Part 1 and Part 2 of this series discussed Chapters 1 and 2. This installment focuses on RAGS Chapter 3, which is titled, “How is America doing now in science and technology?” It really should be named, “How is science and technology doing now in America?”

The focus is regrettably not on what S&T can do for the U.S. public, but what the U.S. public can do for the S&T community. According to data that we discussed last month (here) the U.S. has 1.26 million workers who are classified as researchers, which represents roughly about 1% of the U.S> labor market. Given the small size of the R&D part of the workforce, compared to the whole, the most important question for using investments in S&T as a tool of “competitiveness” is: What is the relationship of investments in different areas of S&T and the quality and quantity of jobs in the broader U.S. labor market? This important question goes unasked by RAGS. Read on for details.

Surprsingly, RAGS paints a uniformly rosy picture about the state of R&D in the United States. Consider the following examples from the report:

By most available criteria, the United States is still the undisputed leader in the performance of basic and applied research.

In addition, many international comparisons put the United States as a leader in applying research and innovation to improve economic performance. In the latest IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook, the United States ranks first in economic competitiveness, followed by Hong Kong and Singapore.

Researchers in the United States lead the world in the volume of articles published and in the frequency with which those papers are cited by others. US-based authors were listed on one-third of all scientific articles worldwide in 2001.

The United States also excels in higher education and training. A recent comparison concluded that 38 of the world’s 50 leading research institutions—those that draw the greatest interest of science and technology students—are in the United States.

Since World War II, the United States has been the destination of choice for science and engineering graduate students and for postdoctoral scholars choosing to study abroad. Our nation—about 6% percent of the world’s population—has for decades produced more than 20% of the world’s doctorates in science and engineering.

So then what is the problem? RAGS takes on a slightly jingoistic tone when it points to foreigners as the problem. The report has a positive tone on this development — “It is no surprise that as the value of research becomes more widely understood, other nations are strengthening their own programs and institutions. If imitation is flattery, we can take pride in watching as other nations eagerly adopt major components of the US innovation model” – but it hints in many places that other countries are “catching up” and thus threatening the U.S. economy.

RAGS notes that the relative advance of other countries has benefits, but also suggests undefined risks: “The global increase in the production of scientific knowledge eventually benefits all countries. Yet trends in publication could be a troubling bellwether about our competitive position in the global science community.” The risks identified include a “global competition for talent” with RAGS suggesting that many scientists and engineers will find other countries more appealing than the United States. The report makes general claims about a downturn in “basic research” conducted by industry, even as industry support for R&D has increased steadily. It expresses concerns about lower wages for professionals in developing countries and how that strains the U.S. economy. No mention is made about the relationship of S&E jobs in other countries and information on unemployment in the U.S. labor market, for instance.

It seems that the core of the argument of this chapter is contained in the section titled “Restraints on Public Funding.” This section begins by decrying the decrease in Cold War funding for military R&D. The section continues by lamenting the pace of increasing federal budgets for R&D,

Public funding for science and engineering rose through the 1990s, but virtually all of the increase went to biomedical research at NIH. Federal spending on the physical sciences remained roughly flat, and increases for mathematics and engineering only slightly surpassed inflation. Funding for important areas of the life sciences—plant science, ecology, environmental research—supported by agencies other than NIH also has leveled off. The lack of new funding for research in the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering raises concern about the overall health of the science and engineering research enterprise, including that of the health sciences.

These complaints are focused on the inputs to R&D in the form of public money. No mention is made about the outputs much less how variations in the inputs are related to variations in the outputs.

The next section turns to education. RAGS argues,

The rise of new international competitors in science and engineering is forcing the United States to ask whether its education system can meet the demands of the 21st century. The nation faces several areas of challenge: K–12 student preparation in science and mathematics, limited undergraduate interest in science and engineering majors, significant student attrition among science and engineering undergraduate and graduate students, and science and engineering education that in some instances inadequately prepares students to work outside universities.

But there is no discussion here about how those educated in S&E are related to the workforce of 160 million people. Like most everyone, I think improving education is important, but how much of the focus should be on science and engineering versus, say, writing and spoken communication, conflict resolution, ability to work in groups, understanding geopolitics and the U.S. role in a larger world, etc. It is not clear from the arguments presented here how it is that we might prioritize educational deficiencies in the United States. Rather it is assumed that S&E education is the most pressing, and indeed only, area that needs attention.

The analysis in RAGS is sometimes found wanting, for instance, the following sentence probably wouldn’t last long in a paper for Public Policy 101: “Furthermore, many adults with whom students come in contact seemingly take pride in “never understanding” or “never liking” mathematics.” The report presents a collection of comparative data indicating this or that related to how certain other countries produce a greater proportion of scientist and engineering students or that those students fare better on tests of achievement. What the chapter does not explain is that such arguments have been made for almost 50 years, yet over that time frame the U.S. economy has done quite well. The assertions made by RAGS may be correct, but the analysis simply is not present to allow one to follow an argument to the report’s conclusions. One is asked to take the report’s conclusions almost entirely on faith.

This chapter, like the other reviewed so far ends with a restatement of the assumptions that form the backbone of the report:

Because our economic, military, and cultural well-being depends on continued science and engineering leadership, the nation faces a compelling call to action.