U.S. science policy needs to heed global realities
Web edition : Saturday, May 24th, 2008
font_down font_up Text Size

I have just returned from Singapore and Shanghai, where I visited life science research sites at universities, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and Singapore’s Biopolis. These institutions, and the government support behind them, invite complex reflections on the situation in the United States.

The United States is home to academic, commercial and government research institutions that remain the envy of the world. The total U.S. investment in research is very large compared with other countries. For example, the National Institutes of Health budget exceeds $29 billion; the National Science Foundation budget is more than $6 billion. Moreover, the United States has a strong tradition of philanthropy for biomedical research by universities and hospitals, and a venture capital community that helps move research into the commercial arena.

In addition, U.S.–based life science–related industries have very large investments in research and development. U.S. universities and hospitals are among world leaders in papers, citations and patents. In aggregate, the United States has the greatest laboratory infrastructure and intellectual critical mass in the sciences and engineering in the world.

Why then a feeling of disquiet on returning home?

A major difference between the United States and Singapore and China is the rapid growth rates in these countries, inspiring optimism. In all Singapore’s science sectors, and especially Shanghai’s industrial sector, there is a palpable sense that infrastructure and funding will be available, and that what is limiting are talented people and ideas. Such people are being actively recruited as governments attempt to build modern knowledge-based economies.

A marker of the sense of scientific opportunity in Singapore and China is the migration of mid-career scientists from the United States, England and Australia to Singapore, and the return of talented Chinese scientists who had been educated in the United States to permanent research positions in China. Their return resulted from the perception of greater opportunity.

In The World is Flat, Thomas L. Friedman describes globalization based in part on the growing ability of information and capital to move freely across the world. Human beings seeking opportunity are clearly not as free to move about the globe as money seeking investments. Humans are sticky. They are connected to communities; they may have working spouses and children well ensconced in schools. Still, many scientists will uproot themselves based on the availability of infrastructure, intellectual communities, funding and freedom to do the work for which they were trained. Singapore and China provide these ingredients to attract talented individuals.

I am an internationalist; I very much want to see science thrive wherever it may and for its benefits to be spread to all populations. At the same time, I live in the United States and am concerned about our ability to generate knowledge, new treatments and good jobs in a “flat” world that appreciates the advantages created by the conjunction of universities, hospitals and industry with a growing research infrastructure.

Is the problem for the United States simply that its scientific and engineering research enterprises are large and mature, making growth and change difficult? From my vantage, having directed an NIH institute (NIMH, 1996–2001) and now serving as provost of a large research university, I do not believe that the U.S. scientific enterprise has reached an asymptote—rather that it is suffering from shortsighted public policy. In recent years a relatively flat NIH budget has lost buying power against inflation. It remains difficult for graduate students and scientists from abroad to obtain visas to study or work in the United States. Limits on federal funding of stem cell research represent high financial and administrative hurdles to a promising avenue of discovery, and create just the sort of barrier that causes important research to move offshore.

Of course, the federal budget deficit is deep, and the country has many claims on its tax revenues. No one doubts the need for security measures at the border, and my concerns about limits on stem cell research are not a call for an ethical free-for-all. That said, it is much to be hoped that the next president of the United States will recognize the benefits of a healthy scientific enterprise. Ideally the new administration will craft policies to produce steady growth in federal research budgets, more welcoming immigration policies for foreign scientists and respect for science. Without such policies, many of our most talented students will gravitate to endeavors other than science, and Americans will increasingly read of breakthroughs coming from other shores.

Steven Hyman is provost at Harvard University and former director of the National Institute of Mental Health.

 


Comments 2
  • I was irate and scandalized by Provost Hyman's conclusions drawn in this article. The problem he details is all too real. Mr. Hyman has made a major omission in his presentation. His institution, Harvard University, has strong exclusionary admissions policies which specifically penalize citizens of our country in favor of applicants from abroad in the worship of the false idol, shibboleth if you will, of diversity! What is Provost Hyman doing to assure Harvard admits and educates more Americans. What is he doing to assure that those that are admitted are not compelled indirectly to finance the foreign students who Harvard has admitted and now take up a valuable and scarce resource needed by those of us who live here. It appears that Provost Hyman is a special pleader of the worst sort who advises us to "do what I say, not what I do". Before we increase research funding to universities such as Harvard, we should insist on their abolishment of the invidious discriminatory policies in admissions and tuition which favor foreigners at the expense of citizens. Policies like affirmative action and diversity programs misapplied by a culture which loathes America and the freedom and responsibility of individuals and which glorifies in central planning, control, and so called politically correct policies. Its your turn Provost Hyman and time is growing short. Step up to the plate and clean house in Harvard first before asking more from the rest of us than the large portion you already receive.
    Irving Schlinger Irving Schlinger
    Jun. 16, 2008 at 10:16am
  • I was surprised to see Provost Hyman make such a fundamental mistake as to ascribe the inadequacies of federal science funding to the President. If American schools still taught civics, he might have learned in middle school that "The President proposes; the Congress disposes". The record clearly shows that this President has consistently proposed significant and substantial increases in federal support for science. It is the Congress that has slashed science support. Both parties have demonstrated far greater loyalty to earmarks and 'pork' than to establishment of a sound science policy.
    Warren Funk Warren Funk
    Jun. 8, 2008 at 12:21pm
Post a comment

Please login or register to participate.


Advertisement
Reader Favorites:
seperator
SN on the Web:
seperator