Science + 1
More Graduates, or Graduates With More?
SOURCE: SP
The latest scientific workforce debate underscores the importance of science graduates learning about something other than science.
In the world of science policy, so-called “pipeline” studies—analyses of the paths followed by students up through Ph.D. attainment and into the job market—have a controversial history. For instance, and as Daniel Greenberg reports in his plucky and contrarian 2001 book Science, Money, and Politics, in the late 1980s the National Science Foundation began to push the argument that due to demographic trends, the nation faced a looming “shortfall” of trained scientists. But the numbers and analytic methods used to support this conclusion were highly questionable, and the study was later subject to withering congressional investigation, leaving NSF deeply embarrassed. Among other things, the foundation’s analysis really examined what you might call the scientific “supply” side without seriously considering “demand”—and in fact, at the time there were too few jobs for too many scientists, not vice versa.
But precisely what would we be producing more scientists for?
Now come indications that history might be about to repeat itself. Just as in the late 1980s—and as epitomized by the National Academy of Sciences’ deeply influential Rising Above the Gathering Storm report—the science community has been clamoring of late for a greater investment in research and development. The new argument (much like the old) asserts that current educational and industrial trends bode ill for U.S. competitiveness, especially given the increasing production of scientific talent in emerging powerhouses like India and China. But precisely what would we be producing more scientists for? After all, as a recent report from the Urban Institute finds, “each year there are more than three times as many S&E [Science and Engineering] four-year college graduates as S&E job openings.” Do we really have enough jobs for all these new scientists and engineers that we supposedly need? Who’s right, the NAS or the Urban Institute?
I must admit that as a science writer with far more experience writing about flagrant political attacks on science than on more nuanced matters of funding levels or educational policies, I wade into these waters cautiously. However, I’m well aware of a persuasive literature suggesting that at times, the scientific community falls into a rather alarmist mindset when peering at educational and workforce trends. Greenberg’s Science, Money, and Politics, and the Urban Institute’s latest report both fit into this “the world isn’t really ending” genre—one whose writings usually emerge as rejoinders to workforce-related jeremiads from the scientific community.
At the same time though, I certainly wouldn’t argue against broad improvements to U.S. science education (who would?). Perhaps the middle way in this debate—a stance articulated by commentators like Nature‘s David Goldston and Vivek Wadhwa—lies in pointing out that if we are going to train more scientists that’s fine, but let’s make sure they come away with a much more diverse set of skills so that they can fill a broader range of workforce positions, including nontraditional ones.
Some young scientists aren’t going to be working in purely scientific positions.
How might we achieve that? Well, sadly, an innovative piece of legislation introduced earlier this year by Rep. Doris O. Matsui (D-Ca) might have helped do the job—but in the process of becoming law it lost considerable potency. Matsui’s legislation, originally the “Scientific Communications Act of 2007” and later interpolated into the America COMPETES Act, would have directed NSF to start making grants that would help graduate students in science obtain training in communication. But in final form the legislation wound up being pared down to a mere “Sense of Congress” without any dollars attached to it. That’s unfortunate. After all, if we don’t have enough science and engineering jobs for all of our scientists and engineers at present, doesn’t it make sense to institutionalize new training protocols for young scientists so that they’ll have more diverse workforce skills? And indeed, it’s widely known—to the point of being a cliché—that scientists don’t always know how to talk to non-scientists.
The numbers presented by the Urban Institute lead to an uncontestable conclusion: Some young scientists aren’t going to be working in purely scientific positions. There simply aren’t enough jobs for them. Instead, some will be going into fields like journalism, or advertising, or politics—and if so, they ought to be learning more than simply scientific skills.
Learning about science is wonderful—but in today’s complex world, it’s rarely enough. Sure, it helps in any number of occupations, ranging from law to business, to know something about science. But it helps even more if you also know something else (like, say, how to speak in public or write, or design a website). Knowing how to think scientifically is pretty good on its own; but in combination with other skills, it’s truly sublime.
In fact, we can go further. If the core concern is ensuring U.S. competitiveness, doesn’t interdisciplinarity—the ability to combine scientific skills with another type of expertise—both enhance creativity and also give someone an edge? Doesn’t a scientist who also speaks Spanish or understands patent law have a leg up in the global marketplace?
If so, it follows that not only do we need more scientists, we need more scientists with additional skills to boot. Why can’t the scientific community release major reports stating that?
Chris Mooney is the Washington correspondent for Seed magazine and author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs on The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.
Comments on this article
By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the Science Progress Privacy Policy and agree to the Science Progress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
