More on the theme of the environment of doing Science in the US vs the rest of the world.
First, during a meeting talking about hiring someone. This person woudl be coming to UW from Europe. Over there this person has been remarkably successful getting funding for their science efforts (millions of pounds; one pound is about $2 US). The question stated to us bluntly was: how is the funding environment for science in the US given the recent cuts, paying for the Iraq war, etc. Now, on one hand, the total $$ spent on science in the US is larger than the UK. But on the other hand, the US spends less per-capita on science research than any other country. The candidate is right to worry about this: we are seeing science budgets shrink.
No big deal, right? Well, this person is at the top of their game. We want them to do their research in the US, right? We want as much of the cutting edge developments to happen here as we can! Funding environment is very much an input into this decision.
The second thing that happened was an email that arrived. Basically, the Dept. of Commerce is considering a new set of regulations that would make the use of any lab equipment by a foreign national the same as exporting that equipment to the national's home country. Take China for example. There are export restrictions in place for highspeed computers to China. If a chinese graduate student is doing research that requires use of a supercomputer they would run afoul of these regulations.
Now, pretend you are a graduate student in China and you want to do research. Do you go to a country like the US that is going to make it difficult for you to work with state-of-the-art tools, or are you going to go to Europe instead? Now, look at it from my point of view. Research is not accomplished without students. Students and post-docs probably account for 80% of the work that occurs in science. If I can't get enough (good) students, my research output will fall rather dramatically.
Bad for everyone. The problem with these sorts of things is they have long term effects, not short term. It feels like the US is slowly closing its doors to outside interaction. The more we seal ourselves off, the more likely we will fall behind. If you follow this argument to its bitter end, there will come a time where a US citizen will have to consider moving abroad to do cutting-edge research. That would be a disaster for this country.
An article on this very topic was recently published in the Christian Science Monitor (not where I was expecting this!). I'm sure there are plenty of other articles out there as well. Scanning the web, I found a different perspective -- talking about something similar in Korea, though for different reasons.
Nicely said, Gordon! This, is my mind, is a perfect example of where scientists need to get involved in policy. Commerce clearly doesn't understand how students are trained, or, it would seem, why we want/need foreign students!
Posted by: Benn Tannenbaum | April 25, 2005 at 06:17 AM
Well, funding is just one side of the story. And there are many other sides. For instance, finding a permanent position in science. No matter how hard it is in this country, it is much-much more difficult in Old Europe. Another - immigration. Although this has become more of a hassle to come to the US to do research (it's getting better, by the way), most european countries have tougher immigration laws than the US.
Now, I'm not saying we don't need more money for research here. Sure, we do! Research funding cuts of recent years are just plain bad. Getting involved in policy - good idea. Seeing some results of doing so - even better!
Posted by: Boris Blinov | April 25, 2005 at 11:58 AM
Hi Benn! Sometimes I think the problem is that when we are good with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. They are solving their problem (keep technology out of the hands of countries on the restricted list), but they don't think of it from the other point of view (lets make sure we remain a leader in technology, etc.). That really should be part of their task; and I'm glad that they have these open comment periods on proposed regulations so that we can respond. I wonder if it will have any effect?
Boris -- good to hear from you again! You are right, of course, there is more to the story. I tend to focus on the things that worry me the most! I've heard, for example, that it is almost impossible to get a permenent position in the German system. The more pressure we put on all of these problems the more likely there is to be reform. As far as immigration policy in the US -- yes, it is getting better. Two years ago my post-doc was stuck for 9 weeks out of the country trying to renew his visa, now he has one that means he doesn't have to go for yearly interviews any longer. On the other hand, I'm not satisfied with comparisons to old Europe. :-) It feels to me like the US isn't the leader as much as a member of the pack.
Posted by: Gordon Watts | April 25, 2005 at 01:38 PM
Gordon-- the UW VP for research (or equivalent) absolutely should write a letter to the appropriate people at Commerce. The rumors that I'm hearing are that they most certainly want input from the academic community...
Posted by: Benn Tannenbaum | April 26, 2005 at 06:36 AM
Good point. That guy is on top of things already, but I'll just knock his email Inbox to see if that is the plan.
Posted by: Gordon Watts | April 26, 2005 at 09:09 PM