PREFACE

"Ninety-nine percent of the discoveries are made by one percent of the scientists.

Julius Axelrod, Nobel Laureate1

The prosperity the United States enjoys today is due in no small part to investments the nation has made in research and development at universities, corporations, and national laboratories over the last 50 years. Recently, however, corporate, government, and national scientific and technical leaders have expressed concern that pressures on the science and technology enterprise could seriously erode this past success and jeopardize future US prosperity. Reflecting this trend is the movement overseas not only of manufacturing jobs but also of jobs in administration, finance, engineering, and research.

The councils of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, at their annual joint meeting in February 2005, discussed these tensions and examined the position of the United States in today's global knowledge-discovery enterprise. Participants expressed concern that a weakening of science and technology in the United States would inevitably degrade its social and economic conditions and in particular erode the ability of its citizens to compete for high-quality jobs.

On the basis of the urgency expressed by the councils, the National Academies' Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) was charged with organizing a planning meeting, which took place May 11, 2005. One of the speakers at the meeting was Senator Lamar Alexander, the former secretary of education and former president of the University of Tennessee.

Senator Alexander indicated that the Energy Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which he chairs, had been given the authority by the full committee's chair, Senator Pete Domenici, to hold a series of hearings to identify specific steps that the federal government should take to ensure the preeminence of America's science and technology enterprise. Senator Alexander asked the National Academies to provide assistance in this effort by selecting a committee of experts from the scientific and technical community to assess the current situation and, where appropriate, make recommendations. The committee would be asked to identify urgent challenges and determine specific steps to ensure that the United States maintains its leadership in science and engineering to compete successfully, prosper, and be secure in the 21st century.

On May 12, 2005, the day after the planning meeting, three members of the House of Representatives who have jurisdiction over science and technology policy and funding announced that a conference would be held in fall 2005 on science, technology, innovation, and manufacturing. Appearing at a Capitol Hill press briefing to discuss the conference were representatives Frank Wolf, Sherwood Boehlert, and Vern Ehlers. Representative Boehlert said of the conference: "It can help forge a national consensus on what is needed to retain US leadership in innovation. A summit like this, with the right leaders, under the aegis of the federal government, can bring renewed attention to science and technology concerns so that we can remain the nation that the world looks to for the newest ideas and the most skilled people."

In describing the rationale for the conference, Representative Wolf recalled meeting with a group of scientists and asking them how well the United States was doing

Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 149, No. 2, June 2005.

in science and innovation. None of the scientists, he reported, said that the nation was doing "okay". About 40% said that we were "in a stall", and the remaining 60% said that we were "in decline". He asked a similar question of the executive board of a prominent high-technology association, which reported that in its view the United States was “in decline".

Later, the National Academies received a bipartisan letter addressing the subject of America's competitiveness from Senators Lamar Alexander and Jeff Bingaman. The letter, dated May 27, 2005, requested that the National Academies conduct a formal study on the issue to assist in congressional deliberations. That was followed by a bipartisan letter from Representatives Sherwood Boehlert and Bart Gordon, of the House Committee on Science, which expanded on the Senate request. In response, the National Academies initiated a study with its own funds.

To undertake the study, COSEPUP established the Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology. The committee members included presidents of major universities, Nobel laureates, CEOs of Fortune 100 corporations, and former presidential appointees. They were asked to investigate the following questions:

· What are the top 10 actions, in priority order, that federal policy-makers could take to enhance the science and technology enterprise so the United States can successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st century?

What implementation strategy, with several concrete steps, could be used to implement each of those actions?

This study and report were carried out with an unusual degree of urgency-only a matter of weeks elapsed from the committee's initial gathering to release of its report. The process followed the regular procedures for an independent National Research Council study, including review of the report, in this case, by 37 experts. The report relies on customary reference to the scientific literature and on consensus views and judgments of the committee members.

The committee began by assembling the recommendations of 13 issue papers summarizing past studies of topics related to the present study. It then convened five focus groups consisting of 66 experts in K-12 education, higher education, research, innovation and workforce issues, and national and homeland security and asked each group to recommend three actions it considered to be necessary for the nation to compete, prosper, and be secure in the 21st century. The committee used those suggestions and itsown judgment to make its recommendations. The key thematic issues underlying these discussions was the nation's need to create jobs and need for affordable, clean, and reliable energy.

