Click for next page ( 20


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 19
4 Perspectives WORKFORCE AND EDUCATION PERSPECTIVES Session Chair Ashok Saxena, Georgia Institute of Technology Large Industry Perspective, R. Stanley Williams, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Small Business Perspective, Andrew Hunt, Microcoating Technologies Educating a New Workforce, Gregory Farrington, Lehigh University Training Our Current Workforce, John Moran, Consultant 1 A growing obstacle reported by many U.S. industries is finding qualified scientists and engineers to fulfill their research and development needs and maintain the U.S. lead as a technology innovator. In 199S, this outcry resulted in the expansion of a visa program to allow almost 200,000 foreign specialty workers per year to temporarily enter the United States and work here for up to 6 years. In 2000, the 5.3 million high-tech workers represented 10.6 percent of the manufacturing workforce. More importantly, these workers were responsible for 50 percent of the acceleration in the growth of productivity during the 1990s.~ At the beginning of the 2Ist century, when the United States is poised for a new industrial revolution driven by innovations such as nanotechnology, significant impediments- specifically, the scarcity of a workforce remain to realizing this opportunity. To fully exploit the potential of the latest technological and scientific innovations, many see the need for an investment to be made in the coming years similar to the federal investments of the 1960s, which drove the age of microelectronics and provided the infrastructure for new industries. However, the trends in federal research support by discipline FY1970 to 2002 show funding in mathematics and~hysical sciences flat or declining, while funding in biological sciences has increased. Since 1986, the number of B.Sc. degrees awarded has decreased by 21 percent in engineering, 19 percent in math, and 12.6 percent in the physical sciences, while increasing 55 percent (as of 1996) in the biological sciences. This is shown in Figure 4-~. One workshop speaker observed that students seem to follow federal research support, yet this same participant speculated that there is significant evidence that the job IS. Williams' Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, presentation at thie workshop. Available at . Slide 5. January 2003. 2S. Williams, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, presentation at the workshop. Available at . Slide 9. January 2003. l 19

OCR for page 19
MATERIALS AND SOCIETY co act 80 >~ 60 a' ~ ~0 m I A 20 a' ~ O _ -20 8 ~ -40 of 1987 ~ 988 1989 1990 ~ 991 1992 1993 1994 ~ 995 1996 1997 Year FIGURE 4-1 Growth in science and engineering degrees, indexed to 1986. Except for life sciences, undergraduate degrees in science and engineering have been flat or declining. SOURCE: Council on Competitiveness, 2001, U.S. Competitiveness. opportunities are not in biology.3 Another speaker at the workshop discussed similar education and corporate employment trends, which show a significant mismatch between the graduates being producer! and the workforce needs of the economy. This presentation prompted a variety of comments during pane} discussions. Speakers and discussants postulated that in orcler to attract more students into the physical sciences and engineering, it is vital that the curriculum in U.S. universities be interesting from the first semester on, with opportunities for faculty-student interaction and the involvement of local industry. Many students come to the university environment with prior experiences and expectations, including what they want to stucly. A variety of factors may direct them toward or away from materials. For many reasons, recruitment into the materials science and related fields is a struggle. One speaker at the workshop asserted that women especially are not sufficiently encouraged to study materials science. That many of the brightest U.S. students are choosing legal, banking, investment, business, or medical jobs may be partly clue to their belief that salaries in these fields are significantly higher than for scientists and engineers. Also, students may stay away from materials science because the time nee(lecl for a material to penetrate the market is estimated at 20 to 30 years. This type of statistic will turn away entrepreneurial students. While foreign-born Ph.D. graduates have long played a prominent role in the success of the national research complex, concern was evinces! at the workshop that the Unitecl States is becoming overdependent on this foreign workforce. As recruiting a U.S.-educated workforce becomes more clifficult, corporate research laboratories may consider moving offshore to be near their primary sources of scientists and engineers. 3S. Williams, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, presentation at the workshop. Available at . S l i d e 1 2 . J. a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 . 20

