Broad Federal Effort Urgently Needed to Create High-Quality Jobs

Broad Federal Effort Urgently Needed to Create New, High-Quality Jobs for All Americans in the 21st Century

WASHINGTON -- The unmatched vitality of the United States' economy and science and technology enterprise has made this country a world leader for decades, allowing Americans to benefit from a high standard of living and national security. But in a world where advanced knowledge is widespread and low-cost labor is readily available, U.S. advantages in the marketplace and in science and technology have begun to erode. A comprehensive and coordinated federal effort is urgently needed to bolster U.S. competitiveness and pre-eminence in these areas so that the nation will consistently gain from the opportunities offered by rapid globalization, says a new report from the National Academies.

Given the United States' history of economic and scientific pre-eminence, it is easy to be complacent about these complex issues, the report says. Following are some indicators that illustrate why decisive action is needed now:

· For the cost of one chemist or one engineer in the United States, a company can hire about five chemists in China or 11 engineers in India.

· Last year chemical companies shuttered 70 facilities in the United States and have tagged 40 more for closure. Of 120 chemical plants being built around the world with price tags of $1 billion or more, one is in the United States and 50 are in China.

· U.S. 12th-graders recently performed below the international average for 21 countries on a test of general knowledge in mathematics and science. In addition, an advanced mathematics assessment was administered to students in 15 other countries who were taking or had taken advanced math courses, and to U.S. students who were taking or had taken pre-calculus, calculus, or Advanced Placement calculus. Eleven countries outperformed the United States, and four scored similarly. None scored significantly below the United States.

· In 1999 only 41 percent of U.S. eighth-graders had a math teacher who had majored in mathematics at the undergraduate or graduate level or studied the subject for teacher certification -- a figure that was considerably lower than the international average of 71 percent. · Last year more than 600,000 engineers graduated from institutions of higher education in China. In India, the figure was 350,000. In America, it was about 70,000.

· In 2001 U.S. industry spent more on tort litigation than on research and development.

Without a major push to strengthen the foundations of America's competitiveness, the United States could soon lose its privileged position. The ultimate goal is to create new, high-quality jobs for all citizens by developing new industries that stem from the ideas of exceptional scientists and engineers.

The congressionally requested report -- written by a 20-member committee that included university presidents, CEOs, Nobel Prize winners, and former presidential appointees -- makes four recommendations along with 20 implementation actions that federal policy-makers should take to create high-quality jobs and focus new science and technology (S&T) efforts on meeting the nation's need for clean, affordable, and reliable energy. Some actions will involve changing existing laws, while others will require financial support that would come from reallocating existing budgets or increasing them. The committee believes that ongoing evaluation of the results should be included in all of the measures.

"America must act now to preserve its strategic and economic security by capitalizing on its knowledge-based resources, particularly in S&T, and maintaining the most fertile environment for new and revitalized industries that create well-paying jobs," said committee chair Norman R. Augustine, retired chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp., Bethesda, Md. "The building blocks of our economic leadership are wearing away. The challenges that America faces are immense."

A brief overview of the four recommendations follows, with a sample of proposed actions to implement them.

Increase America's talent pool by vastly improving K-12 mathematics and science education.

· Among the recommended implementation steps is the creation of a merit-based scholarship program to attract 10,000 exceptional students to math and science teaching careers each year. Four-year scholarships, worth up to $20,000 annually, should be designed to help some of the nation's top students obtain bachelor's degrees in physical or life sciences, engineering, or mathematics -- with concurrent certification as K-12 math and science teachers. After graduation, they would be required to work for at least five years in public schools. Participants who teach in disadvantaged inner-city or rural areas would receive a $10,000 annual bonus. Each of the 10,000 teachers would serve about 1,000 students over the course of a teaching career, having an impact on 10 million minds, the report says. Sowing the Seeds

· Policy-makers should increase the national investment in basic research by 10 percent each year over the next seven years. Special attention should be paid to the physical sciences, engineering, mathematics, and information sciences, and to basic research funding for the U.S. Department of Defense, the report says.

· Policy-makers also should establish within the U.S. Department of Energy an organization called the Advanced Research Project Agency -- Energy (ARPA-E) that reports to the undersecretary for science and sponsors "out-of-the-box" energy research to meet the nation's long-term energy challenges.

· Authorities should make 200 new research grants annually -- worth $500,000 each, payable over five years -- to the nation's most outstanding early-career researchers. Best and Brightest

Develop, recruit, and retain top students, scientists, and engineers from both the United States and abroad. The United States should be considered the most attractive setting in the world to study and conduct research, the report says.

