Glenn Matsumura

Much has been written in recent months about whether the United States is losing its position of international leadership in science and technology. As a scientist, engineer and university president, I have followed this debate with interest. As with many complex issues, the reality is more complicated than newspaper headlines might indicate.

To be sure, the United States—with a unique partnership among the federal government, universities and industry—continues to lead in scientific research and development. But in recent years, other nations—particularly those in developing regions of Asia—have made tremendous strides. A recent report of the National Science Board, “Science and Technology Indicators 2004,” cites worrisome trends.

“The United States is in a long-distance race to retain its essential global advantage in [science and engineering] human resources and sustain our world leadership in science and technology,” wrote the board’s chair, Warren M. Washington. “For many years we have benefited from minimal competition in the global S&E labor market, but attractive and competitive alternatives are now expanding around the world. We must develop more fully our native talent.”

This is not a zero-sum game: As the New York Times noted, the expansion of the world’s “brain trust” in critical research areas could create collaborative solutions to scientific, medical and environmental problems. But the business benefits of breakthroughs are more likely to stay in the countries that develop them, increasing competition for scientific talent.

For the United States, a particularly pressing challenge has been a decline in science and engineering degrees earned. For example, the number of new science and engineering doctoral degrees rose during the 1980s, continuing through 1998, according to the National Science Board report. The number then declined from 28,800 to 27,100 in 2001. On the undergraduate side, the United States now ranks 17th worldwide in the proportion of 18- to 24-year-olds earning natural science and engineering degrees. In 1975, it ranked third.

In addition, American research has benefited greatly from the best and brightest foreign students who have earned their PhDs in the United States. So it is disconcerting that fewer foreign students have applied to PhD programs in the United States in the past three years. Furthermore, it appears that fewer of these graduates are choosing to remain in the United States.

Although these are certainly disturbing trends for U.S. leadership, simple hand-wringing is unproductive. The rest of the world is catching up, and we must respond by running faster and reaching further. Here are some directions we can begin with:

• Our children must learn to become distinctive contributors in the world marketplace. We must rethink math and science teaching at the K-12 level. Governments, at all levels, must show renewed commitment to high-quality K-12 education.

• All institutions of higher education, including Stanford, must consider how to improve the education of math and science teachers. Stanford’s School of Education has a long track record in this area with the Stanford Teacher Education Program (STEP).

• Our college-level science curriculum for both scientific majors and others must be made more attractive to undergraduates. Redesigning the science/math curriculum can be daunting—Stanford tried a few years back with mixed success. We fail at our own peril.

• The government must continue investing in research and development at American universities. Past federal investments in university-based scientific research have led to improvements in technology, health and national security, as well as encouraging young people to enter the field. Government spending in key areas of the physical sciences and engineering, however, has dropped significantly as a percentage of GDP during the past 20 years. One study found that the number of bachelor’s degrees in math, the physical sciences and engineering from year to year strongly correlated with federal research funding in the non-biomedical sciences.

• Academic and scientific groups must continue to work with the U.S. government to solve visa problems and encourage the world’s best students to come to American universities.

Not quite 50 years ago, the Soviet Union launched a 184-pound satellite into space. Sputnik was a wake-up call to politicians and scientists alike. The response was forceful: the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration increased support for research and graduate training. As a nation we rededicated ourselves to the belief that the United States should be second to none in math and science. Barely 10 years later, we landed on the moon. The Cold War is over, and now, in an era of increased international cooperation, the United States must make the same commitment to the spirit of scientific inquiry and relentless search for new knowledge. Our future as a leader depends on it.