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 20 th 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 19771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990 1991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006 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. R01 Equivalent* Includes R01, R23, R29 and R37 NIH, OER: “Investment…”

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: b asic 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 supply Lynn 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

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