Science + 1
More Graduates, or Graduates With More?
SOURCE: SP
The latest scientific workforce debate underscores the importance of science graduates learning about something other than science.
In the world of science policy, so-called “pipeline” studies—analyses of the paths followed by students up through Ph.D. attainment and into the job market—have a controversial history. For instance, and as Daniel Greenberg reports in his plucky and contrarian 2001 book Science, Money, and Politics, in the late 1980s the National Science Foundation began to push the argument that due to demographic trends, the nation faced a looming “shortfall” of trained scientists. But the numbers and analytic methods used to support this conclusion were highly questionable, and the study was later subject to withering congressional investigation, leaving NSF deeply embarrassed. Among other things, the foundation’s analysis really examined what you might call the scientific “supply” side without seriously considering “demand”—and in fact, at the time there were too few jobs for too many scientists, not vice versa.
But precisely what would we be producing more scientists for?
Now come indications that history might be about to repeat itself. Just as in the late 1980s—and as epitomized by the National Academy of Sciences’ deeply influential Rising Above the Gathering Storm report—the science community has been clamoring of late for a greater investment in research and development. The new argument (much like the old) asserts that current educational and industrial trends bode ill for U.S. competitiveness, especially given the increasing production of scientific talent in emerging powerhouses like India and China. But precisely what would we be producing more scientists for? After all, as a recent report from the Urban Institute finds, “each year there are more than three times as many S&E [Science and Engineering] four-year college graduates as S&E job openings.” Do we really have enough jobs for all these new scientists and engineers that we supposedly need? Who’s right, the NAS or the Urban Institute?
I must admit that as a science writer with far more experience writing about flagrant political attacks on science than on more nuanced matters of funding levels or educational policies, I wade into these waters cautiously. However, I’m well aware of a persuasive literature suggesting that at times, the scientific community falls into a rather alarmist mindset when peering at educational and workforce trends. Greenberg’s Science, Money, and Politics, and the Urban Institute’s latest report both fit into this “the world isn’t really ending” genre—one whose writings usually emerge as rejoinders to workforce-related jeremiads from the scientific community.
At the same time though, I certainly wouldn’t argue against broad improvements to U.S. science education (who would?). Perhaps the middle way in this debate—a stance articulated by commentators like Nature’s David Goldston and Vivek Wadhwa—lies in pointing out that if we are going to train more scientists that’s fine, but let’s make sure they come away with a much more diverse set of skills so that they can fill a broader range of workforce positions, including nontraditional ones.
Some young scientists aren’t going to be working in purely scientific positions.
How might we achieve that? Well, sadly, an innovative piece of legislation introduced earlier this year by Rep. Doris O. Matsui (D-Ca) might have helped do the job—but in the process of becoming law it lost considerable potency. Matsui’s legislation, originally the “Scientific Communications Act of 2007” and later interpolated into the America COMPETES Act, would have directed NSF to start making grants that would help graduate students in science obtain training in communication. But in final form the legislation wound up being pared down to a mere “Sense of Congress” without any dollars attached to it. That’s unfortunate. After all, if we don’t have enough science and engineering jobs for all of our scientists and engineers at present, doesn’t it make sense to institutionalize new training protocols for young scientists so that they’ll have more diverse workforce skills? And indeed, it’s widely known—to the point of being a cliché—that scientists don’t always know how to talk to non-scientists.
The numbers presented by the Urban Institute lead to an uncontestable conclusion: Some young scientists aren’t going to be working in purely scientific positions. There simply aren’t enough jobs for them. Instead, some will be going into fields like journalism, or advertising, or politics—and if so, they ought to be learning more than simply scientific skills.
Learning about science is wonderful—but in today’s complex world, it’s rarely enough. Sure, it helps in any number of occupations, ranging from law to business, to know something about science. But it helps even more if you also know something else (like, say, how to speak in public or write, or design a website). Knowing how to think scientifically is pretty good on its own; but in combination with other skills, it’s truly sublime.
In fact, we can go further. If the core concern is ensuring U.S. competitiveness, doesn’t interdisciplinarity—the ability to combine scientific skills with another type of expertise—both enhance creativity and also give someone an edge? Doesn’t a scientist who also speaks Spanish or understands patent law have a leg up in the global marketplace?
If so, it follows that not only do we need more scientists, we need more scientists with additional skills to boot. Why can’t the scientific community release major reports stating that?
Chris Mooney is the Washington correspondent for Seed magazine and author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs on The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.
Comments on this article
Next, you will be openly advocating a scientist-peeyar major.
This is by strict definition - impossible!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:30 amAs a science educator myself (I serve as the chair of the mathematics department of Benson Polytechnic High School in Portland, Oregon and adjunct professor of mathematics at Portland State University), I would like to take issue, not only with the empirical validity of the claims of national competitiveness, but with their moral and ethical content.
Specifically, I am tired of reading policy statements which treat the scientific and technical community of the country as a means to and end.
