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 69
5
Action
REPOSITIONING OUR RESEARCH
UNIVERSITIES IN A CHANGED WORLD
The emergence of our nation’s research universities and the estab-
lishment of a strong federal-university partnership driving research and
doctoral education has been a success story for the American people,
contributing to our economic prosperity and national goals. Through
education and research, American research universities have produced
the talent and knowledge that generates innovation critical to economic
growth and a high American standard of living.
The Great Recession and the “flattening of the world,” though, have
made it clear that there is an urgent need to develop a compelling and ef-
fective national strategy for sustaining our world-class research universi-
ties that reinforces the partnership of research universities with federal
and state governments and expands it to include a larger role for business.
It is time to act. In the midst of the Civil War, one of our nation’s deep-
est crises, Congress passed, and President Abraham Lincoln signed, the
Morrill Act, thereby laying the foundation for the land-grant universities
that generated a productive agricultural and industrial society. So too, the
nation now needs to act in the context of present circumstances to assure
the vitality of its research universities in a global knowledge economy.
For our research universities to continue to fulfill their obligations to the
nation, they must have sufficient resources and a robust infrastructure,
sound organizational and administrative structures, a vibrant intellectual
community, and the ability to translate research discoveries into societal
69
OCR for page 70
70 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
benefits. Without these, states and regions that are currently sustained by
their research universities may lose their competitive edge, and our nation
may fall short in both meeting its national goals and continuing its strong
global leadership.
PRINCIPLES
For the past half-century, the research and graduate programs of
America’s research universities have been essential contributors to the
nation’s prosperity, health, and security. Today, our nation faces new
challenges, a time of rapid and profound economic, social, and politi-
cal transformation driven by the growth in knowledge and innovation.
Educated people, the knowledge they produce, and the innovation and
entrepreneurial skills they possess, particularly in the fields of science and
engineering, have become the keys to America’s future. We have taken
stock of the organizational, financial, and intellectual health of our na-
tion’s research universities today and have envisioned the role we would
like them to play in our nation’s life 10 to 20 years from now. We can say
without reservation that our research universities are, today, the best in
the world and an important resource for our nation, yet, at the same time,
in grave danger of not only losing their place of global leadership but of
serious erosion in quality due to critical trends in public support.
Our vision for strengthening these institutions so that they may re-
main dynamic assets over the coming decades involves both increasing
their productivity and ensuring their strong support for education and re-
search. Therefore, it is essential that the unique partnership that has long
existed among the nation’s research universities, the federal government,
the states, and business and industry be reaffirmed and strengthened.
This will require
• A balanced set of commitments by each of the partners—federal
government, state governments, research universities, and business and
industry—to provide leadership for the nation in a knowledge-intensive
world and to develop and implement enlightened policies, efficient oper-
ating practices, and necessary investments.
• Use of matching requirements among these commitments that
provide strong incentives for participation at comparable levels by each
partner.
• Sufficient flexibility to accommodate differences among research
universities and the diversity of their various stakeholders. While merit,
impact, and need should continue to be the primary criteria for awarding
research grants and contracts by federal agencies, investment in infra-
structure should consider additional criteria such as regional and cross-
OCR for page 71
ACTION 71
institutional partnerships, program focus, and opportunities for building
significant research capacity.
• A commitment to a decade-long effort that seeks to both address
challenges and take advantage of opportunities as they emerge.
• A recognition of the importance of supporting the comprehensive
nature of the research university, spanning the full spectrum of academic
and professional disciplines, including the physical, life, and social and
behavioral sciences; engineering; the arts and humanities; and the profes-
sions, that enable it to provide the broad research and education programs
required by a knowledge- and innovation-driven global economy.
