Quantcast
issue
Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
Potato chips: A symptom of the U.S. R&D problem
U.S. competitiveness remains in peril even as other nations gear up to steam ahead
A+ A- Text Size

U.S. competitiveness remains in peril even as other nations gear up to steam ahead

By Janet Raloff

Web edition: September 23, 2010

Enlarge
New call to action
This new report describes growing signs that America is losing its competitive edge -- and recommended action to remedy the situation.
Nat'l Acad. Pr.

Last year, U.S. consumers spent $7.1 billion on potato chips — $2 billion more than the federal government’s total 2009 investment on energy research and development. There’s something wrong, here, when Americans are more willing to empty their wallets for the junk food that will swell their waistlines than for investments in the engine driving the creation of jobs, economic growth and national security.

The potato chip illustration is but one disturbing factoid contained in a September 23 report issued by the National Academies: “Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited.” Here are some other trend indicators it identified:

◙ last year, more than half of U.S. patents went to foreign companies; six of the top 10 companies receiving those U.S. patents were foreign

◙ as of 2003, 69 percent of American fifth through eighth graders learned math from a teacher lacking a degree or certificate in that field

◙ U.S. children and adolescents average 7.5 hours a day playing video games, sitting at computers or watching TV — “often multi-tasking”

◙ among the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s 33 member nations — which include most of the world’s leading industrial countries (although not China nor India) — U.S. workers led the pack in the proportion having high school diplomas. But this was true only for its oldest workers. Among 25 to 34 years olds, America’s workforce has fallen to eleventh place within the OECD — from first — in terms of high-school graduates.

◙ the federal government’s annual research investment in engineering, math and the physical sciences “is now equal to the increase in United States healthcare costs every nine weeks”

◙ 49 percent of U.S. adults don’t know how long it takes the Earth to revolve around the sun, according to the 2010 Science and Engineering Indicators report, issued by the National Science Board

◙ more U.S. college grads take home degrees in the visual and performing arts than in engineering

◙ China is on the rise: It now ranks second in global publication of biomedical research papers; two Chinese universities are the leading suppliers of students earning U.S. PhD’s; China trails only the United States in its number of workers engaged in R&D; eight of the 10 global companies with the biggest R&D war chests set up research facilities in China, India or both; a European analysis out last year reported China has surpassed America as the leading high-tech exporter; an American company opened the largest private solar R&D facility — in China; and 83 percent of Wal-Mart’s suppliers are Chinese

◙ Taiwan’s computer manufacturer Hon Hai Precision Industry employs more people than does Apple, Dell, Microsoft, Intel and Sony combined

None of these trends bodes well for the health of the American economy or quality of life. In aggregate, they paint a depressing picture of a nation that has rested on its innovative and technical laurels way too long. That’s not only my opinion but also that of a blue-ribbon panel of research leaders who just authored the new report from which these trends were plucked.

 Five years ago, Rising Above the Gathering Storm — a report by the same group, indeed, most of the same authors — identified risks to American competitiveness and laid out a laundry list of recommendations to address them. These called for boosting investments in education, in research and in industrial infrastructure. While well received, the recommendations didn’t initially trigger much change.

They did, however, launch the 2007 America COMPETES Act, a law to spur innovation through research and development, improved science and engineering education, and analyses of tax policies and other barriers to U.S. economic and industrial competitiveness.

Yet, “In what perhaps might best be described as a system failure, virtually no funds to implement [the earlier report’s] recommendations” were initially budgeted by Congress. They eventually materialized, but only after the catastrophic economic downturn spurred the Stimulus package. Suddenly, all sorts of previously planned investments were pushed through Congress as part of a two-year program to deal with the economic crisis. That funding program is slated to soon expire.

In the new Gathering Storm sequel, National Medal of Technology winner Norman Augustine (the former CEO of Lockheed Martin and a former Undersecretary of the Army) and his coauthors urge Congress and its constituents not to be penny wise and pound foolish. To sustain the progress that has begun, the America COMPETES Act should be reauthorized, they argue, and some organization established to "institutionalize" oversight and funding of the original Gathering Storm recommendations – or programs to achieve the same aims.

It won’t come cheap, they acknowledge. But if we all laid off some discretionary purchases, like a third big-screen TV or outfitting each kid with a new pair of designer sneakers — we might just find the cash to finance investments in our nation’s economic health. Ones that pay dividends in terms of more and better jobs. Ones that finance developments that bring down the cost of health care at the same time they improve the quality of medicine. Ones that ensure more Americans can read and count and save for rainy days.

