Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$59.95



View/Hide Left Panel

RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM

Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future

Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century:

An Agenda for American Science and Technology

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING, AND INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



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 R1
RISING ABOVE THE GA THERING Energizing and STORM Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS • 500 Fifth Street, N.W. • Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Govern- ing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineer- ing, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. Support for this project was provided by the National Academies. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rising above the gathering storm : energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future : Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century : an agenda for American science and technology ; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-309-10039-7 (hardcover) — ISBN 978-0-309-65442-5 (pdf) 1. United States—Economic conditions—Forecasting. 2. Globalization. 3. United States— Economic policy. I. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century (U.S.) II. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (U.S.) HC106.83.R57 2006 331.12’0420973—dc22 2006025998 For more information about the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, see http://www.nationalacademies.org/cosepup. Available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2007 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Acad- emy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engi- neers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer- ing programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sci- ences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its con- gressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the gov- ernment, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON PROSPERING IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY OF THE 21ST CENTURY NORMAN R. AUGUSTINE (Chair), Retired Chairman and CEO, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, MD CRAIG R. BARRETT, Chairman of the Board, Intel Corporation, Chandler, AZ GAIL CASSELL, Vice President, Scientific Affairs, and Distinguished Lilly Research Scholar for Infectious Diseases, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN STEVEN CHU, Director, E. O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA ROBERT M. GATES, President, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX NANCY S. GRASMICK, Maryland State Superintendent of Schools, Baltimore, MD CHARLES O. HOLLIDAY, JR., Chairman of the Board and CEO, DuPont Company, Wilmington, DE SHIRLEY ANN JACKSON, President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY ANITA K. JONES, Lawrence R. Quarles Professor of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA JOSHUA LEDERBERG, Sackler Foundation Scholar, Rockefeller University, New York, NY RICHARD LEVIN, President, Yale University, New Haven, CT C. D. (DAN) MOTE, JR., President, University of Maryland, College Park, MD CHERRY MURRAY, Deputy Director for Science and Technology, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA PETER O’DONNELL, JR., President, O’Donnell Foundation, Dallas, TX LEE R. RAYMOND, Chairman and CEO, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Irving, TX ROBERT C. RICHARDSON, F. R. Newman Professor of Physics and Vice Provost for Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY P. ROY VAGELOS, Retired Chairman and CEO, Merck, Whitehouse Station, NJ CHARLES M. VEST, President Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA GEORGE M. WHITESIDES, Woodford L. & Ann A. Flowers University Professor, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA RICHARD N. ZARE, Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor in Natural Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA iv

OCR for page R1
Principal Project Staff DEBORAH D. STINE, Study Director PETER HENDERSON, Senior Program Officer JO L. HUSBANDS, Senior Program Officer LAUREL L. HAAK, Program Officer TOM ARRISON, Senior Program Officer DAVID ATTIS, Policy Consultant ALAN ANDERSON, Consultant Writer STEVE OLSON, Consultant Writer RACHEL COURTLAND, Research Associate NEERAJ P. GORKHALY, Senior Program Assistant JOHN B. SLANINA, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow BENJAMIN A. NOVAK, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow NORMAN GROSSBLATT, Senior Editor KATE KELLY, Editor v

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC POLICY GEORGE M. WHITESIDES (Chair), Woodford L. & Ann A. Flowers University Professor, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA RALPH J. CICERONE (Ex officio), President, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC UMA CHOWDHRY, Vice President, Central Research and Development, DuPont Company, Wilmington, DE R. JAMES COOK, Interim Dean, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, WA HAILE DEBAS, Executive Director, Global Health Sciences, and Maurice Galante Distinguished Professor of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA HARVEY FINEBERG (Ex officio), President, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC MARYE ANNE FOX (Ex officio), Chancellor, University of California, San Diego, CA ELSA GARMIRE, Professor, School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH M. R. C. GREENWOOD (Ex officio), Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of California, Oakland, CA NANCY HOPKINS, Amgen Professor of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA WILLIAM H. JOYCE (Ex officio), Chairman and CEO, Nalco, Naperville, IL MARY-CLAIRE KING, American Cancer Society Professor of Medicine and Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA W. CARL LINEBERGER, Professor of Chemistry, Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO RICHARD A. MESERVE, President, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC ROBERT M. NEREM, Parker H. Petit Professor and Director, Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA LAWRENCE T. PAPAY, Retired Sector Vice President for Integrated Solu- tions, Science Applications International Corporation, San Diego, CA ANNE PETERSEN, Senior Vice President, Programs, W. K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, MI CECIL PICKETT, President, Schering-Plough Research Institute, Kenilworth, NJ EDWARD H. SHORTLIFFE, Professor and Chair, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY vi

