The State of U.S. Science and Engineering Every two years the National Science Board publishes statistical data describing the condition of American science and eneineerina. The latest edition of Science and Engin e e r i n ~ ~ n d i c a ~will o r s undoubtedly become a widely used resource in government, industry, and academia, as have the previous volumes. Publication of this latest volume prompted a number of broad conclusions by the Board on the current state of U.S. science and engineering. The competitive context for American science and engineering is expressed in terms of a shift t o a world economy and to a knowledge economy. In the past, the U.S. economy wan -lareelv from the remainder of the world. US. - ~ - - ~isolated ~companies prospered without having to export because our market was the lareest in the world. Technolonical - leadership protected U.S. companies from competition from imports. Europe and Japan have now recovered from World War 11, and industrialization has spread rapidly in Third World countries. World-wide industrial and commercial organizations have grown hecause of improved transportation and communications. Today, two-thirds of the goods made in the United States must compete against products from abroad. The historic advantage of an ahundance of natural resources and low-cost lab& has diminished as knowledge has hecome an increasingly significant component in the global economy. New basic industries such as computers, semiconductors, hiotechnology, and innovative synthesized materials, all derived primarily from knowledge and the application of fast-moving technologies, have replaced older industries utilizing natural resources. T o compete successfully today, new knowledge must he both created and applied quickly and economically to create new products and processes. The apparent key t o current prosperity lies in an ahilitvto stimulate more rapid and effective innovation than the c&petition. Such condkions could lead more frequently to the eenerallv confused ambience surrounding the recent "cold-f;sion" fiasco. The perceived need to establish quickly both scientific priority and the upper hand economically may well lead increasihgly to hasty decisions and muddled situations that are not conducive to good science. The data in Science and Engineer;ng Indicators suggest a mixture of strengths and weaknesses in the status of American science and-technology. On the positive side, the re~
search and development effort in the United States remains the lareest and strongest in the world. The American ~ u h l i c believes in the benefits of science and technology; graduate education in the United States remains the best in the world; and a t least 38 state governments have established agencies to encourage science and technology as an important element of economic development. On the other hand, the data also indicate trends that suggest serious weaknesses in our national effort in science and technology. The quality and quantity of technically oriented students in the education system is still low, with little indication that this situation will turn around in the near future. Twenty years ago the United States had a far larger fraction of its labor force employed in science and engineering jobs than any of its comnetitors: todav. .. more of our conmetitors have a fraction akin to ours, and their number is increasing. Similarly, rhe rate of U S . investment as a fraction ofthe GNP in Researrh and Development (R&D) was far higher than that of any other country; today Japan and West Germany exceed our rate, and other countries equal it. Civilian-oriented R&D is generally recognized as being the most important component in the economic picture, but the current U.S. rate of investment in this area is only about two-thirds that of our chief rivals, Japan and West Germany. In the view of the NSB, the key to recovering the U.S. predominance in science and technology lies in establishing a hroad-based cooperative effort. The National Science Foundation is the only Federal agency with the sole responsihility of maintaining the health of American science and engineering; however, industry, the universities, state governments, and other Federal agencies also have major res~onsihilities.State and local governments are responsible &r most precollege and undergraduate education, while industry is dependent on a well-educated work force that can deal eflectiiely with modern technology. Universities havea unique role in this effort. They have a dual responsibility: to create ....~ .-new ~ - knowledee and to provide for the education of undergraduates who will become the scientists and technoloeists in the future work force. The Universitv efforts in both;.egards must he carefully balanced. In the ling run, the research function cannot overshadow the teaching function nor can the latter undermind the former. This is a time for great insight and great care by great leaders. JJL ~~~~
~
~~
~
~
~
~
-
Volume 67
Number 5
May 1990
359
