As Shep Ryen has observed on this site, the New York Times reports today that the United States is experiencing a “decline” in its global dominance in science and technology. The Times reports that as measured by such weighty statistics as the number of publications and doctoral students produced the U.S. has experienced a relative decline as compared to the rest of the world. For example, the U.S. share of patents has decreased from 60% in 1980 to 52% in 2003.

The Times does note that “Even analysts worried by the trend concede that an expansion of the world’s brain trust, with new approaches, could invigorate the fight against disease, develop new sources of energy and wrestle with knotty environmental problems.”

With United States investments in science and technology at historical highs, those scientists claiming poverty as a basis for increased investment have their work cut out for them.

It does seem that claims of a current “crisis” in science and technology are part of an orchestrated effort by the scientific community to justify more federal money for science and technology. For example, the American Physical Society recently wrote a letter to the director of the Office of Management and Budget describing the profound practical consequences of not dramatically increasing science budgets:

“As you begin to construct the budget request for FY06, we urge you to reverse this debilitating trend [of diminishing federal support] and increase significantly the budgets for research in the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering. Other countries, led by China and India, are investing heavily in their scientific infrastructure, including research and education, and the U.S.’s technological competitiveness is being challenged… We believe that renewed attention to federal research budgets is central to achieving the U.S. economic and military security goals. We strongly urge you to increase the budgets for research (basic and applied) for the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering at NSF, DOE Office of Science, NASA and NIST.”

(Note to APS: The Director of OMB is named Joshua Bolten, not John Bolton as you have incorrectly on your WWW site.)

[Edit: Thanks to David Harris for correcting our mistake: Joshua Bolten, not Bolton]