Chemical Education Today
Editorial: An Era of Change One of the responsibilities of the National Science Board is to focus national attention on major issues relating to science and engineering research and education. The NSB has done so recently in U. S. Science and Engineering in a Changing World, which accompanies Science and Engineering Indicators—1996, the biennial report from NSB to the Congress. Commendably brief and readable, U. S. Science and Engineering in a Changing World is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/nsb.htm. Its fundamental message is that we are in an era of change, and we had better be prepared to rethink what used to be obvious truisms. The institutions that carry on science and engineering research and education can no longer count on the specter of a cold war to generate support and funding. Science continues to grow in scope and power, but the resources available to support scientific research and science education cannot possibly keep pace. Available resources are being constrained instead of expanded, and there is no reason to expect that they will ever again expand as rapidly as they did in the past. Therefore it is imperative that priorities be set that are consistent with the goals of a post-cold-war era where increased economic competitiveness has assumed much greater importance. Federal research and development priorities have shifted away from defense and toward the civilian sector, which reinforces the trend toward a larger role for academic institutions in the U.S. research and development effort. But growth in academic R&D support is now only half what it was in the mid-1980s, and further reallocations in federal funding are likely. According to the NSB, we can no longer expect to be preeminent in all fields of science and engineering, though we can strive to retain world-class performance in all major areas. Careful study will be required to determine in which areas we can expect the best return on investment, and international cooperation and cost sharing are prescribed as a way to make maximum use of resources. Between 1990 and 1993 the number of science and engineering jobs in industry increased by only 2.5 percent, and much of the growth was in occupations that require computer and mathematical skills. I was surprised to find that nonmanufacturing businesses now employ more than half of the U.S. scientists and engineers who work in industry. It is becoming more and more important that students who plan to take degrees in science or engineering understand that they may find employment in jobs that would not traditionally be labeled as science or engineering. We need to do a much better job of understanding the realities of the labor market that our students will face.
The NSB promises to include in future reports more and better information about labor market conditions. Your Journal will call attention to these as they appear. The NSB also argues that for the U. S. to remain globally competitive, we must have workers and entrepreneurs who are educated in science and engineering, are able to understand and use science and engineering research results, and can exploit technological capabilities to the fullest. This argues for much better and more widespread general science education at both the K-12 and college levels. The NSB recommends K-12 science and mathematics education be revitalized, but does not provide a concrete plan that would accomplish the desired changes nor endorse other plans such as Project 2061 or national science education standards. According to the NSB, reform ought to be systemic, should involve partnerships among all relevant parties, could involve networking and information technologies, should include libraries, museums, community colleges, and science and technology centers, and might be scuttled by the wrong decisions about where funding should be provided. Another major recommendation is that research and education must be closely integrated, and that federal policies and funding ought to support such integration. Here again, however, specific actions to be taken are hard to ferret out. There is a contention that federal research dollars can support both investigation and education, and have been doing so in the past. This is true in many of the best research universities, but a strong argument can be made that federal funding for research at universities has skewed priorities much too far toward research and funding at the expense of quality education of undergraduates. This issue remains unexplored by the NSB report, and there are no specifics about how funding could be arranged so that an appropriate balance would be achieved. The overall premise of the NSB report is that we are in the midst of change. Things will not remain the way they were. Both our students and we ourselves will be forced to address and react to changes in society and the government. To its credit the NSB argues forcefully that we “must put absolute priority on educating and training all members of society in mathematics, science, and engineering so they may be productively employed in an increasingly sophisticated global economy.” But this is to be done by “promoting the integration of research and education at all levels.” This is a laudable aim, but nebulous at present. I strongly agree that teachers and researchers at all levels ought to interact and communicate much more effectively—and on a basis of respect for each other’s expertise and contributions. The very last sentence of the report refers to a “reinvigorated [science and technology] enterprise, in which all components appreciate and reinforce their own and one another’s essential role.” We have a long way to go toward that ideal, but it is one well worth pursuing.
Vol. 74 No. 2 February 1997 • Journal of Chemical Education
141
