It's Not a Science Gap (Yet)

It's Not a Science Gap (Yet)

By Robert J. Samuelson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/09/AR2005080901164.html

Wednesday, August 10, 2005; Page A17

A nation's economic power could once be judged by tons of steel or megawatts
of electricity. But we have moved beyond these simple indicators or even
updated versions, such as computer chips. All advanced societies now depend
so completely on technology that their economic might is often measured by
their number of scientists and engineers. By that indicator, America's
economic power is waning. We're producing a shrinking share of the world's
technological talent. China and India are only the newest competitors to
erode our position. We need to consider the implications, because they're
more complicated than they seem.

As late as 1975, the United States graduated more engineering and scientific
PhDs than Europe and more than three times as many as all of Asia, reports
Harvard University economist Richard Freeman in a recent paper. No more. The
European Union now graduates about 50 percent more, and Asia is slightly
ahead of us. By Freeman's estimates, China has reached almost half the U.S.
total and will easily overtake us by 2010. Among engineers with bachelor's
degrees, the gaps are already huge. In 2001 China graduated 220,000
engineers, against about 60,000 for the United States, the National Science
Foundation reports.


Freeman also documents a second worrisome reality: U.S. scientists and
engineers aren't well paid, considering their skills and -- especially for
PhDs -- the required time for a degree. This means, Freeman says, that "the
job market . . . is too weak to attract increasing numbers of U.S.
students." Consider some pay comparisons. From 1990 to 2000, average incomes
for engineering PhDs increased from $65,000 to $91,000, up 41 percent; PhDs
in natural sciences (physics, chemistry) rose from $56,000 to $73,000, up 30
percent. Meanwhile, average doctors' incomes increased from $99,000 to
$156,000, up 58 percent; and lawyers went from $77,000 to $115,000, up 49
percent.

The true situation may be worse. Next to other elites, scientific and
engineering PhDs fare poorly. Look at the 891 MBA recipients of the Harvard
Business School's class of 2005. At an average age of 27, they command a
median starting salary of $100,000. It's true that the two-year cost of a
Harvard MBA is steep ($120,000 and up), and four-fifths of the students are
left with debts averaging $81,000. But these new Harvard MBAs also got huge
one-time bonuses; the median was $43,000. As for scientific and engineering
PhDs, they typically require seven to eight years to finish their degrees,
notes Freeman.

All in all, the outlook seems bleak. There's already a whiff of media
hysteria. After examining these and other trends, Fortune magazine recently
headlined a cover story: "AMERICA: THE 97-LB WEAKLING? . . . We're Losing
Our Competitive Edge."

Not so fast. The grim prognosis wrongly presumes that another country's gain
must be our loss. Hardly. If a Swedish or Japanese company cured cancer or
invented a super-efficient car, Americans would benefit quickly -- just as
Swedes and Japanese have benefited from technologies first developed in the
United States. If Microsoft's research center in Beijing (to take one
oft-cited example) develops stunning new software, the advances will soon be
incorporated in Microsoft products worldwide.

It's also forgotten that the United States still dominates global research
and development. In 1981 American companies and laboratories accounted for
45 percent of research and development among the members of the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development, which are generally the world's
richest nations. In 2000 the U.S. share was still 44 percent -- despite the
increase in other countries' scientists and engineers and a decline in U.S.
defense research and development.

We must be doing something right. Our decentralized research and development
system (corporate, government and university laboratories, venture
capitalists, and freelance inventors) excels at moving ideas to market and
constantly reinvents itself. Here's an example: In 1980 Congress passed the
Bayh-Dole Act to encourage universities to license discoveries to companies.
It worked. In 2002 universities earned $915 million from licensing fees,
almost four times the 1993 level, according to economists Richard Jensen and
Celestine Chukumba of Notre Dame.

Not every new Chinese or Indian engineer and scientist threatens an
American, through outsourcing or some other channel. Actually, most don't.
As countries become richer, they need more scientists and engineers simply
to make their societies work: to design bridges and buildings, to maintain
communications systems, and to test products. This is a natural process. The
U.S. share of the world's technology workforce has declined for decades and
will continue to do so. By itself, this is not dangerous.

The dangers arise when other countries use new technologies to erode
America's advantage in weaponry; that obviously is an issue with China. We
are also threatened if other countries skew their economic policies to
attract an unnatural share of strategic industries -- electronics,
biotechnology and aerospace, among others. That is an issue with China, some
other Asian countries and Europe (Airbus).

What's crucial is sustaining our technological vitality. Despite the pay,
America seems to have ample scientists and engineers. But half or more of
new scientific and engineering PhDs are immigrants; we need to remain open
to foreign-born talent. We need to maintain spectacular rewards for
companies that succeed in commercializing new products and technologies. The
prospect of a big payoff compensates for mediocre pay and fuels ambition.
Finally, we must scour the world for good ideas. No country ever had a
monopoly on new knowledge, and none ever will.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Doomsday Professor and Adam Smiths Legacy: Capitalism, the Division of Labor, and Intellectu
    ... Personally, I think civil engineers, industrial chemists and oil ... many mainstream, conventional economists. ... common problem in an advanced market society like ours, ... scientists, the nuclear engineers, the bankers and the professional ...
    (talk.politics.misc)
  • Much of what happened in New Orleans this week might have been avoided.
    ... the most agonizing part is that much of what happened in New Orleans ... Watching the TV images of the storm approaching the Mississippi Delta on ... scientists, Army engineers, metropolitan planners and Louisiana ... scientists at Louisiana State University ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)
  • Re: Race and IQ
    ... Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes, ... Maybe you should look at the pay of scientists and engineers. ... demand in our economy for cheap, ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Race and IQ
    ... Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes, ... Maybe you should look at the pay of scientists and engineers. ... demand in our economy for cheap, ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Race and IQ
    ... Ok, but do you mean patterns and prediction in abstract visual shapes, ... Maybe you should look at the pay of scientists and engineers. ... demand in our economy for cheap, ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
Loading