It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: US Could Soon Be Playing Second Fiddle In Areas of Science and Technology

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I post this as a wake-up call for everybody who cares about the US standing as a science and technology innovation leader. The past few months have seen dramatic developments that could force the US to lose its leadership, which greatly worries me.
 



www.aps.org
The US is in danger of losing its leadership role in science and innovation, according to a group of leaders in academia and industry who released a report on February 16 at a press conference in Washington, DC. The report was issued by the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, a group that includes the APS and 13 other organizations associated with business and academia.

Titled "The Knowledge Economy: Is the United States Losing its Competitive Edge?," the report presents a set of benchmarks in several key areas meant to help policymakers assess US high-tech competitiveness. In each of the six key areas—education, workforce, knowledge creation, research and development investment, the high tech economy, and specific high tech sectors-statistics show that the US is in danger of falling behind other countries.

The Task Force made these announcements shortly after President Bush released his FY06 budget proposal, which proposed cuts in many areas of research and development while leaving the overall budget for R&D nearly flat. The Task Force called for increasing federal spending on basic research in the physical sciences and engineering.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


America needs new leadership which would put priorities where they belong. The US came to be the power it is because of the vibrant science and technology environment that existed in our country, and we should strive to keep it this way.

Let's hope our elected representatives see the writing on the wall, and let's remind them of the priorities.


[edit on 10-5-2005 by Aelita]




posted on May, 10 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Just because you spend most $ doesn't make you the no.1 in science and technology. And why would it be bad thing if US isn't the no.1? It'll still remain the big spender on all industries and sometimes maybe someone will actually invent something usefull. I'll have to vote 'no' to this one.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Why the push to be number 1, the best etc???
Is this in the name of science or in the name of EEEGGGOOOO???

Science should not be a fight for who's the best and who's the greatest. Mistakes can be easily made like that.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I've been hearing this for a while, and it hasn't happened yet. But this should still be a concern, because soon all the jobs left will be high tech. I say we need fewer lawyers and more teachers.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
I've been hearing this for a while, and it hasn't happened yet. But this should still be a concern, because soon all the jobs left will be high tech. I say we need fewer lawyers and more teachers.


My comments to previous posts:

a) Declining research budgets are still a fairly new (and alarming, imho) phenomenon. Effects are already seen, though, just read the link. Most of sci/engineering grads are already foreigners. The US is already losing some of the talent, as more and more tech is being moved overseas.

b) Being a science powerhouse is a big part of what makes America unique. So I decline to consider this unimportant

c) the defense capability is obviously a function of R&D. If you start lagging, you start losing.

d) quality of life does depend on science, after all. When we harness the thermonuclear energy generation, that would be one big illustration of that.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
It's true that in secondary schools (high school) the average knowledge of Americans in science and math is woefully low.

But that doesn't matter for economic development. What matters there is the performance and abilities of top graduates from high level universities, some at top undergraduate institutions, and otherwise MS and PhD's at top graduate schools.

There, the level of research and performance of students is as high as ever. Yes, many are foreign, but so what? And why is this the case?

The answer is simple.

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH JOBS AND COMMITTMENT TO RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING IN THE US

The Indians and Chinese now want to go back to India and China, because they're hiring there. Somebody educated can have a great career and an upper middle-class standard of living.

Here, no more. Basic science research funding by the feds is declining in all categories as it moves only to funding near-term mliitary projects. Corporations have obliterated R&D and threaten to move the remaining engineering to India and China. Age discrimination is rampant and if you're not in the government, you're likely to be involuntarily unemployed, and unemployable at age 40 to 45. And this, after having to take a very long and very difficult educational career, while you see your classmates much more successful at a younger age doing other things.

There is no shortage whatsoever of scientists and engineers in the US. This can be seen by pure market forces: is there any significant increase in wages, like say nurses (where there is a real shortage)? No, and this despite the fact that many leave (or are forced to leave) mid-career. It is almost impossible to get back into science or engineering once you're out.

Yes, I have first hand knowledge. When you see the politicians and pundits saying how we have to improve science in high school for our future---call them on the irrelevant BS.

If there are good jobs---Americans will come.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

as posted by Aelita
b) Being a science powerhouse is a big part of what makes America unique. So I decline to consider this unimportant.

Important as it may be today or in the future, US technological and scientific prowess and ability is derived directly from the emergence of US industrial and economic might during WWII and its subsequnet dominance thereafter.

Without industrial or economic might and like capabilities, you have no technological or scientific advantage.





seekerof

[edit on 10-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
If in fact, the US is no longer the leading Science and tech nation (which is all relative IMO), I say it's a good thing. The more that other nations push the US and each other to gain that top spot, the better. I hope that our engineers, physicists, scientists, biologists, etc. take this to heart and push themselves to get their place back (again, if that was even their place to begin with).

[edit on 10-5-2005 by mpeake]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
It's true that in secondary schools (high school) the average knowledge of Americans in science and math is woefully low.


You know, this extends even to college. I was a TA and I know firsthand.



But that doesn't matter for economic development. What matters there is the performance and abilities of top graduates from high level universities, some at top undergraduate institutions, and otherwise MS and PhD's at top graduate schools.


The ability you mention also include the ability to do research. And that's in jeopardy.



There is no shortage whatsoever of scientists and engineers in the US. This can be seen by pure market forces: is there any significant increase in wages, like say nurses (where there is a real shortage)?


I beg to differ. Market forces do work in science, but not in the same way as elsewhere. Science is a lifestyle and a creed that people choose to have. Therefore, they can be paid less and still willing to accept that.



