engineering background of those who teach at the middle and high school level, the excitement of those careers can be conveyed to students. Those students will then take the classes necessary for them to pursue science and engineering careers. The time for preparation at the Bachelor degree level is somewhat longer in engineering than that in other fields, but the starting compensation is also higher (it is not widely appreciated that the average salary in engineering is very close to that of lawyers, which involves an additional two years of study). Unfortunately, compensation for engineering tends to peak at a lower level than for those business, management, banking, or other such fields. At the graduate level there are also disparities. The National Academies have recommended in past reports that the time to Ph.D. be decreased. In terms of compensation, salary is just one motivator of those interested in science and engineering careers. Perhaps a bigger influence than compensation on those deciding whether or not to pursue graduate level education is the potential for viable employment and interesting research opportunities. The committee's recommendations in the "Sowing the Seeds" section of the report are meant to address those concerns. Q3. We know that other nations are increasing their science and technology capabilities and are developing large and very capable technical workforces. In addition, U.S. companies are moving, not only manufacturing, but R&D operations abroad. In light of these trends, what kinds of skills will U.S. scientists and engineers need to be able to command a premium in salary over foreign scientists and engineers? That is, how do we compete in the global economy without lowering U.S. salaries and standard of living? A3. The United States will continue to be challenged to compete on a pure salary basis with developing countries such as India and China; the primary way to respond to that challenge is to increase the value of our engineers and scientists. The primary mechanism for this is improved education at all levels-which is what the committee suggests. Innovation has been a key U.S. national advantage, and enhancing our emphasis on it at all educational levels plays to our strength. When innovations occur in the United States, it is able to capture at least the near-term market in that innovation area. To maintain the Nation's innovation capacity the Nation needs to invest regularly in its people and its research. Question submitted by Representative David Wu and Representative Jerry F. Costello Q1. The report contains convincing arguments and recommendations to foster a climate of innovation in the U.S. But an important question is whether innovations generated in the U.S. will be exploited in the U.S., or abroad. For example, VCR technology was developed in the U.S., but the market was taken over by Asian countries. Traditionally, it has been the exploitation of new technologies, producing products and delivering novel services, which created new, high-paying jobs. What do we need to do to ensure that the fruits of research and innovation result in the creation of substantial numbers of good jobs in the U.S.? A1. As indicated in the question, traditionally it has been the exploitation of new technologies, producing products and delivering novel services, that have created high paying jobs. For the United States to benefit from the jobs created by that innovation, the research that led to that innovation needs to occur to the United States and the environment in the U.S. must be conducive to innovation in general. That research will only occur in the United States if there are economic incentives for companies to stay here as opposed to moving overseas and if the human talent is available to develop and implement the ideas. In its report, the committee calls for a study that will focus on developing the best economic policies to enable the United States to be one of the most attractive places in the world for long-term innovation-related investment. As time passes, some industries will migrate overseas when the technical skills are adequate and the labor market is less expensive. But that does not happen immediately, and until it does the U.S. is able to benefit in terms of the jobs created by that innovation. This is less likely to be the case if the innovation occurs elsewhere. The U.S. patent system is the Nation's oldest element of policy on intellectual property. A sound system for patent enhances social welfare by encouraging invention and the dissemination of useful technical information. So, in addition, the United States should enhance intellectual property protection for the 21st century global economy to ensure that systems for protecting patents and other forms of in tellectual property underlie the emerging knowledge economy but allow research to enhance innovation. The patent system requires reform of four specific kinds: • Provide the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with sufficient resources to make intellectual property protection more timely, predictable, and effective. • Reconfigure the U.S. patent system by switching to a "first-inventor-to-file" system and by instituting administrative review after a patent is granted. Those reforms would bring the U.S. system into alignment with patent systems in Europe and Japan. • Shield research uses of patented inventions from infringement liability. One recent court decision could jeopardize the long-assumed ability of academic researchers to use patented inventions for research. • Change intellectual property laws that act as barriers to innovation in specific industries, such as those related to data exclusivity (in pharmaceuticals) and those that increase the volume and unpredictability of litigation (especially in information-technology industries). Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson Q1. Action A-1 of the NAS report's recommendations suggests awarding "competitive four-year scholarships." However, I am concerned that minority and underserved students will be at a disadvantage for these awards because they are already noncompetitive due to their circumstances. Why did the Academy not consider this issue? A1. We share the Congresswoman's concern; however, the committee did consider this issue and identified a wide range of existing federal and non-federal awards available for minority and under-served students should these students decide to become scientists and engineers. The challenge is not so much funding these students at the undergraduate level, but rather providing them with the resources they need at the middle and high school level these students particularly need teachers with science and engineering backgrounds who will excite them about science and engineering and encourage them to pursue careers in these areas. Action A-1, therefore, provides a $10,000 bonus to teachers who graduate from this program and who teach in under-served schools in inner cities and rural areas. It is committee's belief that strengthening the teaching of science and math in the early grades will benefit all students and better prepare all students to compete in life. Q2. The total cost of the Academy's Implementation recommendation is between $9.2 to $23.8 billion per year. The entire NIH budget is around $30 billion per year. How realistic is it that this plan will be implemented and how do we get the public to agree to such an expensive proposition? A2. This proposal includes far more than research funding and should be viewed as an investment in the Nation's future, rather than an expense. All four recommendations in the report are part of the fundamental building blocks for the Nation's economy. Supporting innovation is a cornerstone of the report's conclusions and innovation requires much more than research. To be sure a vibrant research base is essential, but so are an educated workforce, a culture that supports risk-taking, a tax climate the encourages investment, and a host of other things. The report presents a package of proposals that revitalize many of these necessary components of the "innovation ecosystem." Without quality science, mathematics, and technology teachers, our students will not be prepared to be part of a highly technical workforce. Without students who are well-educated and excited about science and engineering, too few Americans will pursue undergraduate and graduate education in science, engineering, and mathematics. And, if we discourage international talent from coming to the U.S., we will have even less talent available. If the Nation lacks scientific and technical talent, it will not be able to generate the innovative ideas that create whole new industries. And, if industries relocate overseas because other countries offer better financial incentives, then we won't have high-quality jobs for those in science and engineering or Americans in general. Americans may not fully appreciate the importance of research, but they do recognize the benefits that flow from such research and understand the importance of well paying jobs. In short, if the Nation's leaders assign as high a priority to the concerns which have been raised, as does this National Academies committee, the proposed funding will be able to compete very strongly with other demands on the federal budget. |