OCR for page R1
HUGO SONNENSCHEIN, Charles L. Hutchinson Distinguished Service Professor, Department of Economics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL SHEILA E. WIDNALL, Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of Aeronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA WM. A. WULF (Ex officio), President, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC MARY LOU ZOBACK, Senior Research Scientist, Earthquake Hazards Team, US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA Staff RICHARD BISSELL, Executive Director DEBORAH D. STINE, Associate Director LAUREL L. HAAK, Program Officer MARION RAMSEY, Administrative Coordinator CRAIG REED, Financial Associate vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface Ninety-nine percent of the discoveries are made by one percent of the scientists. Julius Axelrod, Nobel Laureate1 The prosperity the United States enjoys today is due in no small part to investments the nation has made in research and development at universi- ties, corporations, and national laboratories over the last 50 years. Recently, however, corporate, government, and national scientific and technical lead- ers have expressed concern that pressures on the science and technology enterprise could seriously erode this past success and jeopardize future US prosperity. Reflecting this trend is the movement overseas not only of manu- facturing jobs but also of jobs in administration, finance, engineering, and research. The councils of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, at their annual joint meeting in February 2005, discussed these tensions and examined the position of the United States in today’s global knowledge-discovery enterprise. Participants expressed con- cern that a weakening of science and technology in the United States would inevitably degrade its social and economic conditions and in particular erode the ability of its citizens to compete for high-quality jobs. On the basis of the urgency expressed by the councils, the National Academies’ Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy 1Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 149, No. 2, June 2005. ix

OCR for page R1
x PREFACE (COSEPUP) was charged with organizing a planning meeting, which took place May 11, 2005. One of the speakers at the meeting was Senator Lamar Alexander, the former secretary of education and former president of the University of Tennessee. Senator Alexander indicated that the Energy Subcommittee of the Sen- ate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which he chairs, had been given the authority by the full committee’s chair, Senator Pete Domenici, to hold a series of hearings to identify specific steps that the federal govern- ment should take to ensure the preeminence of America’s science and tech- nology enterprise. Senator Alexander asked the National Academies to pro- vide assistance in this effort by selecting a committee of experts from the scientific and technical community to assess the current situation and, where appropriate, make recommendations. The committee would be asked to identify urgent challenges and determine specific steps to ensure that the United States maintains its leadership in science and engineering to compete successfully, prosper, and be secure in the 21st century. On May 12, 2005, the day after the planning meeting, three members of the House of Representatives who have jurisdiction over science and tech- nology policy and funding announced that a conference would be held in fall 2005 on science, technology, innovation, and manufacturing. Appearing at a Capitol Hill press briefing to discuss the conference were representa- tives Frank Wolf, Sherwood Boehlert, and Vern Ehlers. Representative Boehlert said of the conference: “It can help forge a national consensus on what is needed to retain US leadership in innovation. A summit like this, with the right leaders, under the aegis of the federal government, can bring renewed attention to science and technology concerns so that we can remain the nation that the world looks to for the newest ideas and the most skilled people.” In describing the rationale for the conference, Representative Wolf re- called meeting with a group of scientists and asking them how well the United States was doing in science and innovation. None of the scientists, he reported, said that the nation was doing “okay.” About 40% said that we were “in a stall,” and the remaining 60% said that we were “in de- cline.” He asked a similar question of the executive board of a prominent high-technology association, which reported that in its view the United States was “in decline.” Later, the National Academies received a bipartisan letter addressing the subject of America’s competitiveness from Senators Lamar Alexander and Jeff Bingaman. The letter, dated May 27, 2005, requested that the Na- tional Academies conduct a formal study on the issue to assist in congres- sional deliberations. That was followed by a bipartisan letter from Repre- sentatives Sherwood Boehlert and Bart Gordon, of the House Committee on