Within this partnership, our research universities―with a historical com-
mitment to excellence, academic freedom, and service to society―must
pledge themselves to a new level of partnership with government and
business, recommit to being the places where the best minds in the world
want to work, think, educate, and create new ideas, and commit to deliv-
ering better outcomes for each dollar spent. As articulated in the Millen-
nium Declaration of 2001 on the future of research universities:
For a thousand years the university has benefited our civilization as a
learning community where both the young and the experienced could
acquire not only knowledge and skills, but the values and discipline of
the educated mind. It has defended and propagated our cultural and
intellectual heritage, while challenging our norms and beliefs. It has
produced the leaders of our governments, commerce, and professions. It
has both created and applied new knowledge to serve our society. And
it has done so while preserving those values and principles so essential
to academic learning: the freedom of inquiry, an openness to new ideas,
a commitment to rigorous study, and a love of learning. There seems
little doubt that these roles will continue to be needed by our civiliza-
tion. There is little doubt as well that the university, in some form, will
be needed to provide them. The university of the 21st century may be
as different from today’s institutions as the research university is from
the colonial college. But its form and its continued evolution will be a
consequence of transformations necessary to provide its ancient values
and contributions to a changing world.1
RECOMMENDATIONS
With these principles in mind, the committee provides 10 recom-
mendations that the federal government, the states, research universities,
1 Declaration summarized in James J. Duderstadt, A University for the 21st Century. Ann
Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 2003, p. 324. Original text of the declaration is
available at: http://www.glion.org/pub_1999_millennium.aspx (accessed March 23, 2012).
OCR for page 72
72 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
and business and industry can act on to maintain the level of world-class
excellence in research and graduate education necessary for the United
States to compete, prosper, and achieve national goals for health, energy,
the environment, and security in the global community of the twenty-first
century. The first four recommendations reaffirm the commitments of
each major partner, and the following six enable these commitments. It is
important that these recommendations must be implemented together, as
they reinforce each other in critical ways.
Universities are today among the most complex institutions in mod-
ern society. As James Duderstadt has noted, research universities are
comprised of many activities, some nonprofit, some publicly regulated,
and some operating in intensely competitive marketplaces. They teach
students, conduct research for various clients, provide health care, engage
in economic development, stimulate social change, and provide mass
entertainment (e.g., athletics). In systems terminology, the modern univer-
sity is a “loosely coupled, adaptive system,” with a growing complexity,
as its various components respond to changes in its environment. 2
As the major focus of the charge to the committee was graduate edu-
cation and research, we preface our recommendations by reinforcing the
importance of undergraduate education, both in the research universities
that we are examining and in other important institutions, from liberal
arts colleges to state universities that also provide undergraduate educa-
tion. The strength of undergraduate teaching and learning to our nation’s
workforce and prosperity and to preparing students who go on to gradu-
ate study cannot be overstated.
Similarly, the unusually broad intellectual needs of the nation and
the increasing interdependence of the academic disciplines provide com-
pelling reasons why such federal support should encompass all areas
of scholarship, including the natural sciences, the social sciences, the
humanities, the arts, and professional disciplines such as engineering,
education, law, and medicine. Our report and its recommendations are
designed to encourage support across all of these areas.3
Recommendation 1
Within the broader framework of United States innovation and re-
search and development (R&D) strategies, the federal government should
adopt stable and effective policies, practices, and funding for university-
performed R&D and graduate education so that the nation will have a
2 James J. Duderstadt, A University for the 21st Century, p. 50.
3 We look forward to a Congressionally requested report on the role of the humanities and
social sciences in our nation, due in 2012 from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
OCR for page 73
ACTION 73
stream of new knowledge and educated people to power our future, help-
ing us meet national goals and ensure prosperity and security.
Actors and Actions—Implementing Recommendation 1:
• Federal government: The federal government should review and
modify those research policies and practices governing university re-
search and graduate education that have become burdensome and in-
efficient, such as research cost reimbursement, unnecessary regulation,
and awkward variation and coordination among federal agencies. (See
Recommendations 6 and 7.)
• Federal government—Congress, Administration, federal science
and technology (S&T) agencies: Over the next decade as the economy
improves, Congress and the administration should invest in basic re-
search and graduate education at a level sufficient to produce the new
knowledge and educated citizens necessary to achieve national goals. As
a core component of a national plan to raise total national R&D to 3 per-
cent of gross domestic product (GDP), Congress and the Administration
should provide full funding of the amount authorized by the America
COMPETES Act that would double the level of basic research conducted
by the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology (NIST), and Department of Energy (DOE) Office
of Science as well as sustain our nation’s investment in other key areas of
basic research, including biomedical research. Within this investment, as
recommend by Rising Above the Gathering Storm,4 a portion of the increase
should be directed to high-risk, innovative, and unconventional research.
