Do We Need More Scientists and Engineers?

1. 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 teitelbaum@sloan.org

2. Concerns in common • Losing lead in R&D? • Shortages of scientists/engineers? • Student interest in science declining

6. Proposed solutions in common • Combat decline in basic science lead • US: double basic research $ (2X in 7 yrs)? • EU: increase R&D to 3% of GDP (Lisbon) • Combat “shortages” of S & Es • More domestic students • Increase foreign inflows • Combat low domestic student interest • More and better teachers; curricula

7. 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

8. Challenge 2: “Shortages”? • A long and embarrassing history in US • Late 1980s: led by then-Director of NSF • Forecasts of “looming shortfalls” • Congressional investigation few years later • Late 1990s: IT firms (IT “shortages”) • Success: 3x visas from 2001--then IT Bust • Now: employers, National Academies

9. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. Shall we blame schools? • ROSE study data: very interesting • Inverse relation: country wealth with student interest in science careers • School quality, or alternative careers?

17. 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

18. 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 (“Accurate forecasts have not been produced”- National Research Council, 2000) • And now harder (offshore outsourcing)

19. 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

20. 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%?

21. 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

22. 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 $0 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Current Dollars Constant Dollars

23. Biomedical PhDs Age 35 or Younger 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.

24. NIH, OER: “Investment…” R01 Equivalent* Includes R01, R23, R29 and R37

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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?

28. 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

29. Thank you! Comments/questions welcome: Michael S. Teitelbaum Vice President Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Teitelbaum@sloan.org

31. 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

32. What happened? • NIH budget doubled 1998-2003 • Number of PhDs in US <35 increased • Postdocs trained outside US increased • Hiring patterns: slight increase, lagged

33. 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

34. Downside risks of raising supplyLynn and Salzman, Issues in Science & Technology, National Academies, Winter ‘06

35. Unemployment rate, by selected occupations: 1983–2002

36. Often missed: S&E occ’s small %

37. 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

38. Source: NRC Report

39. Source: NRC Report

40. 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.

41. Declining Proportions in Postdoc Positions 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.

42. Those not in tenure-track: growth in non-TT and “other FT” (35 or Younger in Other than Tenure-Track Positions) 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.

43. 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