OCR for page R1
xi PREFACE Science, which expanded on the Senate request. In response, the National Academies initiated a study with its own funds. To undertake the study, COSEPUP established the Committee on Pros- pering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology. The committee members included presidents of major universities, Nobel laureates, CEOs of Fortune 100 corporations, and former presidential appointees. They were asked to investigate the following questions: • What are the top 10 actions, in priority order, that federal policy- makers could take to enhance the science and technology enterprise so that the United States can successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st century? • What implementation strategy, with several concrete steps, could be used to implement each of those actions? This study and report were carried out with an unusual degree of ur- gency—only a matter of weeks elapsed from the committee’s initial gather- ing to release of its report. The process followed the regular procedures for an independent National Research Council study, including review of the report, in this case, by 37 experts. The report relies on customary reference to the scientific literature and on consensus views and judgments of the committee members. The committee began by assembling the recommendations of 13 issue papers summarizing past studies of topics related to the present study. It then convened five focus groups consisting of 66 experts in K–12 education, higher education, research, innovation and workforce issues, and national and homeland security and asked each group to recommend three actions it considered to be necessary for the nation to compete, prosper, and be secure in the 21st century. The committee used those suggestions and its own judg- ment to make its recommendations. The key thematic issues underlying these discussions were the nation’s need to create jobs and need for affordable, clean, and reliable energy. In this report, a description of the key elements of American prosperity in the 21st century is followed by an overview of how science and technology are critical to that prosperity. The report then evaluates how the United States is doing in science and technology and provides recommendations for im- proving our nation’s prosperity. Finally, it posits the status of prosperity if the United States maintains a narrow lead (the current situation), falls behind, or emerges as the leader in a few selected fields of science and technology. We strayed from our charge in that we present not 10 actions but 4 recommendations and 20 specific actions to implement them. The commit- tee members deeply believe in the fundamental linkage of all the recommen-

OCR for page R1
xvi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Adams, Boeing Phantom Works; John Ahearne, Sigma Xi; Robert Aiken, CISCO Systems, Inc.; Bruce Alberts, University of California, San Francisco; Richard Atkinson, University of California, San Diego; William Badders, Cleveland Municipal School District; Roger Beachy, Ronald Danforth Plant Service Center; George Bugliarello, Polytechnic University; Paul Citron, Medtronic, Inc.; Michael Clegg, University of California, Irvine; W. Dale Compton, Purdue University; Robert Dynes, University of California, San Diego; Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Michigan State University; Richard Freeman, Harvard University; William Friend, Bechtel Group, Inc. (retired); Lynda Goff, University of California, Santa Cruz; William Happer, Princeton Uni- versity; Robert Hauser, University of Wisconsin; Ron Hira, Rochester Insti- tute of Technology; Dale Jorgenson, Harvard University; Thomas Keller, Medomak Valley High School, Maine; Edward Lazowska, University of Washington; W. Carl Lineberger, University of Colorado, Boulder; James Mongan, Partners Healthcare System; Gilbert Omenn, University of Michi- gan; Helen Quinn, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; Mary Ann Rankin, University of Texas; Barbara Schaal, Washington University; Thomas Südhof, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; Michael Teitelbaum, Sloan Foundation; C. Michael Walton, University of Texas; Larry Welch, Institute for Defense Analyses; and Sheila Widnall, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Floyd Bloom, Robert Frosch, and M. R. C. Greenwood, appointed by the Report Review Com- mittee, who were responsible for making certain that an independent exami- nation of the report was carried out in accordance with institutional proce- dures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of the report rests entirely with the author committee and the institution. Finally, we would like to thank the staff who supported this project, including Deborah Stine, study director and associate director of the Com- mittee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), who man- aged the project; program officers Peter Henderson (higher education), Jo Husbands (national security), Thomas Arrison (innovation), Laurel Haak (K–12 education), and (on loan from the Council on Competitiveness) policy consultant David Attis (research funding and management), who conducted research and analysis; Alan Anderson, Steve Olson, and research associate Rachel Courtland, the science writers and editors for this report; Rita Johnson, the managing editor for reports; Norman Grossblatt and Kate Kelly, editors; Neeraj P. Gorkhaly, senior program assistant, who coordi- nated and provided support throughout the project with the assistance of

OCR for page R1
xvii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Marion Ramsey and Judy Goss; science and technology policy fellows John Slanina, Benjamin Novak, and Ian Christensen who provided research and analytic support; Brian Schwartz, who compiled the bibliography; and Richard Bissell, executive director of COSEPUP and of Policy and Global Affairs. Additional thanks are extended to Rachel Marcus, Will Mason, Estelle Miller, and Francesca Moghari at the National Academies Press for their work on the production of this book.