• Federal government—White House Office of Science and Tech-
nology Policy (OSTP), President’s Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST), U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
National Economic Council (NEC), and Council of Economic Advisors
(CEA): On an annual basis in the President’s annual budget request,
OMB should develop and present, in coordination with OSTP, a federal
science and technology budget that addresses priorities for sustaining a
world-class U.S. science and technology enterprise. On a quadrennial ba-
sis, OSTP, in conjunction with PCAST, and OMB, in conjunction with the
NEC and CEA, should review federal science and technology spending
and outcomes, internationally benchmarked, to ensure that federal S&T
spending is adequate in size to support our economy and appropriately
targeted to meet national goals. We recommend that this process consider
4 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medi-
cine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
Economic Future, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2007.
OCR for page 74
74 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
U.S. global leadership, a focus on developing new knowledge, balance in
the science and technology portfolio, reliable and predictable streams of
funding, and a commitment to merit review.
Budget Implications
This recommendation calls for stable and effective federal research
policies and practices, the budget implications of which are outlined
under several recommendations below. The recommendation also aims
to ensure robust financial support for critical federal basic research pro-
grams. It supports funding increases that Congress has already authorized
through the America COMPETES Act for the doubling of funding for the
NSF, NIST, and DOE Office of Science. These increases target stronger in-
vestment in physical sciences and engineering research, but do not imply
any disinvestment in critical fields such as the life sciences and social,
behavioral, and economic sciences. Indeed, we recommend Congressio-
nal action to at least maintain current levels of funding for basic research
across other federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), as adjusted for inflation. Research universities, along with other
research performers (national laboratories, nonprofit research and devel-
opment organizations, and industry), will only benefit from these actions
through their success in competing for federal grants and contracts from
these agencies.
Expected Outcomes
Supportive federal research policies would ensure stable funding
and cost-efficient regulation sufficient to enable corresponding university
investment in research facilities and graduate programs. By completing
the funding of the America COMPETES Act, the nation would achieve
a balanced research portfolio capable of driving innovation necessary
for economic prosperity. As research and education are deliberately in-
tertwined in our American research universities, such funding will also
ensure that we continue to produce the scientists, engineers, physicians,
teachers, scholars, and other knowledge professionals essential to the na-
tion’s security, health, and prosperity.
Discussion
Context
Nations around the world have recognized the importance of in-
vestment in research and doctoral education, both of which build their
OCR for page 75
ACTION 75
nation’s research universities, contribute to economic growth, and im-
prove global competitiveness. In most instances, they have developed
comprehensive national strategies designed to strengthen their research
base and their institutions to compete for students and faculty, resources,
and reputation (see Box 4-1).
The United States has begun to lag on a key, internationally recog-
nized indicator of national investment in the development of new knowl-
edge: national (public and private) R&D expenditures as a percentage of
GDP. As shown in Figure 5-1.1, public and private R&D expenditures in
the United States have hovered between 2.5 and 2.8 percent of GDP over
the last three decades. It stood at 2.79 percent in 2008. By comparison, as
shown in Figures 5-1.1 and 5-1.2, Japan has increased its national R&D
funding from about 2.8 percent of GDP in 1996 to 3.4 percent in 2007,
while South Korea has increased its spending even further, reaching 3.5
percent of GDP in that year. While R&D in Germany as a percent of GDP
is slightly lower than that of the United States, its nondefense R&D as a
percentage of GDP is higher than that of the United States and the gap
between the two countries is growing. The annual rate of growth in na-
tional R&D expenditures was 5-6 percent for the United States and the
European Union (EU-27), while rates of growth for many Asian countries
were far higher. China’s annual growth in national R&D expenditures was
20 percent for the period 1996 to 2007.5
Targets
Embedded in a broader federal innovation strategy that addresses
national research and development priorities, the nation must develop
a framework of national funding goals and supportive policies that sus-
tain the nation’s research universities at world-class levels. The current
Administration developed and issued the National Innovation Strategy
in September 2009 and presented an updated version drafted by the
National Economic Council, the Council of Economic Advisors, and the
Office of Science and Technology Policy in February 2011. This strategy
provides a broad policy context and includes a short section focused on
strengthening and broadening “American leadership in fundamental re-
search.” This provides an excellent foundation from which to craft a more
detailed strategy for sustaining the nation’s R&D enterprise, fundamental
research, and U.S. research universities. For example, it sets a national
goal “for America to invest more than three percent of our GDP in public
and private research and development” noting that “this investment rate
5 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2010, (NSB 10-01), Arling-
ton, VA: National Science Foundation, 2010, Figures 4-13 and 4-16, pages 4-35 and 4-36.