· Each year, policy-makers should provide 25,000 new, competitive four-year undergraduate scholarships and 5,000 new graduate fellowships to U.S. citizens enrolled in physical science, life science, engineering, and mathematics programs at U.S. colleges and universities.

· Policy-makers should provide a one-year automatic visa extension that allows international students to remain in the United States to seek employment if they have received doctorates or the equivalent in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or other fields of national need from qualified U.S. institutions. If these students then receive job offers from employers that are based in the United States and pass a security screening test, they should automatically get work permits and expedited residence status. If they cannot obtain employment within one year, their visas should expire. Incentives for Innovation

Ensure that the United States is the premier place in the world for innovation. This can be accomplished by actions such as modernizing the U.S. patent system, realigning tax policies to encourage innovation, and ensuring affordable broadband Internet access, the report says.

· Policy-makers should provide tax incentives for innovation that is based in the United States. The Council of Economic Advisers and the Congressional Budget Office should conduct a comprehensive analysis to examine how the United States compares with other nations as a location for innovation and related activities, with the goal of ensuring that the nation is one of the most attractive places in the world for long-term investment in such efforts. · The Research and Experimentation Tax Credit is currently for companies that increase their R&D spending above a predetermined level. To encourage private investment in innovation, this credit, which is scheduled to expire in December, should be made permanent. And Congress and the administration should increase the allowable credit from 20 percent to 40 percent of qualifying R&D investments.

The study was sponsored by the National Academies, which comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.

Copies of Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future will be available this fall from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a pre-publication copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

Norman R. Augustine1 (chair) Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Lockheed Martin Corp. (retired) Bethesda, Md.

Gail Cassell2 Vice President of Scientific Affairs and Distinguished Lilly Research Scholar for Infectious Diseases Eli Lilly and Co. Indianapolis

Steven Chu3 Director E.O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley, Calif.

Nancy S. Grasmick State Superintendent of Schools Maryland Department of Education Baltimore

Charles O. Holliday Jr.1 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer DuPont Wilmington, Del.

Anita K. Jones1 Lawrence R. Quarles Professor of Engineering and Applied Science School of Engineering and Applied Science University of Virginia Charlottesville

Joshua Lederberg2,3 Sackler Foundation Scholar Rockefeller University New York City

C. Daniel Mote Jr.1 President and Glenn L. Martin Institute Professor of Engineering University of Maryland College Park

Cherry A. Murray1,3 Deputy Director for Science and Technology Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, Calif.

Lee R. Raymond1 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Exxon Mobil Corp. Irving, Texas

Robert C. Richardson3 Vice Provost for Research and F.R. Newman Professor of Physics Cornell University Ithaca, N.Y.

P. Roy Vagelos2,3 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Merck & Co. Inc. (retired) Bedminster, N.J.

Charles M. Vest1 President Emeritus Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge

George M. Whitesides1,3 Woodford L. and Ann A. Flowers University Professor of Chemistry Harvard University Cambridge, Mass.

Richard N. Zare3 Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor in Natural Science Department of Chemistry Stanford University Stanford, Calif.

1 Member, National Academy of Engineering 2 Member, Institute of Medicine 3 Member, National Academy of Sciences

Don't get me wrong. a certain amount of regulation is necessary to insure good stewardship by business. But how do you determine where the line is? Asbestos regulations were originally targeted at those who mined it and those who used it in construction of many things. Then it became a school issue, a mechanics issue and finally a homeowners issue. Radon is another "problem" that originally was targeted at miners. Air pollution standards were to effect a 70% reduction, and once that was attained, it was decided to reduce more by another 50%. We regulate past the point of diminishing returns and THIS is what hurts businesses, taxpayers and property owners.

While the concerns of these folks are valid, and attempt to address a huge problem, most of their proposals reek of big government and "handouts" to large dinosaur-like multinational corporations.

If it's profitable for an individual to become a scientist or an engineer, then they will. The money is the arbitar, not the employer. The job of the employer is to maximize profits; it can provide no guarentees to the individual. If you want the individual to take risks, give the tax breaks to the Individual.

Example: People who's direct work output (i.e., not their manager's) can be defined as Science or Engieering related pay No Federal Taxes up to $100,000 /year. I would also extend this to individuals who would be classfied as master machinists, technicians, etc. (i.e. they are direct to the "product"). Caveat: they must be U.S. citizens.. Immigrants who come here to work and choose to become citizens could have the option to reclaim there previously-taxed earnings.

I'm sure there are a lot of Americans who would attempt to get a PhD in Quantum Physics if they could make 60 or 70k a year tax free..

Many of today's students don't want to be at school and don't even try to learn. There biggest challenge every day is to see how much they can get away with without getting caught.