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 A DISTURBING MOSAIC 23 Cluster 1: Tilted Jobs in a Global Economy, 26 Cluster 2: Disinvestment in the Future, 30 Loss of Human Capital, 30 Higher Education as a Private Good, 31 Trends in Corporate Research, 32 Funding for Research in the Physical Sciences and Engineering, 32 Cluster 3: Reactions to 9/11, 33 New Visa Policies, 33 The Use of Export Controls, 34 Sensitive but Unclassified Information, 36 The Public Recognizes the Challenges, 36 Discovery and Application: Keys to Competitiveness and Prosperity, 37 Action Now, 38 Conclusion, 39 2 WHY ARE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CRITICAL TO AMERICA’S PROSPERITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY? 41 Ensuring Economic Well-Being, 43 Creating New Industries, 50 Promoting Public Health, 51 Caring for the Environment, 57 Water Quality, 57 xix

OCR for page R1
xx CONTENTS Automobiles and Gasoline, 57 Refrigeration, 58 Agricultural Mechanization, 59 Improving the Standard of Living, 59 Electrification and Household Appliances, 60 Transportation, 60 Communication, 60 Disaster Mitigation, 63 Energy Conservation, 64 Understanding How People Learn, 65 Securing the Homeland, 66 Conclusion, 67 3 HOW IS AMERICA DOING NOW IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY? 68 Science and Engineering Advantage, 70 Other Nations Are Following Our Lead—and Catching Up, 72 International Competition for Talent, 78 Strains on Research in the Private Sector, 83 Restraints on Public Funding, 89 Expanded Mission for Federal Laboratories, 92 Educational Challenges, 94 K–12 Performance, 94 Student Interest in Science and Engineering Careers, 98 Balancing Security and Openness, 104 Conclusion, 106 4 METHOD 107 Review of Literature and Past Committee Recommendations, 108 Focus Groups, 109 Committee Discussion and Analysis, 109 Cautions, 111 Conclusion, 111 5 WHAT ACTIONS SHOULD AMERICA TAKE IN K–12 SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION TO REMAIN PROSPEROUS IN THE 21ST CENTURY? 112 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds, 112 Action A-1: 10,000 Teachers for 10 Million Minds, 115 Action A-2: A Quarter of a Million Teachers Inspiring Young Minds Every Day, 119 Part 1: Summer Institutes, 120 Part 2: Science and Mathematics Master’s Programs, 124

OCR for page R1
xxi CONTENTS Part 3: Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and Pre-AP/IB Education, 126 Part 4: K–12 Curricular Materials Modeled on World-Class Standards, 128 Action A-3: Enlarge the Pipeline, 129 Effective Continuing Programs, 131 Conclusion, 133 6 WHAT ACTIONS SHOULD AMERICA TAKE IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH TO REMAIN PROSPEROUS IN THE 21ST CENTURY? 136 Sowing the Seeds, 136 Action B-1: Funding for Basic Research, 136 Action B-2: Early-Career Researchers, 143 Action B-3: Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities, 145 Action B-4: High-Risk Research, 149 Action B-5: Use DARPA as a Model for Energy Research, 152 Action B-6: Prizes and Awards, 158 Conclusion, 161 7 WHAT ACTIONS SHOULD AMERICA TAKE IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING HIGHER EDUCATION TO REMAIN PROSPEROUS IN THE 21ST CENTURY? 162 Best and Brighest, 162 Action C-1: Undergraduate Education, 165 Action C-2: Graduate Education, 168 Action C-3: Continuing Education, 172 Action C-4: Improve Visa Processing, 173 Action C-5: Extend Visas and Expedite Residence Status of Science and Engineering PhDs, 175 Action C-6: Skill-Based Immigration, 177 Action C-7: Reform the Current System of “Deemed Exports,” 180 Conclusion, 181 8 WHAT ACTIONS SHOULD AMERICA TAKE IN ECONOMIC AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY TO REMAIN PROSPEROUS IN THE 21ST CENTURY? 182 Incentives for Innovation, 182 Action D-1: Enhance the Patent System, 185 Action D-2: Strengthen the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit, 192 Action D-3: Provide Incentives for US-Based Innovation, 197 Action D-4: Ensure Ubiquitous Broadband Internet Access, 201 Conclusion, 203