OCR for page 76
76 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
FIGURE 5-1.1 Gross expenditures on R&D as share of gross domestic product,
Figure 5.1.1.eps
for selected countries: 1981-2007.
bitmap
Source: National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. (NSB
10-01) Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2010, Figure 4-16, page 4-36.
OCR for page 77
ACTION 77
Figure 5.1.2.eps
FIGURE 5-1.2 Gross domestic expenditures on R&D by United States, EU-27,
bitmap
OECD, and selected other countries: 1981-2007.
Source: National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. (NSB
10-01) Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2010, Figure 4-13, page 4-35.
will surpass the level achieved at the height of the space race, and can
be achieved through policies that support basic and applied research,
create new incentives for private innovation, promote breakthroughs in
national priority areas, and improve [science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics] STEM education.”6 Table 5-1.1 displays 2008 U.S. R&D
in current dollars and as a percentage of GDP and shows total national
R&D spending in that year at 2.79 percent. An increase to 3 percent of
GDP would potentially lift all components of R&D, including federally
funded, university-performed research.
Indeed, the committee recommends federal R&D appropriations lev-
els that would sustain and enhance university-based research. We strongly
support the goals articulated by Rising Above the Gathering Storm and au-
6 TheWhite House, A Strategy for American Innovation: Securing Our Economic Growth
and Prosperity, February 2011.
OCR for page 78
78 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
TABLE 5-1.1 U.S. R&D, 2008 Expenditures
Current Funding Current
($ billions) Percent of GDP
Gross Domestic Product 14,264.6 100.00
National R&D (all sources, all performers) 397.3 2.79
Federally funded R&D 103.7 0.73
National basic research (all sources) 69.10 0.48
Federally funded basic research 39.4 0.28
University-performed R&D 51.9 0.36
Federally funded, university-performed R&D 31.3 0.22
University-performed basic research 39.4 0.28
Federally funded, university-performed basic 24.5 0.17
research
Sources: NSF/NCSES, Academic R&D Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2009, Tables 1, 2, and 3.
Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf11313/content.cfm?pub_id=4065&id=2 (ac-
cessed September 4, 2011). NSF/NCSES, national patterns of R&D Resources, Tables 6 and
13. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/natlpatterns/ (accessed September 4, 2011).
thorized in the America COMPETES Act of 2010 that would increase the
support of basic research key to sustaining the nation’s innovation neces-
sary for prosperity and national security by doubling the budgets of the
NSF, DOE Office of Science, and NIST. We also strongly urge that federal
appropriations for basic research in support of other key national goals
such as health (NIH), defense (Department of Defense [DOD]), space
(National Aeronautics and Space Administration), and agriculture (U.S.
Department of Agriculture) be sustained at least at the rate of inflation.
Figure 5-1.3 shows that federally funded, university-performed R&D as
a percentage of GDP increased from 1998 to 2005, while the NIH budget
doubled, from about 0.17 percent to about 0.24 percent, and has since
decreased to 0.22 percent. This mirrors the flattening of federally funded
university R&D and the decline of federally funded research generally (in
constant dollars) seen in Figures 5-1.4 and 5-1.5. Providing the appropria-
tions we recommend can help reverse these declines and ensure that we
are strongly investing for the future.
Principles
The following are important principles for federal R&D funding,
many articulated in previous National Academies reports:
OCR for page 79
ACTION 79
0.26%
0.24%
0.22%
0.20%
Percent of GDP
0.18%
0.16%
0.14%
0.12%
0.10% 2000
2006
2004
2005
2008
2003
2002
2007
2001
1990
1996
1998
1999
1994
1995
1992
1993
1997
1991
FIGURE 5-1.3 Federally funded, university-performed research and develop-
ment as a percentage of GDP,Figure 5.1.3.eps
1990-2008.
Source: NSF/NCSES, Academic R&D Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2009, Table 1.
Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf11313/content.cfm?pub_id=
4065&id=2 (accessed September 4, 2011). NSF/NCSES, National Patterns of R&D
Resources, Table 13. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/natlpatterns/
(accessed September 4, 2011).