OCR for page 19
PERSPECTIVES With the continuing decline in the supply of skilled workers, one speaker at the workshop stated that the United States would have to retrain the current workforce and renew apprenticeship programs. He added that today, fewer and fewer skilled workers are trained every year and a critical point is near. New efforts, such as the 1998 Workforce Improvement Act, may be needed to attract students into the skilled workforce and to retrain our current workforce to satisfy the continuing needs of the manufacturing industries. ~ Significant challenges must be met to guarantee a continuing supply of an educated and trained workforce for the materials research, development, and manufacturing complex. The consequences of inaction could be serious for the long-term health of the U.S. economy, and the solutions will involve educators, industry, and government. If the United States is not a developer of technology, it is in danger of becoming an importer and buyer of technology. Comments from the Speakers "The biggest problem we face is finding the right people." R. Stanley Williams, Hewlett-Packard "Filling slots for undergraduate biological sciences has been likened to fishing with a net: one simply scoops them up. In the physical sciences- including materials science- recruiting undergraduate majors is much harder, more like fly fishing for one fish at a time." Gregory Farrington, Lehigh University "There is a drain of the U.S. brain trust away from physical sciences and engineering." Andrew Hunt, Microcoating Technologies It is the workforce that turns technology into products. U.S. CONGRESSIONAL. PERSPECTIVES John Moran, Workforce Specialist Session Chair" Sylvia Johnson, NASA Ames Research Center Jon Epstein, Office of Senator Bingaman Carolyn Hanna, Senate Armed Services Committee Diane Auer [ones, U.S. House Subcommittee on Research "I(leas, understandings and technologies spawned by research ant} development were critical to our triumph in the Cold War an(l will be just as essential to winning the war against terrorism anti to curing numerous domestic and global social ills." Congressman Sherwood BoehIert, Pleas and Estimates, 2000 21

OCR for page 19
MATERIALS AND SOCIETY Many members of Congress and their staff members see funcling for science anal technology as critical to the nation's future, for the following reasons: The economy ciepen~s on such areas as information technology en A. nanotechnology; National security clepencts on work in such vital areas as cybersecurity; The population's health and well-being clepenc! on genomics research and climate change research; and Improved math, science, anal engineering education clepen~s on federal support, from the kindergarten classroom to the postdoctoral laboratory. O ~ Science anal technology spending currently constitutes 2.7 percent of Department of Defense funding, anal a growing contingent of members of Congress wouIc! like to see that share rise to 3 percent. In FY2003, a $l billion increase is plannec! in this area, which will bring total funcling for defense science and technology to almost $10 billion. Proposed increases, supported by several members of Congress, would also mean that funding for the National Science Foundation would increase significantly in FY2003. Congressional leaders are also very concerned about workforce issues in the Unitec! States. The electec! leaclership is aware that hiring qualified workers remains difficult, both domestically and abroad. The Technology Talent Act provides funding to institutions of higher education to increase the nl~mh~Pr Gina. lily of criPnrP Gina . engineering grac Hates. ~~ . ~ ~~ a_Ad ~ ~ ~~_~_~ ~~ ~ ne speakers mentioned that the focus of research is another issue discussed regularly on Capitol Hill. For example, most new Department of Defense research is interdisciplinary, with both nano- and biomaterials playing a major role. The congressional staff attending the workshop reminded the participants that members of Congress are interested in striking the appropriate funcling balance not only between different scientific fielcIs or disciplines, but also between basic anal applied research and between core programs and special initiatives (past funding trends for several fields are shown in Figure 4-21. Congress, they said, looks to the scientific community for guidance in determining appropriate funding levels based on research clemanA~s and potential for advancement within that cliscipline. This guidance must be based on evidencefor instance, requesting an increase in materials research funding solely because life science funding was increased is not appropriate. Specific increases must be based on a sound analysis of the goals anc! initiatives of the field or related fields and on national needs. Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium, the National Academies' most recent decadal survey of astronomy ant! astrophysics, is a good example of a document that clearly outlines and (lefencls the goals and recommendations of the science community. The materials research community, by making Congress ant! the public aware not only of past successes but also of short-term and long-term research goals and of the potential impact of materials science, could greatly increase the visibility of materials science and engineering. These discoveries have impacted our quality of life, improved health-care delivery, aclvancec3 technology, and improved national security, 22

OCR for page 19
PERSPECTIVES 500/~ coons 300/~ 200/~ Ash ~ 97Q ~ 975 1 980 1985 1 9gO ~ 995 rite Celebes ~ tng~neenng -- Phys~cal Pierces ~ Math & (computer -_ . Environmental valence Sciences* FIGURE 4-2 Percent of federal research funding by field. SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget analysis of data from the National Science Foundation publication Federal Funds for Research and Development, Federal Obligations for Research by Agency and Detailed Field of Science and Engineering, Fiscal Years 1970-2000 (NSF 01-306~. In the same way that sequencing the human genome generated public interest in and understancling of a once-obscure laboratory procedure, the potential for revolutionary advances from nanomaterials and other state-of-the-art technologies could attract similar awareness and unclerstancling of materials science. Right now, congressional leaders are interested in making everything lighter, faster, and stronger to perform their missions more effectively, and they need to understand how advances in materials science will advance science and technology to that end. Comments from the Speakers "The Senate budget committee increaser} the discretionary cap for the Department of Energy's basic ant! applier! research by $4 billion over the next 10 years so at least on the Senate side there is support for increaser! levels of funding physical sciences research." Jonathan Epstein, Professional Staff, Senator Jeff Bingaman "Most new Department of Defense Research is interdisciplinary. The life sciences community ant! physical sciences community need to get talking." Carolyn Hanna, Senate Armed Services Committee "With private sector laboratories focusing increasingly on applied research ant! clevelopment, it is now more important than ever to provide fecleral support for basic 23