OCR for page R1
xxii CONTENTS 9 WHAT MIGHT LIFE IN THE UNITED STATES BE LIKE IF IT IS NOT COMPETITIVE IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY? 204 “The American Century,” 204 New Global Innovation Economy, 206 Emerging Markets, 206 Innovation-Based Development, 208 The Global Innovation Enterprise, 209 The Emerging Global Labor Market, 210 Aging and Entitlements, 212 Scenarios for America’s Future in Science and Technology, 214 Scenario 1: Baseline, America’s Narrowing Lead, 214 Scenario 2: Pessimistic Case, America Falls Decisively Behind, 219 Scenario 3: Optimistic Case, America Leads in Key Areas, 221 Conclusion, 223 APPENDIXES A Committee and Professional Staff Biographic Information, 225 B Statement of Task and Congressional Correspondence, 241 C Focus-Group Sessions, 249 D Issue Briefs, 301 • K–12 Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 303 • Attracting the Most Able US Students to Science and Engineering, 325 • Undergraduate, Graduate, and Postgraduate Education in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics, 342 • Implications of Changes in the Financing of Public Higher Education, 357 • International Students and Researchers in the United States, 377 • Achieving Balance and Adequacy in Federal Science and Technology Funding, 397 • The Productivity of Scientific and Technological Research, 415 • Investing in High-Risk and Breakthrough Research, 423 • Ensuring That the United States Is at the Forefront in Critical Fields of Science and Technology, 432 • Understanding Trends in Science and Technology Critical to US Prosperity, 444 • Ensuring That the United States Has the Best Environment for Innovation, 455 • Scientific Communication and Security, 473 • Science and Technology Issues in National and Homeland Security, 483 E Estimated Recommendation Cost Tables, 501 F K–12 Education Recommendations Supplementary Information, 513 G Bibliography, 517 INDEX 537

OCR for page R1
Boxes, Figures, and Tables BOXES 1-1 Another Point of View: The World Is Not Flat, 24 2-1 Another Point of View: Science, Technology, and Society, 42 2-2 Twenty Great Engineering Achievements of the 20th Century, 44 3-1 Pasteur’s Quadrant, 69 3-2 Another Point of View: US Competitiveness, 73 5-1 Another Point of View: K–12 Education, 134 6-1 Another Point of View: Research Funding, 138 6-2 DARPA, 151 6-3 Another Point of View: ARPA-E, 153 6-4 Energy and the Economy, 155 6-5 The Invention of the Transistor, 157 6-6 Illustration of Energy Technologies, 159 7-1 Another Point of View: Science and Engineering Human Resources, 164 7-2 National Defense Education Act, 169 7-3 The 214b Provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act: Establishing the Intent to Return Home, 175 xxiii

OCR for page R1
xxiv BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES 8-1 Another Point of View: Innovation Incentives, 184 8-2 A Data-Exclusivity Case Study, 191 8-3 Finland, 198 8-4 South Korea, 198 8-5 Ireland, 199 8-6 Singapore, 199 8-7 Canada, 200 FIGURES 2-1 Incidence of selected diseases in the United States throughout the 20th century, 43 2-2 US farm labor productivity from 1800 to 2000, 46 2-3 Gross domestic product during the 20th century, 47 2-4 Number of patents granted by the United States in the 20th century with examples of critical technologies, 52 2-5 Megabyte prices and microprocessor speeds, 1976-2000, 52 2-6 Percentage of children ages 3 to 17 who have access to a home computer and who use the Internet at home, selected years, 1984- 2001, 53 2-7A Life expectancy at birth, 1000-2000, 53 2-7B Life expectancy at birth and at 65 years of age, by sex, in the United States, 1901-2002, 54 2-8A Five-year relative cancer survival rates for all ages, 1975-1979, 1985-1989, 1988-2001, and 1995-2001, 55 2-8B Heart disease mortality, 1950-2002, 55 2-9A Infant mortality, 1915-2000, 56 2-9B Maternal mortality, 1915-2000, 56 2-10 Comparison of growth areas and air pollution emissions, 1970-2004, 58 2-11 Improvement in US housing and electrification of US homes during the 20th century, 61 2-12A Ground transportation: horses to horsepower, 1900 and 1997, 62 2-12B Air travel, United States, 1928-2002, 62 2-13 Modern communication, 1900-1998, 63 2-14 US primary energy use, 1950-2000, 65 3-1 R&D expenditures as a percentage of GNP, 1991-2002, 74 3-2 US patent applications, by country of applicant, 1989-2004, 75 3-3 Total science and engineering articles with international coauthors, 1988-2001, 75 3-4 Disciplinary strengths in the United States, the 15 European Union nations in the comparator group (EU15), and the United Kingdom, 76