• Focus on global leadership: At the end of the Cold War, the U.S.
Congress asked the National Academies to identify priority areas for
future federal investment and to provide a foundation upon which fed-
eral science and technology (FS&T) budgetary policy can be built and
analyzed. In Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: National Goals
for a New Era (1993), the National Academies recommended two goals to
guide federal investment in science and technology:
o First, the United States should be among the world leaders in
all major areas of science. Achieving this goal would allow this nation to
quickly apply and extend advances in science wherever they occur.
o Second, the United States should maintain clear leadership in
some areas of science. The decision to select a field for leadership would
OCR for page 168
168 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
sions, histories, cultures, student populations, and geographic locations
of institutions with demonstrated success.
6. Evaluation of STEM programs and increased research on the
many dimensions of underrepresented minorities’ experience in STEM
help ensure that programs are well informed, well designed, and successful.
Box 5-9.2 outlines the six broad recommendations from the report that
address important issues across the educational pathway of laying an
academic foundation in reading and arithmetic, preparation in science
and mathematics, motivation for STEM education careers, access to and
affordability of higher education, and academic and social integration. We
strongly recommend that K–12 and higher education institutions as well
as other actors pay careful attention to the detailed actions provided in
this significant report on how to achieve these broad recommendations.
As a priority for the short term, the report recommended the nation
BOX 5-9.2
Broad Recommendations Across STEM Educational Pathways
Outlined in Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation
1. Pre-School through Grade 3 Education: Prepare America’s children for
school through pre-school and early education programs that develop reading
readiness, provide early mathematics skills, and introduce concepts of creativity
and discovery.
2. K–12 Mathematics and Science: Increase America’s talent pool by
vastly improving K–12 mathematics and science education for underrepresented
minorities.
3. K–12 Teacher Preparation and Retention: Improve K–12 mathematics
and science education for underrepresented minorities overall by improving the
preparedness of those who teach them those subjects.
4. Access and Motivation: Improve access to all post-secondary education
and technical training and increase underrepresented minority student awareness
of and motivation for STEM education and careers through improved information,
counseling, and outreach.
5. Affordability: Develop America’s advanced STEM workforce by providing
adequate financial support to underrepresented minority students in undergradu-
ate and graduate STEM education.
6. Academic and Social Support: Take coordinated action to transform the
nation’s higher education institutions to increase inclusion of and college comple-
tion and success in STEM education for underrepresented minorities.
Source: National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute
of Medicine, Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and
Technology Talent at the Crossroads (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2011).
OCR for page 169
ACTION 169
FIGURE 5-9.4 Percentage of 2004 freshmen at 4-year institutions who aspire
Figure 5.9.4.eps
to STEM majors who then completed STEM degrees in 4 and 5 years, by race/
ethnicity. bitmap
Source: University of California Los Angeles, Higher Education Research In-
stitute, Degrees of Success: Bachelor’s Degree Completion Rates among Initial
STEM Majors, January 2010. Available at: http://www.heri.ucla.edu/nih/down-
loads/2010%20-%20Hurtado,%20Eagan,%20Chang%20-%20Degrees%20of%20
Success.pdf (accessed April 22, 2012).
focus on undergraduate completion in STEM. Citing new data from the
Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA, displayed in Figure 5-9.4,
the report argues that the nation needs to take action to address signifi-
cantly lower 4- and 5-year completion rates in STEM of underrepresented
minorities relative to those of whites and Asian Americans. Since under-
represented minorities who matriculate at 4-year institutions aspire to a
STEM degree as their peers, these lower completion rates represent both a
challenge and an opportunity if we can implement actions that we know
from experience work in sustaining the persistence and completion of
underrepresented students.
Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation, therefore, recom-
mended policies and programs that seek to increase undergraduate re-
OCR for page 170
170 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
tention and completion of underrepresented minorities in STEM through
strong academic, social, and financial support. It strongly recommends
financial support from the federal government for underrepresented mi-
norities that allows them to focus on and succeed in STEM by joining it to
programs that simultaneously integrate academic, social, and professional
development. It also recommends a federal program modeled on the
NSF’s ADVANCE Program that would fund efforts to change institutional
cultures in colleges and universities so that they are more supportive of
underrepresented minorities.
