THE AMERICAN WAR ON SCIENCE

By most objective measures, the United States is the undisputed world leader in science and innovation, whether it's funding for research and development, the number of PhD students it graduates or its share of the world's patents. For the world's wealthiest nation, this is hardly a remarkable feat. What is remarkable is that the US accomplished this with a supply of domestic talent whose skills in math and science are, also according to most objective measures, merely mediocre.

Luckily, in the past, many excellent foreign students have shouldered the load, preferring to come here to study and work than stay in their home countries. This import of talent has been valued at more than $13 billion per year. In US science as a whole, a third of all doctoral students are foreign born; in engineering, the figure is nearly twice that.

At times, our dependence on foreign talent mirrors our dependence on foreign oil. For instance, both are affected by terrorism: New immigration rules implemented in the wake of 9/11 created a backlog at the INS so severe that the number of student visas issued fell by nearly a third from its peak in 2001. If the number of visas issued would have remained flat—though up to that point the number had been trending up—the restrictive new rules mean that in the past five years the US issued 300,000 fewer visas, or the equivalent of an entire year's worth of matriculating foreign-born math and engineering students. Historically, more than half of foreign students who earned their degree in the US remained here to work. Advertisement #

In March of 2003, the house committee on science convened a special meeting to address this growing concern. During the meeting, legislators heard testimony concerning the harsh reality many graduate students and post-doctoral fellows had to contend with: The delay in visa renewals meant that some of these researchers were effectively exiled for months at a time. The committee responded by recommending that overly stringent security requirements be eased. Since then, the situation has improved, and the number of issued visas has begun to rebound.

Unfortunately, relaxing border patrol hasn't totally solved the problem. The supply of foreign students—again, much like crude oil—is affected by demand in other countries. According to the NSF's 2005 National Science and Engineering Indicators report, "Asian locations that have been the source of two-thirds of foreign doctoral candidates in the United States are developing their own [science and technology] infrastructures."

Thanks to newfound wealth and expanding economies, China and India are quickly becoming more attractive places for their homegrown scientists and engineers to stay—or to return to once they have completed US degrees. The number of foreign science and engineering students staying to work in the US peaked in 1996 and has been declining ever since.

Meanwhile, both the percentage of doctoral degrees granted to foreigners and the percentage of scientists in the US who were born elsewhere are at all-time highs, allowing the US to maintain the blistering pace at which it creates new science and engineering jobs. In the past decade alone, the demand for these skill-sets grew at three times the rate of overall civilian employment, to 4.6 million positions.

If we assume that innovation is essential to economic growth, then our entire economy is more dependent than ever on the labors of bright people born elsewhere.

If this supply of foreign minds is threatened, as it appears to be, by a combination of market forces and government blunders, our only alternative is to cultivate a homegrown supply of science professionals. That means tapping high school seniors who are doing worse in science than at any other point in the past decade, according to results from the Dept. of Education's National Assessment of Educational Progress, which was released last week.

Worse, these are not students who were excelling to begin with. In 2003, when the level of science literacy of 15-year-old Americans was contrasted with that of peers in other countries, the US placed 18 out of 28, ahead of Mexico and Turkey but behind the usual superstars in Asia and Europe.

In absolute numbers the two groups of native-born US citizens most likely to go into science and engineering--white males and Asian Americans--have declined over the past 10 years. The number of white females and underrepresented minorities in science has remained relatively flat. All of these trends are projected to continue.

It is possible that American students' accelerating disinterest in science and engineering, coupled with a dwindling supply of foreign replacements, would set up a Peak Oil-type scenario in the US, where demand for these workers continues to grow while supply plateaus and then dwindles.

This would be the part of the story when a strong leader steps up to dangle a carrot in front of a scientifically complacent American populace and prevent such a scenario. Forty-five years ago, on May 25, 1961, with the embarrassment of Sputnik still fresh in the collective memory, President Kennedy did just that, declaring that the US would put a man on the moon inside a decade.

Thus far, President Bush has recognized the problem, responding with the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which includes increased funding for basic research, education and job training. The ACI also further addresses the immigration policies that have bedeviled foreign scientists studying and working in the US.

All of this is admirable, but it comes from a president who consistently demonstrates a disdain for areas of science that disagree with his personal ideology. Again and again, whether it is stem cells or energy policy or global warming or the dubious need to "teach the controversy," Bush has demonstrated that he is, literally, anti-rational—opposed to the assumptions about proof and inquiry without which science would be merely alchemy.

It would be absurd to blame a politician for a nationwide decline in scientific interest, but it stands to reason that a president elected, and then re-elected, must in some way embody the beliefs of the electorate—here, specifically, its prioritization of science.

