|
One of the responsibilities of the National Science Board is to focus national attention on major issues relating to science and engineering research and education.
The NSB has done so recently in U. S. Science and Engineering in a Changing World, which accompanies Science and Engineering Indicators1996, the biennial report from NSB to the Congress. Commendably brief and readable,
U. S. Science and Engineering in a Changing World is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/nsb.htm. Its fundamental message is that we are in an era of change, and we had better be prepared to rethink what used to be obvious truisms.
The institutions that carry on science and engineering research and education can no longer count on the specter of a cold war to generate support and funding. Science continues
to grow in scope and power, but the resources available to support scientific research and science education cannot possibly keep pace. Available resources are being constrained instead of expanded, and there is no reason to expect that they will
ever again expand as rapidly as they did in the past. Therefore it is imperative that priorities be set that are consistent with the goals of a post-cold-war era where increased economic competitiveness has assumed much greater importance.
Federal research and development priorities
have shifted away from defense and toward the civilian
sector, which reinforces the trend toward a larger role for
academic institutions in the U.S. research and development
effort. But growth in academic R&D support is now only half
what it was in the mid-1980s, and further reallocations in
federal funding are likely. According to the NSB, we can
no longer expect to be preeminent in all fields of science
and engineering, though we can strive to retain world-class
performance in all major areas. Careful study will be
required to determine in which areas we can expect the best
return on investment, and international cooperation and cost
sharing are prescribed as a way to make maximum use of
resources.
Between 1990 and 1993 the number of science and
engineering jobs in industry increased by only 2.5
percent, and much of the growth was in occupations that
require computer and mathematical skills. I was surprised to
find that nonmanufacturing businesses now employ more
than half of the U.S. scientists and engineers who work in
industry. It is becoming more and more important that
students who plan to take degrees in science or
engineering understand that they may find employment in jobs
that would not traditionally be labeled as science or
engineering. We need to do a much better job of understanding
the realities of the labor market that our students will
face.
The NSB promises to include in future reports more
and better information about labor market conditions.
Your Journal will call attention to these as they appear.
The NSB also argues that for the U. S. to remain
globally competitive, we must have workers and
entrepreneurs who are educated in science and engineering, are able
to understand and use science and engineering research
results, and can exploit technological capabilities to the
fullest. This argues for much better and more widespread
general science education at both the K-12 and college
levels. The NSB recommends K-12 science and mathematics
education be revitalized, but does not provide a concrete
plan that would accomplish the desired changes nor
endorse other plans such as Project 2061 or national science
education standards. According to the NSB, reform ought
to be systemic, should involve partnerships among all
relevant parties, could involve networking and information
technologies, should include libraries, museums, community
colleges, and science and technology centers, and might
be scuttled by the wrong decisions about where funding
should be provided.
Another major recommendation is that research
and education must be closely integrated, and that federal
policies and funding ought to support such integration.
Here again, however, specific actions to be taken are hard to
ferret out. There is a contention that federal research
dollars can support both investigation and education, and
have been doing so in the past. This is true in many of the
best research universities, but a strong argument can be
made that federal funding for research at universities has
skewed priorities much too far toward research and funding at
the expense of quality education of undergraduates. This
issue remains unexplored by the NSB report, and there are
no specifics about how funding could be arranged so that
an appropriate balance would be achieved.
The overall premise of the NSB report is that we
are in the midst of change. Things will not remain the way
they were. Both our students and we ourselves will be forced
to address and react to changes in society and the
government. To its credit the NSB argues forcefully that we "must
put absolute priority on educating and training all members
of society in mathematics, science, and engineering so
they may be productively employed in an increasingly
sophisticated global economy." But this is to be done by
"promoting the integration of research and education at all levels."
This is a laudable aim, but nebulous at present. I strongly
agree that teachers and researchers at all levels ought to
interact and communicate much more effectivelyand on a
basis of respect for each other's expertise and
contributions. The very last sentence of the report refers to a
"reinvigorated [science and technology] enterprise, in which all
components appreciate and reinforce their own and
one another's essential role." We have a long way to go
toward that ideal, but it is one well worth pursuing.
|