The report concludes by arguing that all of the nation’s higher edu-
cation institutions—including research universities—must play a role in
implementing this priority action. It argued that while diversity of insti-
tutions is an asset, “currently, only a small number of institutions” are
playing the role that all must play. It notes that these institutions “are di-
verse and can be found among all institutional types and categories; they
are successful because they are doing something special to support the
retention and completion of underrepresented minority undergraduates
in the natural sciences and engineering. Their actions can be replicated
and when they are, with a focus on both numbers and quality, it will pay
off significantly.”74 The report identifies the importance of leadership in
creating a positive institutional environment for minority integration and
success; practical steps that can be taken to increase the completion of mi-
norities (making student success a priority, tracking student achievement,
identifying choke points such as course availability, and improving course
transfer); key elements for successful program development (resources
and sustainability, coordination and integration, focus on the pipeline and
transition points, program design execution, and evaluation); and proven,
intensive interventions for underrepresented minorities in STEM (sum-
mer programs, research experiences, professional development activities,
academic support and social integration, and mentoring).
Recommendation 10
Ensure that the United States will continue to benefit strongly from
the participation of international students and scholars in our research
enterprise.
Actors and Actions—Implementing Recommendation 10:
• Federal government: Federal agencies should ensure that visa
processing for international students and scholars who wish to study or
74 Ibid., p. 8.
OCR for page 171
ACTION 171
conduct research in the United States is as efficient and effective as pos-
sible, consistent also with homeland security considerations.
• Federal government: As we benefit from the contributions of
highly skilled, foreign-born researchers, the federal government should
also streamline the processes for non-U.S. doctoral researchers to obtain
permanent residency or U.S. citizenship in order to ensure that a high
proportion remain in the United States. The United States should con-
sider taking the strong step of granting residency (a Green Card) to each
non-U.S. citizen who earns a doctorate in an area of national need from
an accredited research university. The Department of Homeland Security
should set the criteria for and make selections of areas of national need
and of the set of accredited institutions in cooperation with the National
Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
• Federal government: Engage in the proactive recruitment of inter-
national students and scholars.
Budget Implications
There is no additional cost.
Expected Outcomes
The United States has benefited significantly over the last half-century
and more from highly talented individuals who have come to the United
States from abroad to study or conduct research. Today, there is increasing
competition for these individuals as students or researchers both in gen-
eral and from their home countries. It is in the interest of the United States
to attract and keep individuals who will create new knowledge and/or
convert it to new products, industries, and jobs in the United States.
Discussion
The federal government should also strongly encourage the contin-
ued study and work of international graduate students and postdoctoral
scholars in U.S. science and engineering through improvements in visa,
residency, and citizenship processes. As James Duderstadt has noted,
“Aging populations, out-migration, and shrinking workforces are seri-
ously challenging the productivity of developed economies throughout
Europe and Asia. Yet, here the United States stands apart because of an-
other important demographic trend: immigration. As it has been so many
times in its past, America is once again becoming a highly diverse na-
tion of immigrants, benefiting immensely from their energy, talents, and
OCR for page 172
172 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
hope.”75 In fact, today, one-quarter or more of new high-tech companies
launched in the United States are founded by immigrants.76 Attracting
such talent to the United States is particularly important in knowledge-
intensive, high-skill areas such as science and technology. Here, American
research universities are extraordinary assets, since the world-class qual-
ity of their programs attract the best and brightest from around the world
as students and faculty. The attractiveness of U.S. research universities
for non-U.S. doctoral students and researchers is still a relative strength
of American research universities. As seen in Figure 5-10.1, temporary
residents earn a significant percentage of doctorates from U.S. institutions
in key fields, including 27 percent in the life sciences, 42 percent in the
physical sciences, and 55 percent in engineering. Moreover, this has been
a significant benefit to U.S. research universities and, by extension, to the
United States generally, as we have often drawn the very best students
from overseas. These highly trained individuals are the best affirmation
of U.S. academic leadership, and many of them are the sparks for contin-
ued domestic innovation and economic growth in our highly competitive
global community.
