defense-related research. Other great foreign scientists followed, drawn to new facilities and money. Their work laid the foundation for the technology bonanza of the 1990s, when one-third of Silicon Valley start-up companies were begun by foreigners.
Attracting top graduate students from other countries, then, is the first step toward continuing the trend.
"The United States used to welcome foreign scientists," said Zhu's adviser at Rice, physics professor Qimiao Si. "Nearly a century ago, the center of gravity shifted to the United States. We don't want that to happen in a reverse direction."
There are other policy areas that U.S. scientists say harm their ability to compete. Scientists say the Bush administration's policy to limit the use of embryonic stem cells will blunt advances made in biomedical research. "The stem cell decision has certainly put us behind at the front end of the curve," said Neal Lane, Clinton's science adviser. "It's a huge barrier."
The president's decision also led some U.S. researchers to seek private funds for their work. But this, said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, usually a stalwart ally of Bush, is no solution to the issue.
"It's the federal research that is the big opportunity," the Texas senator said. "That's where the big dollars are. And to have these avenues to federal resources closed is going to hurt us in the long run."
Another problem, said Albert Teich, director of science and policy programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is an increasing focus in the federal budget on applied military and homeland security research. Excluding a modest increase for biomedical research, nondefense research and development in the proposed 2005 federal budget would decline 2.1 percent, according to the association.
Marburger said federal science spending is still far greater than in any other country. The United States, he said, spends 1 1/2 times more on research and development than all of the European Union countries combined.
Teich agreed, but only to a point.
"It is probably wrong to say U.S. science is currently in decline," he said. "But it is certainly in danger of declining. We're perched on the edge."
Another troubling trend A fundamental problem, scientists and policy-makers say, is the lack of interest in science from American children.
Between 1994 and 2001, the number of U.S. students enrolling in science and engineering graduate programs fell 10 percent. Foreign enrollment jumped by 31 percent to make up for the shortfall.
National reports on this trend have offered suggestions to address the problem, such as giving money to community colleges to assist high-ability students in transferring to four-year science and engineering programs.
"Unfortunately, there's no silver bullet," said President Clinton's science adviser, Neal Lane.
Although there are some encouraging trends — the number of U.S. Hispanics enrolling in science graduate programs between 1994 and 2001 increased by more than one-third — the number of U.S. minorities in science graduate programs remains well below their representation in the total population.
Historically, Cultures have "Advanced & Prospered" "By Means of" the Technological Advantages a Given Culture has over it's "Adversaries!"
If India, China, Japan, S. Korea become More "Technologically Literate" than us,--WE LOSE.
We are NOW in a "Technology Race;" our Very Civilization is Dependant upon our ability to "Keep Up!!"
The Education of our Children is CRITICAL; If we CANNOT Maintain our Population at a Level of Understanding commensurate with the Current & Expanding Extent of Information, we will Rapidly "Fall Behind," & Become a "Second Class Culture" DESPITE our Military Power.
The LEVEL of EDUCATION--ESPECIALLY in Mathematics & Science--DICTATES the "Success of" our Society!!
"Knowlege is Power!!"
Doc
Excellent post!
Pop quiz to follow? :)
Yeah, but he's too nice...
Maybe he'll listen to you.
193 - Space Elevator 2010 Contest -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5792719/
" ‘Elevator:2010’ aimed
at encouraging
technology development
One of the marquee events in a proposed space elevator competition would be a climber race, shown in this artist's conception. The mechanical climbers would be required to lift a payload up a 60-meter cable, with power provided by an intense light beam shining on photoelectric cells.
The project, spearheaded by the California-based Spaceward Foundation, would focus on innovations in fields that could open the way for payloads to be lifted into space by light-powered platforms. Such platforms, also known as climbers, would move up and down superstrong ribbons rising as high as 62,000 miles (100,000 kilometers) above Earth's surface.
If space elevators could actually be built, the cost of sending payloads into space could be reduced from $10,000 or more per pound (455 grams) to $100 or less — opening up a revolutionary route to the final frontier. Like the X Prize for private spaceflight, Elevator:2010 is aimed at jump-starting the revolution
"We firmly believe that the set of technologies that underlie the infinite promise of the space elevator can be demonstrated, or proven infeasible, within a five-year time frame," the Web site for the competition declares. "And hence our name. Elevator:2010. We promise to get an answer for you by then.""
