be adapted to produce this new type of superconducting tape: "It's going to be an expensive tool-up—[one that] has to have a market to address to make it profitable." Unfortunately, there is no existing market for high-temperature superconductivity. Even so, he foresees a prototype machine in a year. And "that could happen faster if real, serious money were brought to bear," he says. All the excitement, Grant adds, is bringing back the "tingle" he and other scientists felt in 1987 when superconductivity above liquid nitrogen temperatures became a reality. Ron Dagani
Dramatic changes urged in training of Ph.D.s Ph.D. programs should better prepare scientists and engineers for employment in fields other than academic research. This is the gist of "Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers," a study prepared by a 19-member panel for the National Research Council's Committee on Science, Engineering & Public Policy. The 200-page report calls for integrating nonacademic options into Ph.D. training. "All three primary areas of employment for Ph.D. scientists and engineers—universities, industry, and government—are simultaneously experiencing enormous changes," says panel chairman Phillip A. Griffiths, a mathematician and director of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J. "New scientists and engineers must be prepared not only to be flexible in their work, but also to change positions and even careers more than any previous generation." More than half of new graduates with Ph.D. degrees work in nonacademic settings, and the fraction has been growing steadily. Between 1977 and 1991, the proportion of all scientists and engineers with U.S.-granted doctorates employed in colleges and universities in this country declined from 51% to 43%. During the same period, the proportion of chemistry Ph.D.s with academic jobs dropped from 32% to 21%. By 1991, U.S. industry employed 61% of chemistry Ph.D.s—up from 45% in 1977. This shift has been frustrating to many whose training prepared them for academic research careers, the report stresses. Industrial employers say
Ph.D.s are often "too specialized for the range of tasks that they will confront" and "have a difficult time in adapting to the demands of nonacademic work," the study notes. The panel recommends departmentlevel reforms so Ph.D. programs better serve all students—particularly the majority who will work in industry. Students should be discouraged from overspecialization and should be provided with opportunities to gain a variety of skills, including industrial internships, the study urges. Addressing a controversial area now under discussion in many disciplines, the panel "sees no basis" for capping the number of Ph.D.s. "Although many recent graduates are frustrated by their inability to find basic research positions," the report states, "it appears that the growth in nonresearch and applied R&D positions is large enough to absorb most graduates"—citing "available evidence on unemployment rates." The study points out the difficulties in forecasting accurate demand projections. "In the absence of reliable longrange models, we do not know whether a situation is temporary and self-correcting or whether stronger action is required," the report continues. "In other words, there is little basis for trying to control the production of science and engineering Ph.D.s by limiting enrollments nationally through some central control mechanism." The panel also "does not recommend limiting the number of foreign students" studying for Ph.D.s in the U.S. It cites
Rising share of science Ph.D.s work in industry Percent employed 60 Academia 40
Industry 20
0 1973 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 Note: Figures do not include about 20% of scientists and engineers with U.S. Ph.D.s employed by federal government and other employers. Source: National Science Foundation
contributions of foreign students to this nation and notes that many are finding attractive employment opportunities in their home countries. In addition, the panel says, the "sharp increase in the number of foreign-citizen graduate students seems to have been caused in part b y . . . political events that are unlikely to recur ... and changes in U.S. immigration laws." The report can be purchased from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418; phone (800) 624-6242. Linda Raber
More groups push for cuts in federal R&D Two more groups—the Heritage Foundation and Citizens Against Government Waste—have weighed in with plans to cut the federal government. The foundation, a conservative-oriented Washington, D.C, think tank, has issued a radical proposal calling for, among other things, cutting the number of Cabinet departments from 14 to five: Defense, Health & Human Services, Justice, Treasury, and State. Agriculture would be downgraded to independent agency status. So would Interior—which would join the Environmental Protection Agency in a new Bureau of Natural Resources. Under Heritage's plan, slimming the federal government means slimming federal research. For example, in the process of transforming USDA into a Bureau of Agriculture, overall funding for a merged Agricultural Research Service and a Cooperative State Research, Education & Extension Service would drop 50% to $800 million. Neither the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) nor the Technology Administration would survive elimination of the Commerce Department. And the Patent & Trademark Office would find a home in Treasury. All the Energy Department's energy supply R&D programs would be terminated, and the seven governmentowned labs engaged in such research would be privatized. Funding for highenergy science research would be phased out over three years, and responsibility for the national labs transferred to the universities that now run them. EPA's research programs also would be eliminated, and the National Institutes of APRIL 24,1995 C&EN
7
