White House Round Table Views
There were two viewpoints that were in evidence at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy meeting on graduate and postdoctoral education earlier this month.
The first view, which was most thoughtfully articulated by Michael Teitelbaum, Vice President of the Sloan Foundation, is that the national discussion on science funding has focused too much on the supply of scientists and not enough on demand. We need to do a better job of ensuring that the training we provide matches what employers (both academic and non-academic) need. We also need a better (quantitative) understanding of how science functions as a system, and we need to use that understanding to optimize the way that we invest in science. Michael's slides are available here This was more or less the majority view at the meeting, though some were skeptical that demand could be gauged in any useful fashion.
The second view, which was most forcefully advocated by David Skorton, President of Cornell, is that the real problem with science is that there are simply not enough federal resources being invested. Investments in science lead to economic growth, so demand-side problems will work themselves out. I must confess that his talk left me scratching my head, so my summary probably doesn't do Skorton full justice. Peter Lee, head of the CS department at Carnegie Mellon, summarizes Skorton's views and adds some of his own in his blog. Take a look, because similar arguments have been very influential in getting things like America COMPETES passed.
Having seen for myself in the mid-90's just how badly things go when the supply of PhDs outstrips the demand for them, I'm much more inclined to agree with Michael Teitelbaum's views than with Skorton's and Lee's. But I'll have more to say about both.
-
on Mon, Dec 03, 07:12PM
...With so many different individuals giving their impressions of where we are and should be heading, it's not surprising that many of us are left scratching our heads.
I would respectfully suggest that one issue with the current policy debate is that the stakeholders are making a value judgment and stating their positions. There are academic, industry, student, research community, and policy foundation representatives, all from very different perspectives, all very well respected professionals, are stating their positions. This debate would be more informed if the participants would state their interests. What are the real interests of the academics, industry, students, research community? Once authentic interests are clearly and concisely communicated a well informed debate may indicate patterns of common interests and lead to a substantiative and practical public policy...