OCR for page R1
xxv BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES 3-5 United States trade balance for high-technology products, in millions of dollars, 1990-2003, 77 3-6 Science and engineering doctorate production for selected countries, 1975-2001, 79 3-7 Doctorates awarded by US institutions, by field and citizenship status, 1985-2003, 80 3-8 US S&E doctorates, by employment sector, 1973-2001, 84 3-9A US R&D funding, by source of funds, 1953-2003, 85 3-9B R&D shares of US gross domestic product, 1953-2003, 85 3-10 US venture capital disbursements, by stage of financing, 1992- 2002, 87 3-11 Offshored services market size, in billions of dollars, 2003, 91 3-12 Department of Defense (DOD) 6.1 expenditures, in millions of constant 2004 dollars, 1994-2005, 92 3-13 Trends in federal research funding by discipline, obligations in billions of constant FY 2004 dollars, FY 1970-FY 2004, 93 3-14 Average scale NAEP scores and achievement-level results in mathematics, grades 4 and 8: various years, 1990-2005, 96 3-15 Percentage of students within and at or above achievement levels in science, grades 4, 8, and 12, 1996 and 2000, 97 3-16A Percentage of 24-year-olds with first university degrees in the natural sciences or engineering, relative to all first university degree recipients, in 2000 or most recent year available, 99 3-16B Percentage of 24-year-olds with first university degrees in the natural sciences or engineering relative to all 24-year-olds, in 2000 or most recent year available, 100 3-17 Science and engineering bachelor’s degrees, by field: selected years, 1997-2000, 101 5-1 UTeach minority enrollment, quality of undergraduate students in the certification recommendations program, student retention, and performance compared with all students in the UT-Austin College of Natural Sciences, 118 5-2 Professional development index relative to percent of students meeting science standards, 123 5-3 The number of AP examinations in mathematics, science, and English taken in APIP schools in the Dallas Independent School District (DISD), 133 6-1 Research and development shares of US gross domestic product, 1953-2003, 139 6-2 Trends in federal research funding by discipline, obligations in billions of constant FY 2004 dollars, FY 1970-FY 2004, 139

OCR for page R1
xxvi BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES 9-1 Projected growth of emerging markets for selected countries, in billions of constant 2003 US dollars, 2000-2050, 207 9-2 China and European Union production of science and engineering doctorates compared with US production, 1975-2010, 217 TABLES 2-1 Annual Rate of Return on Public R&D Investment, 48 2-2 Annual Rate of Return on Private R&D Investment, 49 2-3 Sales and Employment in the Information Technology (IT) Industry, 2000, 50 3-1 Publications and Citations in the United States and European Union per Capita and per University Researcher, 1997-2001, 74 3-2 Change in Applications, Admissions, and Enrollment of International Graduate Students, 2003-2005, 83 3-3 R&E Tax Claims and US Corporate Tax Returns, 1990-2001, 89 3-4 Federally and Privately Funded Early-Stage Venture Capital in Millions of Dollars, 1990-2002, 90 5-1 Students in US Public Schools Taught by Teachers with No Major or Certification in the Subject Taught, 1999-2000, 114 5-2 Six-Year Graduation Rate of Students Who Passed AP Examinations and Students Who Did Not Take AP Examinations, 131 5-3 Achievement of US AP Calculus and Physics Students Who Participated in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in 2000 Compared with Average International Scores from 1995, 132 6-1 Specific Recommendations for Federal Research Funding, 142 6-2 Annual Number of PECASE Awards, by Agency, 2005, 146 8-1 Overview of R&D Tax Incentives in Other Countries, 195