

Does the U.S. Produce Too Many Scientists? - jcruz
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-us-produce-too-m&offset=6

======
nkh
A 2001 poll conducted by the National Science Foundation in the US revealed
the pervasiveness of the problem. Results showed that:

-Only 48% of Americans knew that the earliest humans did not live at the same time as the dinosaurs.

-Only 22% could properly define a molecule.

-Only 45% knew what DNA was and that lasers don't work by focusing sound waves

-Only 48% knew that electrons were smaller than atoms.

I can not comment how many times I have worked with people that have no grasp
of the fundamentals of science and the scientific method. Not only we not
produce enough scientists, but we produce a ridiculous amount of
scientifically illiterate people.

~~~
dandelany
The number of scientists and the number of scientifically literate people are
two different issues.

It seems entirely plausible to me that the American education system produces
more prospective research scientists than there are job openings for them, but
that it also completely fails at teaching basic mathematic and scientific
concepts to those who have no desire to be career scientists.

------
jcruz
I posted the story, but actually disagree with the author's assessment. I
don't think when people refer to the lack of scientists and engineers in the
US, they are referring to a lack of tenure-track faculty. The shortage of
technically skilled people is in industry, not academia.

------
megaduck
We need to shift away from our dependency on the grant system, and the only
way to do that is to make basic research profitable for private industry. I
just don't see any other way to do it.

What America really needs isn't more scientists, although that would be nice.
What's required is more scientific training for entrepreneurs and business
people, so that they can help shepherd projects out of the lab and into
products. If having a research lab becomes viewed as a competitive advantage
by investors, then getting funding becomes simple.

There are a few major success stories, where companies consistently use
advanced research to churn out profitable products - Google and 3M spring
immediately to mind. We should be trying to replicate those models.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
I've always used this example for those that think our medicine and medical
care in the US are #1 because of our "exchange-based" health care system.

You'd be hard-pressed to name one cure to a deadly world-wide condition that a
private corporation has developed based on solely their own R&D. From
Diptheria to Polio, the cure or vaccine for the vast majority of diseases
afflicting the world in any significant way were developed in Academic
laboratories, usually under government funding such as NIH grants.

In fact, alot of our most significant technologies are grounded in academia,
then later licensed or commercialized. Google's one. In fact the government's
NIST technology transfer and Small Business Innovation Research orgs promote
start-up researchers to use NIST resources such as grants and lab space/time
to bring experimental technologies to market.

Meanwhile, companies are _usually_ punished by Wall St. for giving more and
more toward R&D. Most public companies simply cannot do it for fear of
investor revolt.

------
thinkbohemian
The education process is long, and it isn't very glamorous or sexy. When
someone unveils an engineering marvel its likely met with "hmm...thats nice,
lets see what the kids on jersey shore are doing tonight".

Also innovation is stifled by a "simpsons did it" mentality, where if any
layperson can understand each component of a technology, the think that
integrating it would be easy.

How many people have you met that "invented" something only to have it
"stolen". Such as putting a cell phone and a camera to produce ta-da...a
camera phone!!

I support organizations that give students actual project experience. FIRST is
a good one: <http://www.usfirst.org/>

------
rbanffy
Considering many people believe creationism is a valid scientific concept, my
answer would be "not nearly enough"

And, BTW, this is not a US-only problem.

~~~
Perceval
You can get an advanced degree in 'creation science' too:
<http://www.nwcreation.net/colleges.html>

~~~
rbanffy
Ouch.

------
zeynel1
I think the education process is too long. Schools benefit from long education
so the time a student can get to do "real research" is put further and further
in the future.

~~~
akadien
You don't need a PhD to be a scientist and do real research. You need a PhD to
be a tenure-track professor and hold a research position in many industrial
labs.

The education process produces credentials. Curiosity about the world and the
courage to ask questions (and lots of math and other technical skills) produce
scientists. Same thing for inventors.

