Chris Mooney is a freelance writer and the author of two books, 
In my latest Science Progress piece, I crusade head on at a piece of misinformation that is incredibly prominent of late--the idea that U.S. scientist production is in decline. Looking at the data, whether on Ph.d. production, bachelor's degrees, graduate degrees, or graduate enrollments, I show that the contention is simply false.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about competition from India and China--for as I say in the piece, China's rate of increasing Ph.d. production is greater than ours. However, if we're going to do something to change the way we currently produce and train scientists in this country, we have to avoid misinformation, and get beyond the unhelpful and simplistic notion that "more is better."
You can read the full piece here.
Education & Careers
Politics
Comments
I don't know if it's smart or not but one reason that you have so high output is the shorter time (less quality) needed to get a e.g. PhD in USA then in many countries in Europe. And since it seams as we are trying to change our system to look more like yours... well I guess you are... in one way...
Posted by: Magnus Westerstrand | August 20, 2008 6:05 PM
What about retention post PhD? Anecdotally, I see CS departments in this country funneling talent back to their home countries more and more.
Posted by: Walker | August 20, 2008 6:52 PM
Chris,
I think you make a good point about the misapplied emphasis regarding our STEM workforce. An across-the-board shortage is not the reality. However, there are huge segments of the population being left out of science and technology learning. White males are greatly overrepresented, and the solution is not to cut those numbers but to build up the numbers of females and minorities who see science careers as an option for them. Recent evidence points to the importance of interest in predicting career choice - not a big surprise, but important nonetheless. We need to catch kids early and let them know that science is interesting (not just that it pays better or that there is some horrible shortage, etc.) Otherwise, the door closes and we are stuck with a limited population that understands science.
At the moment, I am looking for champions for our American Express Members Project to start science clubs all of the country and world. This isn't about one model or company, but about hundreds of unique, grassroots efforts to get kids engaged. Would you be interested in sharing this with your audience?
Posted by: Jason Freeman | August 20, 2008 7:09 PM
I don't understand. Most scientific knowledge flows freely accross national boundaries. If the gain of scientific knowledge is seen as beneficial, organizing a greater percentage of global brains to gain it should be seen as beneficial, too.
So why should "we" worry about the increase in the rate of production of new scientific knowledge in countries other than our own? Please be more specific.
Posted by: Matti K. | August 21, 2008 3:41 AM