Each of us might even free up a few extra bucks for the cause by cutting back on junk food. After all, don’t you find it a bit embarrassing to learn that among electronics-savvy U.S. consumers, potato chips still trump tech?

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

Members of the 2005 “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” Committee. Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5, a report issued by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. September 23, 2010. National Academies Press. 102 pp.

Comments (9)

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • The statistic on the math teachers for 5-8th graders may be misleading. The states handle this differently, but in Pennsylvania, elementary school teachers have degrees in education--not in any particular subject. That would include the 5th and 6th graders. Middle school and high school teachers have a degree in their content areas, such as math.
    Middle schools with 5th or 6th graders are supposed to have appropriately certified teachers--elementary teachers for K-6, secondary teachers for grades 7-12. To check on what still seems a poor figure for the math teachers, you would also need to find out if elementary level teachers are teaching older students, too. This happens both ways in middle school--having teachers at each level for the different age groups is sometimes too hard to work out. The state board of education should have done something about it years ago.
    Eileen Burke Eileen Burke
    Sep. 23, 2010 at 10:18pm
  • I haven't read the NRC report but how can the $5.1 billion be correct? Isn't the NIH annual budget in the tens of billions and NSF budget about $10 billion? What about defense R&D spending? NASA's annual budget is $17 billion. How are they defining investment in R&D?
    Robert Peterson Robert Peterson
    Sep. 24, 2010 at 10:40am
  • You've touched the nerve of corruption in the U.S. People are more interested in short-term enjoyment than in long-term improvement of themselves or their world. But how could it be otherwise? We've been taught for 40 years that being selfish is not only fun, but also good for the economy.

    Since it does nothing to increase this quarter's sales numbers, investment in science and technology is just one more unnecessary expense.
    Ralph Dratman Ralph Dratman
    Sep. 24, 2010 at 10:49am
  • Janet -

    Robert Peterson is correct. The potato chip comparison (it's on the "factoid" list on page 6 of the report) is to US federal *energy* R&D, not *all* R&D. Still a telling point of comparison, but different.

    The latest AAAS federal R&D spending analysis puts total US federal R&D at above $140 billion per year (civilian at over $60 billion).
    John Fleck John Fleck
    Sep. 24, 2010 at 1:20pm
  • What a difference that one dropped word leads to. It had been there--and I've now reinstated it again. I want to thank you guys for catching it!
    jar jar
    Sep. 24, 2010 at 4:44pm
  • As a former software engineer who became a tech attorney, I think one fundamental problem is the disdain that computer industry executives have for software engineers, as shown by the drive to low wages and H1B employees, and the lack of recognition of top technical performance. They can train us, and we can get good at the work, but that won't keep us.
    Michael SMITH Michael SMITH
    Sep. 25, 2010 at 9:53pm
  • Maybe I'm slow but I'm having a LOT of trouble seeing how if "we" (individuals) lay off Lay's (or stop making other minor discretionary purchases), "we" (the federal government) will suddenly have the money to better fund R&D or otherwise "finance investments in our nation's economic health." As if that's entirely the government's job.

    Federal funding will flow to R&D, STEM education, etc., when and only when our federal legislators are convinced that spending money on these programs is better for them than spending it elsewhere. Until our scientists, technologists, engineers, and educators accept that cold, hard, ugly fact, the money is going to go elsewhere. It's time to stop whining and start working the problem.
    Ross Lampert Ross Lampert
    Sep. 26, 2010 at 5:39pm
  • I read the first paragraph very carefully. Summarizing, it states "Last year, U.S. consumers spent $7.1 billion on potato chips — $2 billion more than the federal government’s total 2009 investment on energy research and development. ... Americans are more willing to empty their wallets for the junk food ... than for investments in the ... creation of jobs, economic growth and national security." Might this be a simple case of inappropriate comparisons? The study compares "CONSUMER" spending on potato chips to "FEDERAL" R&D spending for energy. Doesn't mention private industry R&D dollars. (Alternatively it could use "FEDERAL" spending on potato chips for comparison!) Yet it is summarized as "American" spending. This is a totally unfair comparison using a very selective set of data geared to make a sensationalized headline. This will make a very good example for middle school / high school students who need to learn how selective data can be used for political or propaganda purposes. Thanks, much appreciated!

    Tim Nagy Tim Nagy
    Sep. 26, 2010 at 8:34pm
  • Why has this magazine turned into a socialist platform such only the spending by the wasteful federal government is the only way that research gets done? Plenty of research is done by individuals and companies. The work is more targeted and far more efficiently spent and useful.
    John Mills John Mills
    Sep. 26, 2010 at 8:46pm
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Follow Us