However, trends can reverse. In the late 1990s, doctoral students from
Taiwan and South Korea, the leading countries of origin, peaked both in
number and in the percentage that stayed in the United States following
degree receipt. That is, fewer came and of those who did, an increasing
proportion returned home due to increases in opportunities there. They
were replaced by India and China as the leading countries of origin. 77
As the growing strength of Ph.D. programs, research opportunities, and
75 James J. Duderstadt, Higher Education in the 21st Century: Global Imperatives, Re-
gional Challenges, National Responsibilities, and Emerging Opportunities, Septem-
ber 1, 2007. Available at: http://milproj.ummu.umich.edu/pdfs/2008/Glion%20VI%20
Globalization.pdf (accessed March 22, 2012).
76 Vivek Wadhwa, AnnaLee Saxenian, Ben Rissing, and Gary Gereffi, America’s new im-
migrant entrepreneurs: Part I (January 4, 2007). Duke Science, Technology & Innovation Paper
No. 23. Available at: SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=990152. This report found that 25.3
percent of the engineering and technology companies started in the United States from
1995 to 2005 had at least one foreign-born founder. The “New American” Fortune 500, A
Report by the Partnership for a New American Economy, June 2011, available at: http://www.
renewoureconomy.org/2011_06_15_1, found that close to “20 percent of the newest Fortune
500 companies—those founded over the 25-year period between 1985 and 2010—have an
immigrant founder.” American Made: The Impact of Immigrant Entrepreneurs and Professionals
on U.S. Competitiveness, A joint study by National Venture Capital Association, Stuart Ander-
son (National Foundation for American Policy), and Michaela Platzer (Content First, LLC)
(available at : http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25
4&Itemid=103), found that “40 percent of U.S. publicly traded venture-backed companies
operating in high-technology manufacturing today [2005] were started by immigrants.”
77 Peter H. Henderson et al., Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Sum-
mary Report 1995. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996.
OCR for page 173
ACTION 173
70.0%
60.0%
55.2%
50.0%
42.4%
40.0%
30.1%
30.0% 27.2%
21.8%
20.0%
14.8%
10.0% 8.7%
0.0%
Engineering Physical Life Social/ Humanities Education Other
Sciences Sciences Behavioral Non-S&E
-10.0% Sciences Fields
FIGURE 5-10.1 Doctorate awards to temporary visa holder by major field of
study, 2009. Figure 5.10.1.eps
Source: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineer-
ing Statistics, Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities, 2009, (NSF 11-306).
Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, December 2011. Table 20. Available
at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf11306/ (accessed December 10, 2011).
incentives increase in India and China over the next decade, will future
trends for their students follow the pattern we have seen for South Korea
and China? How long will it take to see this trend play out? Recent trends
in the number of international graduate student applications, admissions,
and enrollment can be seen in Figure 5-10.2, and the number of doctorates
awarded to non-U.S. students on temporary visas can be seen in Figure
5-10.3. These trends show significant oscillation and uncertainty about
future directions.
The United States should make enhancements to immigration policy
that would encourage talented international graduates from programs
in science and engineering to remain in the United States and allow the
country to benefit from the investment in their graduate education. Ris-
ing Above the Gathering Storm addressed this issue head-on by arguing for
improvements in visa processing for international students and scholars;
providing a 1-year automatic visa extension to international students who
receive doctorates or the equivalent in science, technology, engineering,
mathematics, or other fields of national need at qualified U.S. institutions
OCR for page 174
174 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
FIGURE 5-10.2 Year-to-year percentage change in international student participa-
Figure 5.10.2.eps
tion in U.S. graduate education, 2003 to 2004 through 2009 to 2010.
bitmap
Source: Council of Graduate Schools, Findings from the 2011 CGS International
Graduate Admissions Survey, Phases III: Final Offers of Admission and Enroll-
ment, November 2011. Available at: http://www.cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/
files/R_IntlEnrl11_III.pdf (accessed April 22, 2012).
to remain in the United States to seek employment; instituting a new
skills-based, preferential immigration option; and reforming the system
of “deemed exports” (see Box 5-10.1).
Yet current immigration policies continue to seriously constrain the
valuable flow of international talent so critical to the economic prosperity
of our nation.
• The process of obtaining most classes of temporary visas needed
to come to the United States contains costs, delays, and uncertainties,
though this has improved since Rising Above the Gathering Storm was
published.
• There are application fees and separate wait times for obtaining
an interview and a determination. Around one-quarter of those who ap-
ply for student visas are rejected. While this rate is believed to be much
lower for accepted applicants to research universities, it is still reported
as an issue. While some rejections and delays are due to security concern,
most are because the student was unable to prove that they have no intent
to stay in the United States.