If we want to develop scientific expertise, we should recruit young people into science; if we want to improve the ability of the country to address technical, engineering problems, then by all means let us encourage the youth of this country to become part of the solution to those problems.
But it is false and hypocritical to tell students that they are called upon to focus on science so that the United States should become or remain “competitive” in some vague way in scientific and technical entreprises. There is a massive disconnect there between the policy problem and the ability of the student of science and engineering even to address it. The problem is not susceptible to scientific or technical analysis in the first place: it is a political problem.
You cannot recruit a college student into the exploration of the planets by tellling him or her that that exploration depends upon their choice of career; the public opinion will allocate the resources it chooses, based upon to a large extent the public perception of the alternatives. The student may succeed or not in advancing the exploration of the planets of the solar system in the course of a life devoted to that pursuit; the student will have negligible impact on the political decision by the political institutions of the country on the priority given to planetary exploration.
As citizens, in other words, scientists and engineers are participants in choices made regarding the policy selections in science and engineering. But as scientist and engineer they are working within a framework already settled by forces external to science.
Tell ALL of the students who are undergoing education to privilege science and technology, then, not just the science majors. They all have the same or similar voice in the matter. — but then, that audience might well respond with genuine resistance, saying they have other priorities and have no intention of setting them aside.
We should not and cannot use our students of science and technology as pawns in some sort of international power struggle, in other words; their choice of science has very little impact on the struggle, which involves a host of other variables, and in the second place we have already agreed that in a democratic republic the choices are made as a result of public opinion.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:38 pmI have to agree with Michael Meo. To put my agreement in perspective, I have a BSME, MSEE and almost done with a JD.
If the Congress really wants to be effective about attacting students to the SE field, then they would be better off addressing the demand side of the economics. Defense is a good way to do that, but seems to have a baffling connection with questionable bloodshed.
It is also disturbing that this government is comparing itself to other governments like China (I think I read somewhere that they were churning out 100k SE grads a year).
I also recall reading a quote from the CEO of some major corporation that professed to eat sleep breath its company 24 hours a day (how he gets by without REM sleep beyond me) and that we should be nervous about competition from China because they were willing to work on a Sunday.
Personally, I have been in the position of working with engineers from the asia-pacific region and from my experience, they are just as likely to enjoy their time off as any American. I remember attending a meeting where the entire gaggle of Japanese managers fell asleep… and rightly so… the presentations were pretty much a bunch of American managers that were pontificating endlessly about how great their approach is (in the guise of managing resources). The American confrontational style was eating up endless resources for the sake of egoism masked as ‘rugged individualism.’
I am not sure how the meeting affected the end product, but who can ever remember? Seems like they never do. It seems like the end product is usually affected by a couple of engineers getting together and saying lets get this working… then making it work. Of course, then there are meetings where managers pontificate about who’s management skills made it work. It seems that the lessons of Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard have long since been lost (e.g., ‘management by walking around’ etc.)
All that aside, I am a little baffled why policy wonks would ever promulgate concepts of ’shortage’ as if SEs were commodities on a market. Besides, basic economics says there is no such thing as shortage, just supply and demand. Given that the hourly rates of lawyers for top partners with Ivy League credentials are in the 750 an hour range, who is going to argue with a smart and driven kid giving the NSF the finger and doing the Ivy BA and Ivy JD path? I’d say he was pretty shapr for figuring out the game so soon.
However, in a fit of altruism from decades of brain washing I suspect that this kind of incentive differential (engineers salary v. partner billable hours) is not in the interest of this country. Some of these ‘top partner’ types appear to be supoenaed and also appear to be effectively giving the finger to Congress. Is this good or bad for the country? I feel okay with saying this gesture that apparently is bad for the country. But here we are, so what do we do about it?
My suggestion is to quit treating kids like commodities and start asking more fundamental economic questions related to demand.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:58 amWhy can’t the scientific community release major reports stating that?
Because it doesn’t see the need yet. IME, the link between shrinking funding and interdisciplinary training is not yet understood by the generation of scientists that is currently making the decisions. The resistance you see from scientists to your arguments about framing are also evidence of this.
However, the drumbeat of “Not enough jobs for you! Not enough jobs for you!” encourages young scientists to consider “alternative careers,” and doing that means gaining interdisciplinary skills. As a young scientist who sees that wider training can help my career no matter where it ends up, the existing plans–such as courses in communications in graduate school–are laughable. Modeling them on the ethics training won’t make a big impression on those who aren’t already interested. Short courses (full-time, one to two weeks) are a common training paradigm, at least in my field of biology. Sending one’s trainees off to one of those would make a much bigger impression on them: it’d send the message that “this is actually important” even if one’s mentor tried to undermine that impression. And that impression could be made on the mentor if the cost is subsidized or if incentives for doing so can be built into the grant or tenure system somehow.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:37 pm