Global Trend

The Reverse Brain Drain

As we¡¯ve discussed on many occasions, the primary driver of economic well being in the rest of the 21st century will be innovation. For more than a century, the United States has been the world¡¯s most vibrant economy ? largely because it has been the consistent leader in scientific research and innovation. Regardless of whether you measured this innovation in terms of scientific papers published, or the number of patents issued, the U.S. always left the competition in the dust.

However, our lopsided advantage seems to be giving way to foreign competition. Americans are still getting plenty of patents, but their percentage of the total patents issued each year is dropping. Foreign applicants, particularly those from Asian countries, are starting to take over the lead in innovation in some fields. According to the New York Times, the United States¡¯ share of its own industrial patents has declined to 52 percent.

The data on research papers show an even more startling shift. In 1983, Americans wrote 61 percent of the research papers that were published in scientific journals, according to a study by Physical Review. In just two decades, the percentage fell to 29 percent. That conclusion is supported in a study by the European Commission, which announced in 2003 that Europe took over the lead from the U.S. in producing scientific papers.

The statistics from the world of higher education are just as bleak. The number of freshly minted doctorates in the sciences fell 5 percent in just a single year, from 1998 to 1999, according to the National Science Foundation. That translates to 1,300 fewer American scientists working in U.S. corporations¡¯ research labs or starting their own businesses.

The numbers tell us what is happening. But why does the United States appear to be losing its undisputed dominance in the sciences? Ever since the number of home-grown scientists and engineering graduates peaked in 1970, we¡¯ve seen a decline in the number of Americans entering these fields. Some attribute it to poor preparation before college. However, a more likely driver seems to be relatively poor economic return on a doctorate in the sciences.

After spending four years in undergraduate school, four years in a graduate program, and another two or three years in a post-doctoral program, the recipient of a Ph.D. in the sciences still makes less than most people who simply got an MBA from a good school. Even for those who want to enter academia, science doesn¡¯t seem to be the best option. Consider average annual salaries for professors in different disciplines: law, $109,000; business, $80,000; biological and biomedical sciences, $64,000; and mathematics, $62,000.

Until recently, it wasn¡¯t a major problem that fewer Americans were becoming scientists. Fortunately, American companies were able to select the best people from the global talent pool, particularly from India, China, and the countries of the former Soviet Union. At American colleges and universities, foreign students receive 40 percent of the advanced degrees in chemistry and biology, 50 percent in math and computer science, and 58 percent in engineering, according to figures from The National Science Foundation.

Now, however, the shortage of scientists is erupting into a crisis. Because other countries have improved the scientific training in their own schools, they are now educating their own students, and finding jobs for them in their own growing economies. This is particularly the case in China, Taiwan, and India.

The fact that many more scientists and engineers are now earning their degrees overseas has also leveled the playing field, allowing other countries to compete for those professionals. A recent graduate with a degree in computer science from India can just as easily immigrate to a European country as to the U.S.

Or perhaps, it¡¯s even easier to the EU. America¡¯s focus has shifted from doing what¡¯s best for the economy to doing what¡¯s best for national security. The ¡°open-door¡± policy that once welcomed foreign students and scientists to fill the vacancies in U.S. companies has been replaced by a new policy that regards every foreigner with suspicion.

Between 2001 and 2002, the U.S. government granted 55 percent fewer visas for immigrants to work in science and technology, according to a study by the National Science Board. The decline was primarily due to new counterterrorism efforts in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Not surprisingly, students from foreign countries are less likely to even attempt to get into U.S. schools, and applications have fallen by 25 percent.

What does this mean for the health of the U.S. economy, our relative standard of living, and our national security? In today¡¯s rapidly changing world, it¡¯s difficult to foresee precisely how this will play out, but we¡¯d like to offer the following three forecasts for your consideration:

First, neither the scientist shortage nor the ¡°reverse-brain drain¡± will prove to be serious long-term problems for the United States. This probably runs contrary to what you¡¯ve heard elsewhere about this subject. But a chorus of voices arguing to the contrary is growing louder. For example, in an editorial in Science magazine, editor Donald Kennedy asks, ¡°Why do we keep wishing to expand the supply of scientists, even though there is no evidence of imminent shortages?¡± Kennedy asserts that we produce more science and engineering workers than jobs, so we can keep labor costs low and productivity high. That view is echoed in an essay called ¡°What Scientist Shortage?¡± in the Washington Post, by Daniel S. Greenberg, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and the author of Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion. Greenberg contends, ¡°The alarmists of scientific shortage have been warning for decades that a homeward exodus of foreign scientists will someday occur. But contrary to this expectation, the ¡®stay¡¯ rates of foreign doctoral students have actually increased, according to the National Science Foundation, which reports that 71 percent of foreign citizens who received their Ph.D.s in 1999 were still in the United States two years later ? up from 49 percent in 1987.¡± The uniquely fertile economy and academic setting in the United States will continue to attract the best and the brightest from around the world, and we¡¯ll continue to be the beneficiaries as long as we don¡¯t impede the natural flow of talent.

Second, the United States will assemble a national security infrastructure that will permit it to eliminate threats without cutting off the supply of intellectual talent from around the world. As we¡¯ve discussed, the past three years have seen a steep decline in the number of science and engineering students and researchers working in the U.S. The biggest single reason for this decline is the need to screen for terrorists. The resulting backlog has caused a large proportion of applicants to apply to programs in Japan, New Zealand, Australia, and the European Union. During the economic slow-down, this was acceptable. However, we need to rapidly put in place mechanisms that will ensure national security while placing a minimal burden on talented individuals who will contribute to our long-term success. By merging biometric technology with seamless global databases and electronic documents, we expect this to be accomplished by 2008.

Third, technology will rapidly eliminate the need for much of the routine scientific talent, especially below the Ph.D. level. This will sharply reduce the number of scientists and engineers needed for a given volume of research. A large proportion of work now done in laboratories is repetitive and mundane. Technicians with less-than-college educations can readily do it, today. By 2010, most of it will be performed by fully automated systems, as we¡¯ll discuss when we explore Trend #3. Automating such work will free up graduate students to concentrate on higher-level research. This will enable the United States to remain the world¡¯s pre-eminent scientific power for the foreseeable future.

References List :
1. The New York Times, May 3, 2004, "U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences," By William J. Broad. ¨Ï Copyright 2004 by The New York Times Company . All rights reserved.2. The Washington Post, May 19, 2004, "What Scientist Shortage?" by Daniel S. Greenberg. ¨Ï Copyright 2004 by The Washington Post Co. All rights reserved.3. Science, February 20, 2004, "Supply Without Demand," by Donald Kennedy, Jim Austin, Kirstie Urquhart, and Crispin Taylor. ¨Ï Copyright 2004 by American Association for the Advancement of Science. All rights reserved. 4. The Washington Post, May 19, 2004, "What Scientist Shortage?" by Daniel S. Greenberg. ¨Ï Copyright 2004 by The Washington Post Co. All rights reserved.5. Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion by Daniel S. Greenberg is published by The University of Chicago Press. ¨Ï Copyright 2001 by Daniel S. Greenberg. All rights reserved.6. International Herald Tribune, May 29, 2004, "Visa Obstacles Causing Brain Drain in the U.S. Globalist," By Roger Cohen. ¨Ï Copyright 2004 by the International Herald Tribune. All rights reserved.7. To access the report "More Than One-Fifth of All Individuals Employed in Science and Engineering Occupations Have Less Than a Bachelor¡¯s Degree Education," visit the National Science Foundation¡¯s website at:www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/infbrief/nsf04333