• An increasing number of international conferences have been
placed and held outside of the United States to avoid visa problems. The
OCR for page 175
ACTION 175
need to recruit internationally and to have frequent visits from foreign
researchers has also made this a factor in the placement of some research
laboratories.
• Stories of faculty and students being stranded abroad with visa
problems, whether common or rare, become oft-repeated horror stories
that affect decisions of others to come to the United States.
• Restrictions on what research may be undertaken by foreign stu-
dents and scholars in the United States affect both decisions to come to
the United States and decisions whether to stay—this has improved since
publication of Rising Above the Gathering Storm, but restrictions remain.
• Foreign researchers are sometimes excluded from a research ac-
tivity due to rules, or uncertainty about the rules, that pertain to sensitive
areas, restricted exports, or the terms of a specific research grant.
• While allowed to work as research assistants on federal grants,
14000
12369 12626
12211
12000
11587 11302
10000 10426
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
FIGURE 5-10.3 Science and engineering doctorates awarded by U.S. institutions
to non-U.S. citizens on temporary visas.
Source: National Science Foundation, 5.10.3.eps for Science and Engineer-
Figure National Center
ing Statistics, Numbers of Doctorates Awarded in the United States Declined in
2010 (NSF 12-303), November 2011. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
infbrief/nsf12303/ (accessed December 10, 2011).
OCR for page 176
176 RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
BOX 5-10.1
Rising Above the Gathering Storm,
Recommendations on Immigration
Action C-4: Continue to improve visa processing for international stu-
dents and scholars to provide less complex procedures and continue to make
improvements on such issues as visa categories and duration, travel for scientific
meetings, the technology alert list, reciprocity agreements, and changes in status.
Action C-5: Provide a 1-year automatic visa extension to international
students who receive doctorates or the equivalent in science, technology,
engineering, mathematics, or other fields of national need at qualified U.S.
institutions to remain in the United States to seek employment. If these
students are offered jobs by U.S.-based employers and pass a security
screening test, they should be provided automatic work permits and expe-
dited residence status. If students are unable to obtain employment within 1
year, their visas would expire.
Action C-6: Institute a new skills-based, preferential immigration option.
Doctoral-level education and science and engineering skills would substantially
raise an applicant’s chances and priority in obtaining U.S. citizenship. In the in-
terim, the number of H-1B visas should be increased by 10,000, and the additional
visas should be available for industry to hire science and engineering applicants
with doctorates from U.S. universities.
Action C-7: Reform the current system of “deemed exports.” The new
system should provide international students and researchers engaged in fun-
damental research in the United States with access to information and research
equipment in U.S. industrial, academic, and national laboratories comparable
with the access provided to U.S. citizens and permanent residents in a similar
status. It would, of course, exclude information and facilities restricted under
national-security regulations. In addition, the effect of deemed-exports regulations
on the education and fundamental research work of international students and
scholars should be limited by removing from the deemed-exports technology list
all technology items (information and equipment) that are available for purchase
on the overseas open market from foreign or U.S. companies or that have manu-
als that are available in the public domain, in libraries, over the Internet, or from
manufacturers.
Source: National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of
Medicine. 2007. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for
a Brighter Economic Future.
foreign students are not usually eligible for federal fellowships and
traineeships.
• Many job opportunities after graduation are restricted to U.S.
citizens. Application for U.S. citizenship usually requires 5 years after
receiving a Green Card. Time as a student or with a temporary work visa
does not count.
OCR for page 177
ACTION 177
Put in the simplest of terms, the United States must address these
issues both to ensure that we can capitalize on the flow of international
students and scholars and to provide our nation with the talent we need
as we make progress on our goals listed under Recommendation 9 in in-
creasing the participation of women and underrepresented minorities in
key fields. First, we must ensure that visa, residency, and citizenship pro-
cesses are as efficient as possible. Second, we must reform the temporary
work authorization visa process (H-1B visas). Third, we must, as a prior-
ity, be more proactive, both by recruiting students, postdoctorates, and
scholars and by following the practice of other nations such as Canada
in encouraging the immigration of international students by attaching a
Green Card to every doctorate in science and engineering.
OCR for page 178
