Do We Need More Scientists and Engineers?

The National Value of Science Education

Wellcome Trust ConferenceYork, UK: 17 September 2007

Michael S. TeitelbaumVice President

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, New Yorkteitelbaum@sloan.org

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 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

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

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

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 (“Accurate forecasts

have not been produced”- National Research Council, 2000)

And now harder (offshore outsourcing)

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

$0 19

77

19

78

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

Current Dollars

Constant Dollars

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

Nu

mb

er

Age 35 or Younger In Tenure-track Jobs

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.

Number of NIH Competing R01 Equivalent* Applications, Awards and Percent Funded

(Success Rate)

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fiscal Year

Num

ber

of A

pplica

tions

(in

Thousa

nds)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Per

cent Funded

Reviewed Awarded Success Rate

R01 Equivalent* Includes R01, R23, R29 and R37

NIH, OER: “Investment…”

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. TeitelbaumVice PresidentAlfred P. Sloan FoundationTeitelbaum@sloan.org

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 supplyLynn 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

Number of Ph.D.s Conferred in the Biomedical Sciences1963-1996

0

1200

2400

3600

4800

6000

7200

Years

To

tal P

h.D

.s

Number of Ph.D.'sSource: NRC Report

Median Time to Degree and Age at Degree(US Life-Science Ph.D.s in the Biomedical Sciences)

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

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

Year

Tim

e t

o D

eg

ree

28.5

29

29.5

30

30.5

31

31.5

32

Me

dia

n A

ge

at

Tim

e o

f D

eg

ree

Time to Degree Median Age at Time of Degree

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.

0

1020

30

40

5060

70

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

Pe

rce

nta

ge

0-2 Years 3-4 Years 5-6 Years 7-8 Years Over 8 Years

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.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

Nu

mb

er

Unemployed & Outof the Labor Force

PT Employed

Other FTEmployed

Postdoc

Not Tenure-track

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.

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