The rise of economic competitors, combined with a decline in the education system at home, has threatened the United States’ position as the global leader in science. Although foreign competition advances scientific knowledge more rapidly, a loss of leadership in science could diminish U.S. economic growth and national security. Last year, China graduated more English-speaking engineers than the United States, and America’s share of high-tech exports fell from 21 to 14 percent, while China’s rose from seven to 20 percent. As other countries improve their science, education, and research and development programs, the United States should protect its leadership position by seriously tackling core issues such as stagnating K-12 science, technology, engineering, and math education and the politicized nature of science public policy.
Closing the Gap: A Closer Look at Developing Countries
Many analysts lament the decline of the American scientific infrastructure, but a cursory review of the relevant statistics reveal that America is still a leader by many measures. The United States spends 40 percent of total world R&D outlays, claims 38 percent of OECD nations’ patented new technology inventions, produces 35 percent, 49 percent, and 63 percent, respectively, of total world publications, citations, and highly cited publications, and employs 70 percent of the world’s Nobel Prize winners.
The current STEM anxiety is an outgrowth of larger concerns about American competitiveness. The growing number of STEM workers in countries like China has both policymakers and American citizens on edge. Yet an engineering degree in China is often equivalent to only a vocational certificate or two-year degree in the United States. More concerning is the rate at which China is expanding its investment in science compared to the United States.
The largest threat to America’s global competitiveness in this area comes from its relatively small population compared with China and India. Even marginal improvements in education in these countries may produce large gains in productivity and scientific output. However, Scott Pace of the Center for International Science and Technology Policy, explained to the HPR that measuring the science gap comes down to quality of performance, not the quantity of workers. While China improves quantitatively, innovation still lags. “The Chinese educational system is not one that fosters a lot of individual initiative and creativity,” said Pace. If a nation’s goal is to graduate technically competent people, then China ranks highly, but if a nation values the ability to innovate, the United States maintains an edge.
On the other hand, investments in training, research, and development by other countries are good news for the United States in some respects. Rice University’s Neal Lane, former director of the National Science Foundation, noted to the HPR: “the U.S. has benefited from those investments for a very long time. Bright young people often select the United States for their graduate work and sometimes stay to start their careers here both in the academic sector and in the private sector.” These high-skilled professionals become productive members of our society, made possible by their technical training in their native countries. Science in the 21st century is no longer constrained by borders. Shawn Lawrence Otto, author and science advocate, explained in an interview with the HPR that the Internet and increased collaboration have globalized many recent scientific achievements.
Educational Challenges
In spite of these potential benefits, the declining performance of K-12 institutions in STEM fields is a serious threat to the United States. The current U.S. public education system is not in a position to generate the talent in science and math-related fields to meet the future demands of the global marketplace. In fact, an estimated two thirds of Ph.D. students graduating with STEM degrees in the United States are not American citizens. Lane believes more students will choose to remain in their home countries to complete their Ph.D. degrees or return home after they graduate as the science facilities in countries like China rapidly improve.
This statistic, that only a third of graduating science Ph.D. students completed their K-12 education in the United States, is a result of both the quality of American K-12 education and the early misalignment of incentives in an American student’s academic career. To Lane, the critical question is “whether there are there enough U.S.-born men and women interested in careers in science who are well-educated. Moreover, he is concerned about “whether there will be enough [students] downstream as more foreign people try to stay home.” Americans must look to encourage more people to enter STEM fields in elementary and secondary education to ensure the answer to Lane’s question in the future is yes.
An Insufficient National Science Agenda
In his first inaugural address, President Obama promised to “restore science to its rightful place [as a national priority].” The prospect seemed favorable as he assembled a strong group of researchers to lead his science-related agencies. Yet Pace observed that this group of well-known and technically competent advisors “has not translated into money or achievements.” As President Obama became embroiled in the financial crisis and the divisive effort to pass healthcare reform, his top science-related priorities, including climate change legislation, have been neglected.
Due to these stalemates, political gridlock is another reason Americans are skeptical about the future of science. As Otto notes, Americans have grown frustrated “with the policy-making process and how Washington has become paralyzed on major policy issues that focus on and around science and technology research.” Science is imbedded in many political choices, and scientific advances have suffered in the partisan battles of the nation’s capital. Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union for Concerned Scientists, commented to the HPR, “science should not be a partisan question and too often it has come under partisan attack … Politicians are misrepresenting science in public debate.” Politicians use science now as a political football at the expense of crafting good public policy—a reality that ultimately undermines the nation’s competitiveness.
Otto believes this state of affairs may become the new norm. He is concerned that for the foreseeable future, there will be “a widening gap between our power to control and change the world of science and our ability to make effective public policy around that power using democracy.” If elected officials continue to disagree so widely in science-related areas, the United States will find it difficult to compete with an autocratic government like China’s that can unilaterally set policy.
American scientific leadership is far from weak today, but it will decline given current economic, political, and educational realities. Countries such as China and India are graduating an increasing number of students with technical degrees. A number of problems plague science in America: the decline of STEM performance in K-12 education, a lack of American citizens in Ph.D. programs, and the partisan nature of science in political institutions. To alter our current path and retain our global leadership, structural changes to our scientific communities and political culture must be realized.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.