OCR for page 19
MATERIALS AND SOCIETY research and to encourage long-term public private partnerships that will drive tomorrow's breakthroughs in science and technology." Diane Auer Jones, House Subcommittee on Research FEDERAL AGENCY PERSPECTIVES Pane! Discussion :Leader Frank DiSalvo, Cornell University Patricia Dehmer, Department of Energy Robert Eisenstein, National Science Foundation Charlie Harris, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Sloter, Department of Defense Leslie Smith, National Institute of Standards and Technology John Watson, National Institutes of Health 1 1 Many programs in the federal agencies are responding to the drivers discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report. For example, changes within the Office of Basic Energy Sciences in the Department of Energy have included funding for larger interdisciplinary groups and interdisciplinary conferences; investments in nanoscience centers; and development of such user facilities as neutron scattering, light sources, and scanning probe microscopy. Trends in federal research funding by agency are shown in Figure 4-3. Both the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation are looking at ways of enabling scientists around the world to work together. The National Science Foundation funds research ranging from fundamental science to device development. The five priority areas driving the NSF are information technology, nanoscale science and engineering, biomaterials, 2 ~ st-century workforce, and mathematics. , The goal of contributing to national needs is shared by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST is responsible for standards and measurement systems and develops enabling technologies for the entire economy. Growing research areas at NTST are biological applications, array technologies, and combinatorial methods. Materials are an enabling technology for mission-oriented agencies. For these agencies, both researchers and program managers must focus on not only new science but also on how materials perform within the design constraints. All military departments that have a science and technology component participate in some way in materials research. Some defense materials programs focus mainly on achieving advances in basic science; others focus on enabling the accomplishment of mission goals or helping to provide new military capability. Discussants at the workshop commented that funding for basic and applied research at NASA had been slow to grow over the past 10 years because of flat budgets and budget shortfalls for such large projects as the International Space Station. This situation presents enormous challenges to NASA, which is committed to new ways of doing business. The agency plans to engage a wider group of participants and stakeholders to increase science, research, and development efforts. Drivers for NASA research and development include the need to get innovations in materials into production more quickly than the current average of 14 to 15 years. 24 l

OCR for page 19
PERSPECTIVES 200 150 125 ma 75 1 992 ~ 994 1996 1998 NIH NSF NASA CITY USDA $7.99 Billion 2000 Sup 12.3 f DOD S&T from EY2000) DOE FIGURE 4-3 Trends in federal research and development funding, 1990 to 2001. From top to bottom on right (2001), the lines represent the science and technology budgets for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Defense (DoD), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science. SOURCE: American Association for the Advancement of Science analyses of research and development from data in AAAS Reports VIII-XXV. Figures for 2001 are estimates based on . . . congress~ona appropriations. The National Institutes of Health has a research budget approaching $27 billion. Novel enabling materials are needled to realize many health initiatives, including tissue engineering, nanoscience, and reparative medicine. However, materials science is scattered throughout the NTH ant! is not optimally coordinatecI. Some is in the newly formed National institute for Biological Unaging and Bioengineering, but most is distributed among the other institutes and centers. Comments from the Speakers "A new infusion of $25 million for nanotechnology generated 750 proposals, but only 75 could be funded." Patricia Dehmer, Department of Energy "At NSF, about $300 million is spent on materials research, ant! 98 percent of this funcling goes to universities." - Robert Eisenstein, National Science Foundation "NASA is a mission agency and focuses on systems rather than disciplines. This is reflected in its investment strategy and research portfolio." Charlie Harris, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 25

OCR for page 19
MATERIALS AND SOCIETY . "This year, about $500 million is targeted for materials science and technology, representing a large, robust, and stable portfolio that supports the mission of the Department of Defense." Lewis Sloter, Department of Defense "Material researchers need to amplify the message that materials represent an enabling technology to mission-oriented agencies.", Leslie Smith, National Institute of Standards and Technology "A major challenge for NIH is getting talented b enter public service." 1 26 Engineering and materials scientists to John Watson, National Institutes of Health 1 1 ,, i ,, l