In order to work, the elevator's ribbons would have to be made of materials stronger than any that exist today; carbon nanotube composites are the current favorites. Conventional rockets would launch components of the elevator, which would be anchored to an Earth station to form a bridge to outer space.
Most of the current schemes call for the climbers to be powered by sunlight and/or intense artificial light focused onto photoelectric cells. The climbers would ride on the ribbons like rail cars."
---
NOT ROCKETS !!!! ROCKETS ARE NOT FOR COMMERCE !!!
Usually, there is a maximum equatorial ground track distance that falls within an acceptable margin from the desired sub-point. Since geosync satellites tend to drift in one direction, station-keeping usually means using a thruster of some kind to position it at the "uphill end" and let it drift to the "bottom end", re-firing the thruster "pushing" the satellite back to the "up hill" and letting it drift once again over and over for the life of the vehicle. The cross-track drift ends up looking like a figure eight plotted against the ground. This figure eight gets bigger with age as the drift grows. Again, Delta-Vs can keep your bird on station for the life of the satellite.
OTOH, with a Space Elevator, you don't have these luxuries. You must not induce a vibration (or standing wave) in this structure. Remember the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? Even if your structure is strong enough to span the "gap", (23,000 miles in one heck of a gap) you must take into account vibrational stress.
The other issue is the electrical potential that will be present between the top of the elevator and the bottom. How do we discharge/ground that safely?
I know I am sounding like a wet blanket here, but like the Orion project, IMHO, the Space Elevator (although intriguing), will remain a "paper" project.
NOT ROCKETS !!!! ROCKETS ARE NOT FOR COMMERCE !!!
We are using rockets for commerce as we speak. Someone is making money for getting all those satellites up there.
BTW, Look for part two (and possibly a part three) to my previous post tonight and tomorrow, should there be a part three.
You honor me. :-) I humbly thank you.
196 - Helium3 may indeed be worth going to the moon.
If, we ever figure out how to make a fusion reactor. (We have been trying for 50 years and haven't figured it out yet). But perhaps someday we will.
So, at $10,000 per pound, how about give me a general WAG, at the cost to build a helium3 factory on the moon, and a transport system to bring the helium3 safely back to earth.
You need not include the costs to invent and build fusion reactors on earth, for this question.
Feel free to round off to the nearest Trillion$.
Actually it is. I am getting all kinds of freepmail telling me they are really looking forward to my next part. :-)
However, I post and write in haste since my time is limited. My grammar and sentence structures are atrocious after rereading my own work. Sigh.
I will take the time to "clean it up" and repost with both or all three parts combined.
196 - Note - my WAG for just getting us back to the moon today, (like our original moon shots) is $500 billion. And that is just to put another jeep on the moon and a couple of astronauts.
Thank you. :-)
Thanks. :-) Part two to follow.
That may be just one of the products that is useful, however, the gravity well is what makes the Moon so attractive.
Have to run dang it, will post more tonight.
Analemma, perchance?
207 - You made some compelling arguments against the space elevator, but you limited them to scientific arguments.
There are lots of engineering and commercial arguments too.
"NOT ROCKETS !!!! ROCKETS ARE NOT FOR COMMERCE !!!
We are using rockets for commerce as we speak. Someone is making money for getting all those satellites up there."
True, but this is not 'space' travel - Low Earth Orbit is exactly that - essentially high flying rocket planes, which utilize earth's gravity for continuous propulsion, once the rocket engines burn out.
You need to get out of your limited thinking about rockets for space travel. Carrying your own fuel supply with rockets for long distance travel is just not feasible on any commercial scale.
And I don't think that Laura Bush has a neckless to sell to buy a moon rocket (like Queen Isabella).
Exectrical generation is an interesting side effect, but the fabric would be carbon. Perhaps the electrical potential between points on the ribbon could be harnessed to run the elevator.
217 - How would you dampen the mechanical vibration in a hurricaine/typhoon?
Though out of my area, it seems like with a carbon fiber cable we would create a permanent lightning bolt.
vibration dampening is an engineering problem (which I am not qualified to solve). But all bridges and buildings are designed to withstand the highest expected winds. That is why there are only a few examples of major buildings and bridges failing.
Unexpected winds do bad things though. Kobe (Japan, not Bryant) experienced vertical movement during an earthquake; this was a new unexpected feature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.