Many interested organizations joined together last month at a summit
addressing the size, training and capacity of the nation’s science and
engineering (S&E) workforce. Representatives from at least 40 scientific
and engineering societies, government agencies, think tanks and professional
associations gathered for a day and a half to present their views at this
“Pan-organizational Summit on the U.S. S&E Workforce,” sponsored by the
National Academies’ Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable. Low
domestic production of S&E workers, the approaching retirement age of many
in the S&E workforce, and the nation’s dependence on foreign workers have
made this a topic of concern for many.
It was apparent that the economy has affected various fields of science and
engineering differently, with some experiencing unusually high unemployment
and others seeing a pressing need for more workers. Even so, there seemed
to be a consensus that K-12 science, technology, engineering and math (STEM)
education must be improved, that more and timelier data is needed, and that
the costs and rewards of pursuing an S&E career must be better understood.
There was also general agreement that the capacity of the S&E workforce
would be enhanced if workers’ training prepared them to adapt to shifting
employment needs.
Shirley Malcolm of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
pointed out that while the U.S. is still the world leader in the S&E
enterprise, its leadership position depends in part on the foreign workers
that help make up the S&E workforce. With other countries building their
R&D capacity and creating more opportunities for skilled workers, she said,
continued dependence on this influx of workers is risky and the U.S. should
focus on strengthening its domestic workforce. To do so, many speakers
agreed, will require that the U.S. strengthen its pre-college STEM
education, and determine how to make science and engineering careers more
attractive, particularly for women, underrepresented minorities, and the
disabled.
“Those who are concerned about whether the production of U.S. scientists
and engineers is sufficient for national needs must pay serious attention to
whether careers in science and engineering are attractive relative to other
career opportunities available to U.S. students,” warned Michael Teitelbaum
of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. He and others emphasized the significant
time and financial commitment of earning a graduate degree in science
compared to other professional degrees. It has been “commonplace” in the
last 10-15 years, he said, to hear claims about looming shortages in the S&E
workforce, but “labor market projections that go very far into the future
are notoriously problematic.” Teitelbaum cited evidence that “overall labor
markets for scientists and engineers are relatively slack” and vary
considerably across fields and over time.
Harris Miller of the Information Technology Association of America stated
that the slowdown of the information technology (IT) industry “has resulted
in a decreased demand for IT workers.” However, he said employers are still
having problems finding qualified IT workers with needed skills, and his
organization is concerned about the field’s long-term ability to produce and
maintain an adequate supply of workers. Other speakers reported that some
types of engineering- and chemistry-related jobs were moving offshore and
demand was down for U.S. workers in those fields. On the other hand, the
manufacturing industry is anticipating a labor shortage, said Phyllis Eisen
of the National Association of Manufacturers, and is “scared” that it does
not have the qualified workforce to respond to customers’ needs and stay
competitive.
Representatives from several federal agencies described difficulties hiring
qualified S&E workers, and expect the situation to worsen as the federal S&E
workforce ages. According to Mary Good of the Alliance for Science and
Technology Research in America, over 50 percent of federal S&E workers may
retire in the next decade. She remarked that U.S. production of bachelor’s
degrees in engineering and the non-life sciences dropped during the 1990s
and suggested that the decline might be attributable, at least in part, to
the long-term decline in federal funding for mathematical and physical
sciences and engineering. Good presented data showing that, for these
fields, students’ degree choices correlate strongly with the availability of
federal research funding.
There was substantial agreement that more timely and comprehensive data is
needed to understand S&E employment trends and the factors that affect them.
Bill Butz of the RAND Science and Technology Policy Institute presented a
paper that posed the questions, “Is there a shortage of scientists and
engineers? How would we know?” The paper, using production of PhD
scientists and engineers as an example, looked at a number of possible
definitions of a shortage: declining production; competitors’ share of
production increasing; production lower than producers desire or the nation
deems necessary; or production not meeting market demand. Butz indicated
that much of the available data is not current enough, and the definitions
of shortage used by various groups are not consistent enough, to give
definitive answers.
It became obvious, as the summit continued, that there are differing
conceptions of “shortage” that address different disciplines, segments of
the workforce, and degree levels, over differing time horizons. Most
participants agreed, though, that in order for the nation to be prepared for
future economic developments and S&E workforce needs, it is necessary to
improve K-12 STEM education so students are well-prepared to pursue careers
in science and engineering, and that if S&E workers are trained to be
flexible and agile, the nation’s capacity to fill its future S&E workforce
needs will be enhanced. Some disciplines are considering how to revise
their degree programs to increase the broad-based general education of
students even as the fields require ever-more-specialized knowledge.
Several speakers raised the idea of bachelor’s-plus or professional master’s
degree programs.
The result of the summit was a series of consensus recommendations for
further action. Working groups are being formed to address each of these
items: (1) Develop a coordinated, multi-sector effort to improve the
“domestic S&E pipeline issue;” (2) Make STEM education better and more
attractive and improve teacher training; (3) Target student financial aid
to S&E majors; (4) Reform the S&E undergraduate experience, both curriculum
and pedagogy, to attract a wider variety of students; (5) Address the “poor
effort-reward ratio” of S&E careers; (6) Design interconnecting career and
education pathways and resources so S&E workers and students can develop
“agility;” (7) Ensure federal support of lifelong learning, and focus H-1B
visa fees on retraining of S&E workers; (8) Increase participation of women
and minorities in the S&E enterprise; and (9) Develop a comprehensive
national database and a model of S&E education and workforce pathways to
understand the relevant factors and “guide intelligent policymaking.”
Audrey T. Leath
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3094