This is the key, if we make it culturally acceptable, even preferable to be an achiever then everything would change.

I know some grade school kids that have memorized dozens of rap songs but can't memorize multiplication tables.

These same kids think the object of going to school is to get by without actually learning anything.

What we need is a leader to motivate the teachers and the students to excel, the rest will follow.

What we need is a leader to motivate the teachers and the students to excel, the rest will follow.

The key motivation is to provide some career security and rewards. If the physician jobs were not protected by strict regulations and anybody with any MD paper from any country in the world could come and work in USA as a doctor, how many American students would be willing to sacrifice several years of hard work and risk countless thousands of dollars (usually borrowed) in shaky investment? VERY FEW!

No gifted leader can change it.

You mentioned Omaha Beach, Okinawa, and Bastogne.

The Omaha Beach guys were mostly 1st Infantry Division with many long service people and recruits from 1942 and 1943. The 1st Infantry Division was reliable throughout the war.

Okinawa was Marine Corps and what, two Army Infantry Divisions?, men who largely had been in the theater for some time. The problem with recruits did not become serious until the second half of 1944. I did not include the Marines as having problems with recruits. The Marine tough training technique was accepted by the public and politicians because "the Marines are tough".

The guys who held out at Bastogne were the 101st Airborne who were long service and volunteers. Their replacements were volunteers also. Anyone unwilling simply decided to flunk jump school. The 101st was sent to Bastogne because other reliable Army units were in very short supply, again, because of poor replacement quality and incorrect training caused by political decisions.

You will find a lot of 1942 Pacific War vets, Navy, Army, and Marines, complaining in their memoirs about the junk men they got sent from middle 1943 on. They were uniformly described as self pitying whiners who would not pull their weight.

Good infantry junior officers were so short by fall 1944 that aviation cadets and others of similar quality were transfered to the infantry. Often those lads really raised a ruckus when told of their transfer. The were told that they could resign their commissions if they wished but would then finish the war as infantry privates.

There was real worry that the usable infantry and armor units would run so low on good men that collapsing morale would make them ineffective. This did not happen, of course, except in a minority of units. The Germans surrendered first.

Imagine drafting DU types and others like them, some not as bad and some much worse. Gang Bangers. Inner city lads. How would you train them to be good soldiers? Well, it can be done. Marine training before about 1955 would do it. There would be deaths in training and sometimes quite a few. Some German elite units (German troops were combat trained by the units to which they were assigned) had one man in ten killed in training. Not by accident, you see?

I have about thirty running feet of shelves filled with books on war. There are also some boxes full in storage.

Thanks for the info.

"Imagine drafting DU types and others like them..."

I actually do have a fantasy where Ozzy Osbournes fat a$$ son gets drafted!

"I have about thirty running feet of shelves filled with books on war. There are also some boxes full in storage."

You sound like a kindred spirit! For my eleventh birthday may father gave me several of the Ballantines "History of the Violent Century" books, that was in 1971 when they were still being issued. I finally completed my collection a few years ago (thanks to the internet). I have a shelf devoted to them alone, 154 volumes, with several duplicate copies.

The so-called "government" schools are responsible for educating some of the most brilliant minds in America. The UC system in California, the CUNY system in NY, the specialized high schools in NYC, the huge number of state schools that educated returning WWII vets via the GI Bill, etc. etc.

The problem is, we've let them fall into a state of disrepeair. Things generally cost what they cost and most people are unwilling to pay the price.

Thinking about what you said, find I agree when the non-financial costs are added to the financial ones. I do not believe more money will help things.

Have two girls in UW Madison, find that the teaching is not all that good. The TAs do the work and most are not good at it. Many grind very Leftist axes. The professors are not accessible. The students are too young to be willing to kick butt. There is radically too much drinking, much worse than the serious problem I knew it to be. There is a scandal running now about serious cronyism and misuse of state funds by top administration, certainly a bad example to faculty and staff.

You think so? Tell your girls to check out what goes on among the foreign students, specifically the Asian or Indian students.

The fact of the matter is, there is no will to change anything in most communities. People just like repeating the mantra, "It's broke beyond repair and money won't help." However, go to an upscale neighborhood where the high schoolers in public school regularly school in the top 3 percentile of SATs and go on to good colleges, and you won't hear too many complaints about high property taxes going to schools.

This says it all. The lawyers are making everything too expensive. Stupid corrupt lawsuits are draining funds, and forcing more companies over seas. You can fight competition, you can fight the government, but you can't fight law suits.

I suppose the ideal business environment would be one without government regulation except, of course, where government would restrict the right of people to sue business while putting no limits on business to business lawsuits.

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.