Transcript Document

Do We Need More Scientists and
Engineers?
The National Value of Science Education
Wellcome Trust Conference
York, UK: 17 September 2007
Michael S. Teitelbaum
Vice President
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, New York
[email protected]
Concerns in common



Losing lead in R&D?
Shortages of scientists/engineers?
Student interest in science declining
Proposed solutions in common

Combat decline in basic science lead



Combat “shortages” of S & Es



US: double basic research $ (2X in 7 yrs)?
EU: increase R&D to 3% of GDP (Lisbon)
More domestic students
Increase foreign inflows
Combat low domestic student interest

More and better teachers; curricula
Challenge 1: losing R&D lead?

Yes, but overstated




“The report of my death is an exaggeration." (Mark Twain, 1897)
R&D prowess increasing: US, EU, Japan
Europe dominant until WW II, U.S. later
But relative decline is inevitable…


…as other countries catch up (India, China)
…investments by US/EU co’s, universities
Challenge 2: “Shortages”?
A long and embarrassing history in US
Late 1980s: led by then-Director of NSF




Late 1990s: IT firms (IT “shortages”)



Forecasts of “looming shortfalls”
Congressional investigation few years later
Success: 3x visas from 2001--then IT Bust
Now: employers, National Academies
Evidence?: labor markets slack…




With variations over time, and by field
Consistent w/ tight labor markets in some
specialties (especially new & growing)
But, if anything, data point to surpluses
RAND on late 90s high-tech boom in US:
rising S&E unemployment that “while the overall
economy is doing well, is a strong indicator of
developing surpluses of workers, not shortages.”

Since: IT, telecom, biotech bubbles burst
Why “shortage” claims perennial?

Interest groups making their case







Employers
Universities
Government funders
Immigration lawyers (esp. US)
Intend no harm; promoting interests
But politicians, journalists often believe
Governments often fail to analyse
Challenge 3: improve schools?

Critical, but for more than S&E numbers





(annoying fact: S&Es less than 5% of workforce)
Why? Basic science/math now essential for all
Needed in most non-S&E occupations
As important as literacy in 20th C
productivity, key for high-wage economies
Shall we blame schools?



ROSE study data: very interesting
Inverse relation: country wealth with
student interest in science careers
School quality, or alternative careers?
S&E supply without demand?




Demand side often ignored – surprising!
S&Es need employment, labs
Requires large personal investment
S&E careers falling behind others
Demand essential


Alas, many unknowables
Many shocks, long lags



Government S&E budgets: unpredictable
Military procurement: erratic, unpredictable
Private markets: speculative booms & busts

IT, aerospace, biotech, telecom

Forecasts have failed

And now harder (offshore outsourcing)
(“Accurate forecasts have
not been produced”- National Research Council, 2000)
Caution: labor markets ahead

Pumping up supply w/o demand is:






unwise & wasteful
ultimately ineffectual
Assess: how attractive are careers?
Assess: does increased migration &
offshoring reduce domestic interest?
Needed: honest “systems” perspective
Needed: degrees connected to demand
If want more domestic supply, how?



Lots of interested university applicants
EU: can directly influence S&E univ “slots”
US: less control; students can change fields
1/3 entering undergraduates intend S&E degree
 But retention/completion low
 <1/2 intending freshmen complete S&E degree



1/3 shift to other fields
~1/5 drop out


Source: HERI, UCLA surveys, recent years
Increase from <50% to 60-70%?
What not to do…






“Supply-side” actions only
Encourage more students…
…without parallel career demand
US biomedical research budget doubled
1998-2003 (from $14 to 27 billion)
A nasty “hard landing” now underway
Now: effort to double physical sciences
NIH Budget BUDGET AUTHORITY FY 1977 – FY 2007
(Current vs. Constant 1977 Dollars Using BRDPI as the Inflation Factor)(Dollars in Billions)
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
Constant Dollars
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
Current Dollars
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
$0
Biomedical PhDs Age 35 or Younger
Number
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Year
Age 35 or Younger
In Tenure-track Jobs
Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the
research methods or conclusions contained in this report
.
2003
Number of NIH Competing R01 Equivalent*
Applications, Awards and Percent Funded
(Success Rate)
35%
25%
20
20%
15
15%
10
10%
5
5%
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
19
99
19
98
19
97
19
96
0%
19
95
-
Fiscal Year
Review ed
Aw arded
Success Rate
NIH, OER: “Investment…”
R01 Equivalent* Includes R01, R23, R29 and R37
Percent Funded
30%
25
(in Thousands)
Number of Applications
30
In sum…


Science education: does have real
national value
But must articulate goals honestly:


Why more basic research funding
Why more support for school science/maths
Basic research is important

Important to human welfare


Health, food, energy, environment…
Companies: can’t profit from investment


Declines at e.g. Bell Labs, IBM Research
SO, a good role for government support
But: basic research=prosperity?