In this report, a description of the key elements of American prosperity in the 21st century is followed by an overview of how science and technology are critical to that prosperity. The report then evaluates how the United States is doing in science and technology and provides recommendations for improving our nation's prosperity. Finally, it posits the status of prosperity if the United States maintains a narrow lead (the current situation), falls behind, or emerges as the leader in a few selected fields of science and technology.

We strayed from our charge in that we present not 10 actions but four recommendations and 20 specific actions to implement them. The committee members deeply believe in the fundamental linkage of all the recommendations and their integrity as a coordinated set of policy actions. To emphasize one or neglect another, the members

decided, would substantially weaken what should be viewed as a coherent set of highpriority actions to create jobs and enhance the nation's energy supply in an era of globalization. For example, there is little benefit in producing more researchers if there are no funds to support their research.

The committee thanks the focus-group members, who took precious personal time in midsummer to donate the expertise that would permit a highly focused, detailed examination of a question of extraordinary complexity and importance. We thank the staff of the National Academies. They quickly mobilized the knowledge resources and practical skills needed to complete this study in a rapid, thorough manner.

Hamon R. Aggnation

Norman R. Augustine

Chair, Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century

CzBant

CRAIG BARRETT

Dail! Bold

GAIL CASSELL

Amma Ch

STEVEN CHU

Bautis

ROBERT GATES

Youry I. Carmick

NANCY GRASMICK

Cittalleder d

CHARLES HOLLIDAY, JR.

Shirley ken Jucher

SHIRLEY ANN JACKSON

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is the product of many people. First, we thank all the focus-group members, listed in Appendix C, for contributing their time and knowledge at the focusgroup session in August 2005. Second, we would like to thank all the committees and analysts at other organizations who have gone before us, producing reports and analyses on the topics discussed in this report. There are too many to mention here, but they are cited throughout the report and range from individual writers and scholars, such as Thomas Friedman and Richard Freeman, to committees and organizations, such as the Glenn Commission on K-12 education, the Council on Competitiveness, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Business Roundtable, the Taskforce on the Future of American Innovation, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the National Science Board, and other National Academies committees. Without their insight and analysis, this report would not have been possible.

This report has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards of objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.

We wish to thank the following for their review of this report:

Miller Adams, Boeing Phantom Works; John Ahearne, Sigma Xi; Robert Aiken, CISCO
Systems, Inc.; Bruce Alberts, University of California, San Francisco; Richard Atkinson,
University of California, San Diego; William Badders, Cleveland Municipal School
District; Roger Beachy, Ronald Danforth Plant Service Center; George Bugliarello,
Polytechnic University; Paul Citron, Medtronic, Inc.; Michael Clegg, University of
California, Irvine; W. Dale Compton, Purdue University; Robert Dynes, University of
California, San Diego; Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Michigan State University; Richard
Freeman, Harvard University; William Friend, Bechtel Group, Inc. (retired); Lynda Goff,
University of California, Santa Cruz; William Happer, Princeton University; Robert
Hauser, University of Wisconsin; Ron Hira, Rochester Institute of Technology; Dale
Jorgenson, Harvard University; Thomas Keller, Medomak Valley High School, Maine;
Edward Lazowska, University of Washington; W. Carl Lineberger, University of
Colorado, Boulder, James Mongan, Partners Healthcare System; Gilbert Omenn,
University of Michigan; Helen Quinn, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Mary Ann
Rankin, University of Texas; Barbara Schaal, Washington University; Thomas Südhof,
Howard Hughes Medical Institute; Michael Teitelbaum, Sloan Foundation; C. Michael
Walton, University of Texas; Larry Welch, Institute for Defense Analyses; and Sheila
Widnall, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Floyd Bloom, Robert Frosch, and M.R.C. Greenwood, appointed by the Report Review Committee, who were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of the report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of the report rests entirely with the author committee and the institution.