It is almost impossible to get back into science or engineering once you're out.


I did, but I admit it's not trivial.



Yes, I have first hand knowledge. When you see the politicians and pundits saying how we have to improve science in high school for our future---call them on the irrelevant BS.


Why? Having the higher level of knowledge in general population definitely pays off.



If there are good jobs---Americans will come.


It depends on what you define good jobs. The jobs that require extensive training and uncertainty, just like you describe -- are they good or not?

It may turn out that eventually Americans will be taking any jobs. But like I said, science is a "true vocation" kind of thing.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
"Science is a lifestyle and a creed that people choose to have. Therefore, they can be paid less and still willing to accept that."

In other words, despite the importance of science and engineering in the future development of society, there is still a huge glut of scientists---so much that we can pay them less and then tell them that they're lucky.

Why isn't lawyering a lifestyle and creed that people choose to have?
What about being a physician? Why aren't CEO's paid $50k a year for the psychic privilege of being able to lead and build their dream?

Yes, it is certainly true that having a better educated general population is always a good thing. It is entirely disingenuous to go to some average high school and say "we need to do this so we will have enough scientists and engineers for our future economy" or BS like that.



Just because you spend most $ doesn't make you the no.1 in science and technology


The historical record shows otherwise. The level of useful global success from science exploded after WW 2 in large measure because of the fundamental committment that the US (and to a lesser extent, the USSR) made for science investment.

What matters is $$$ multiplied by intelligence and committment. Even during the Vietnam war, the US still funded serious long-term and (the most difficult) medium-term science and engineering.

The question is whether the research funding is efficient at producing results. The proven answer, backed by serious statistics, is that science and engineering funding and development has a very large payoff for government $ invested, more than virtually any other major government program. US scientists are highly competent, motivated, extremely hardworking and comparatively cheap.

Compare to the vast sums recently given to oil and gas producers to do, in essence, what they'd be doing anyway.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   


Science should not be a fight for who's the best and who's the greatest. Mistakes can be easily made like that.


You're right, but Science and Technology leadership is good for the economy remember? Japan is nipping at the US's heels in Nanotech research and Isreali is pushing ahead with Stem Cell technology.

The way to fix this problem? Combating the Anti-Intellectual culture in US high-schools would be a good start. Mandating Science education from K to 12. Create more Grants and Scholarships.

Lot's of things that can be done but are not at the moment.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I do also feel that R&D is importand in a modern society, and it is unforchant but the Gov does play an importand role in that. You can find examples through history, micro chip tech. is probably one of the most noted.

Something that I think people should think about is that the private sector will rarely fund R&D. I know there are examples where they have but there is a bigger pictuer.
Why would the private sector fund R&D to make the produt, or the tech. better when they are makeing plenty of money with the way things are right now?
They wont!

That is why Gov funded R&D does hold an importand place in society.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
.
If you are expecting anything of use to come from the US government, you can forget it.

People make things happen, or not.

Those societies that unabashedly embrace technology and science will shine, the rest will stagger around in ignorance.

Governments that actually care about their citizens embrace and fund science and technology.

The US government cares only for rich treasonous corporations.

People pay the taxes, corporations get the benefits.
.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Good find Aelita.

This particular topic has worried me for years now. America is unquestionably losing its edge. We lost our production engineering edge about 30 years ago, but continued being the best inventors and innovators. Now, that edge is dissipating as well. If we lose both, our economy will slowly, but surely, head south.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 05:01 AM
link   
"The US is in danger of losing its leadership role in science and innovation"?

Since when was the US the leader of science and innovation? Sure it has the money to take other people's ideas and make them reality but this sure doesn't make it a leader. I hate to say it, but if anything, it makes it a parasite - feeding from other nation's creations. Money doesn't make you the leader of science and innovation. It just makes you the banker. Without the guys creating the ideas your money is worth precisely jack.

Incidentally, last time I looked, most inventions still come from the UK.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Why worry? Civilizations wax and wane, the centers of progress change location all the time. Even if some other country becomes the technological powerhouse, the entire world will still receive the benefits these days.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   
When did you look last, 1750?



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
Since when was the US the leader of science and innovation? Sure it has the money to take other people's ideas and make them reality but this sure doesn't make it a leader.


I recommend you read up on the history of science and innovation in the US. Whose ideas did the US "take"? If you mean a dozen leading nuclear physisists that were invloved in the Manhattan project? Well I hate to break it to you, but science has always been an international field. Right now a lot of Americans work at the European Center for Nuclear Research, does it make the Europe into a thief of ideas?

And what exactly is involved in "making them (the ideas) reality"? Let me guess what: a vibrant science and tech environment.



I hate to say it, but if anything, it makes it a parasite - feeding from other nation's creations.


Jeez. Seriously, the US single handedly brought about the PC revolution, among others. Henry Ford invented the modern production methods for the automobile industry. But I feel silly saying this, because these are two timy examples of the brilliant US innivation.



Money doesn't make you the leader of science and innovation.


It kinda does. If I built a network of R&D facilities in which world class inventions and innovations and science are being done, I am the leader.



Without the guys creating the ideas your money is worth precisely jack.


You go, girl! We do have the "guys". The thing is we should keep them!



Incidentally, last time I looked, most inventions still come from the UK.



That's great! Nobody's going to deny the strength of the UK science and tech. And, most Nobel prozes in physics are still coming form the US



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
You're more diplomatic than I Aelita.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Just to set the record straight, I suggest all readers check out the report contained at:
www.uspto.gov...

That report shows the number of patents by country around the world from 1977 through 2003.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join