We have just entered a century that will present unprecedented commercial opportunity in computer science, biotechnology and nanotechnology as well as unimaginable challenges in the form of energy and resource shortages, disease epidemics and climate change. Addressing the root causes of the erosion of our scientific knowledge base should be one of our nation's highest priorities. This is our Sputnik.

Why import H1B immigrants when we should be educating our own? Could it be that by importing labor (increasing supply) that we reduce the rewards for our own citizens to take the long and arduous path to science and engineering excellence?

Why import H1B immigrants when we should be educating our own?

To a greater degree (I couldn't say precisely how much), "our own" come from homes where education is intrinsically valued less, where single parents make close attention to education in the house much more difficult, and where the local public schools perform miserably for reasons that have almost nothing to do with money.

So it seems unavoidable to me that exclusively "educating our own," given the society from which they come, will mean a significant drop in U.S. scientific talent.

So your suggestion is to just give up, huh? My son and his friends are taking Geometry (normally a 2nd year high school subject) as 8th graders. They aren't giving up. We shouldn't give up on them either. I personally taught a group of 6th graders how to do basic html coding. American kids CAN do it. Let's not quit on them.

I've just graduated with a degree in chemistry and physics. Let me tell you, the last thing that I want is a foreigner taking a potential job away from me. I would love to see a change in attitude towards science and mathematics in this country, because it needs to happen. NOW. Whenever I talk to people, they express such disgust and fear over science and mathematics that it's dismaying.

This morning I heard an ongoing story on the radio about a lawsuit involving three illegal alien students against the Albuquerque Public School district and how APS will modify their policies to become a "safe haven" for illegals. Immediately following that was another news story about how US students score abysmally in math and science compared to other countries. One can only conclude that there is a concerted effort to turn the US into a third world country.

Undoubtedly some American kids can do better than they are, but if so it will be their parents who make it happen. Much good could come from emphasizing the importance of solid families in solid education, but it is not a magic bullet against these broader social trends.

Why does EVERYTHING have to turn into a Bush bash. These liberals just can't control themselves. This statement is simply ignorant. I say its the liberals who are operating now in an irrational manner.

Please, this is just so stupid. So Bush is against EMBRYONIC stem cell research, sceptical about Global Warming Doom and Gloomism ( a scientific position that I maintain), and he disagrees with liberals about energy policy. Gee, I guess the decades long disinterest in science shown by American kids is his fault. Ok, well its not his fault, but if he all of a sudden BELIEVED in those three things, it would all be better! How utterly ridiculous.

It would be absurd to blame a politician for a nationwide decline in scientific interest

But the writer, Christopher Mims, goes on to do just that. He also makes some spectacularly unsupported statements and leaps of faith in order to make his argument sound more substantive than it is. Not a desirable trait in a "science writer", is it...

What's wrong with the article? Well, I loved the little rhetorical link to "peak oil" that the author throws in. For me, that tells me he's running a scam. But, really, my favorite part is this:

Again and again, whether it is stem cells or energy policy or global warming or the dubious need to "teach the controversy," Bush has demonstrated that he is, literally, anti-rational—opposed to the assumptions about proof and inquiry without which science would be merely alchemy.

This is written by an ideologue with an agenda. I don't share his agenda.

Higher wages do incentivise people in a market economy. If you continue to increase the supply of labor (of a particular kind) you lower the return on investment in education and rational people make decisions on that basis. Further, based on my university experience, failing to demand better teaching than exists now, will certainly not help the situation. My calculus teacher (way back in the pliestocene when I was mushy headed freshman) had english as his third language. His class was awful an I thank my TAs for getting me through it. We can and should do better.

So what specifically do you have problems with in this article? Sweeping general criticism without details to support it doesn't really go too far with me.

Why don't we start with the title? Sounds like a Middle School report.

It would be absurd to blame a politician for a nationwide decline in scientific interest,

Indeed.

but it stands to reason that a president elected, and then re-elected, must in some way embody the beliefs of the electorate—here, specifically, its prioritization of science.

QED

I don't know about you, but I would say that the whole "intelligent design" curriculum is evidence of what we are doing wrong (as conservatives that is).

No you don't know me and I don't give a damn about intelligent design.

Higher wages do incentivise people in a market economy.

I doubt that the reason for poor American sci/math performance is a wage problem occurring because of low-cost foreigners, although I admit it's possible. I think you're underestimating the power of all of contemporary American society's incentives to devalue S/M education.

Further, based on my university experience, failing to demand better teaching than exists now, will certainly not help the situation.

I work in a university, and can't fault you there. :)

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.