Benefit to nation NOT automatic
Results are “public goods”




Findings published, exploitable by all
Benefits are significant, but global
Universities & companies: globalizing
Challenge: maximize domestic return?
Goals for schools’ science/math?

Popular focus on “shortages” is weak



Little evidence of shortages
Plenty of university applicants
Strong case




Important drivers of national wellbeing
Science/math critical to being “educated”
Informed citizenry in technological world
Key to increasing national productivity
Thank you!
Comments/questions welcome:
Michael S. Teitelbaum
Vice President
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
[email protected]
NRC Committee Recommendations





Limit growth of grad student numbers
Provide students good career information
Improve/broaden graduate education
Enhance independence of postdocs
Encourage alternative career paths
What happened?




NIH budget doubled 1998-2003
Number of PhDs in US <35 increased
Postdocs trained outside US increased
Hiring patterns: slight increase, lagged
Summary






Total academic positions up 33% in decade
But heavily concentrated in non-tenure track

Non-tenure track up over 70%

Tenure-track up 20%
Proportions <35 in tenure track: unchanged

1993: 10.4%

2003: 10.3% (but was 6.9% in 2001)
Fewer very-extended postdocs
Non-academic employment up more than academic
Unemployed and not-in-labor-force: also grew
Downside risks of raising supply
Lynn and Salzman, Issues in Science & Technology, National Academies, Winter ‘06
Unemployment rate, by selected occupations:
1983–2002
Often missed: S&E occ’s small %
Can we learn from history?
[Source: Paula Stephan, 2007 Harvard seminar]



1996: NRC committee on trends in early
careers of life scientists
Concerns: PhD #’s up, but job market flat
Indicators:




Increased time to degree
Increase in number postdocs & postdoc length
Decreased probability of tenure track position
Declining NIH support for young investigators
Num be r o f P h.D .s C o nfe rre d in the B io m e dic a l S c ie nc e s
1 9 6 3 -1 9 9 6
7200
4800
3600
2400
1200
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
19
85
19
83
19
81
19
79
19
77
19
75
19
73
19
71
19
69
19
67
19
65
19
63
0
19
T o ta l P h .D .s
6000
Y ears
N um b e r o f P h.D .'s
Source: NRC Report
M edian Tim e to Degree and Age at Degree
8.5
(U S L ife-Scien ce Ph .D .s in th e B io m ed ical Scien ces)
32
8
7.5
31
T ime to Degree
7
30.5
6.5
6
30
5.5
29.5
5
M edian Age at T ime of Degree
31.5
29
4.5
4
28.5
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Ye a r
Tim e to D e g re e
M e d ia n A g e a t Tim e o f D e g re e
Source: NRC Report
NIH grants to 35 and younger







1993 ~380 awards
1994 ~410
1995 ~350
1996 ~340
1997 ~330
1998 ~330
Average age at first independent award



1980: 37
1990 39.5
Continued to rise during 1990s.
Percentage
Declining Proportions in Postdoc Positions
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Year
0-2 Years
3-4 Years
5-6 Years
7-8 Years
Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the
research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Over 8 Years
Those not in tenure-track: growth in non-TT and “other FT”
Number
(35 or Younger in Other than Tenure-Track Positions)
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
Unemployed & Out
of the Labor Force
PT Employed
Other FT
Employed
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1993
Postdoc
Not Tenure-track
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Year
Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the
research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
1. Increase
retention/completion

Address reasons 1/2 intending don’t complete






Poor K-12 preparation?
Less supportive cultures?
Teaching quality?
“Weeding-out”?
Grading curve differences?
Career prospects seen as poor?

NB: CS rose sharply 1990s, down since bust