<p><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/oct2007/sb20071025_827398.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/oct2007/sb20071025_827398.htm</a>
Forget the conventional wisdom. U.S. schools are turning out more capable science and engineering grads than the job market can support</p>
<p>Thanks for the link.</p>
<p>This stands out for me...</p>
<p>"Enough Jobs for the Grads?
As far as our workforce is concerned, the new report showed that from 1985 to 2000 about 435,000 U.S. citizens and permanent residents a year graduated with bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees in science and engineering. Over the same period, there were about 150,000 jobs added annually to the science and engineering workforce."</p>
<p>Why are we told the opposite?</p>
<p>Big business is interested in cheap labor - importing cheaper labor and outsourcing work. The rampant misinformation serves their interest.</p>
<p>"Why are we told the opposite?"</p>
<p>because we don't pay the bills.. information is bought and sold in America. The tobacco companies proved long ago that research isn't pure. The other poster is correct, foriegn labor can be had for less, it will be as our government supports the concept, because the individual doesn't fund government. We pay for the opperation of government, but we don't fund the people of government.</p>
<p>I thought I'd read in one of the CC forums not long ago that certain graduate programs in math and science at U.S. universities would not be able to stay open without importing foreign talent. That would suggest that we are not in fact producing enough U.S.-born scientists on our own. </p>
<p>I'm wondering if the study would find the same results if the "science and engineering" numbers were not combined. If you took the numbers of engineers out, would the study say something different irt to scientists and mathematicians? </p>
<p>I do agree that the corporate desire to pay lower salaries is the driving force behind a certain amount of the pressure to keep increasing foreign work visas for those with science-technology skills.</p>
<p>It's all about spinning the data for more H1B visas. Cheap non-domestic labor - the American way.</p>
<p>Thank GOD for this article! It's about time some one in the media articulated what many of us in industry already knew - that there is a surplus of chemists out there. I don't know why the powers that be (including the American Chemical Society) persist in saying otherwise.</p>
<p>I hate to keep bringing up my own pitiful story (recent site closure, hundreds of scientists out of work) but in this case its very relevant. Bayer, Pfizer, Astra-Zenca, Johnson and Johnson, Amgen, and Novartis have all announced massive layoffs of scientists SINCE JANUARY, and the year's not over yet. (Not to mention - these are just the pharmaceutical companies of which I am aware.) The current market cannot possibly absorb the displaced workers.</p>
<p>My advice to science kids is now this: just make sure you really enjoy it, and don't count on job security!</p>
<p>"about 150,000 jobs added annually to the science and engineering workforce." How many sciencists ad engineers retired during that same period? </p>
<p>In the industry that fuels my region they are offering $85K plus signing bonuses for engineers straight out of under grad. Sky's not falling everywhere.</p>
<p>scout59 - The layoffs in the drug industry are about politics. Our society wants innovative drugs but not to pay for them. Just like Europe. It's all about what the consumer is willing to actually pay for. HDTV big screen tv at Costco? Yes! More effective bp med or blood thinner at the same impact to wallet? No way! Someone else should pay for that -- not me! </p>
<p>Everyone - if the US does not produce the scientists then who will actually own the innovation going into the future? I think we have enough communications, general business and sports science majors to last us quite a while. We do need some talent that actually produces a widget. The real question is whether we'll vote in the government that rewards it.</p>
<p>Well scout59, is mammall right about the pharmaceutical company layoffs?</p>
<p>My sympathies for your situation. It sounds bad.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Everyone - if the US does not produce the scientists then who will actually own the innovation going into the future? ...The real question is whether we'll vote in the government that rewards it.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Which government would that be? The government that gives tax breaks to fat-cat businesses to crank out me-too products and wastes trillions on unnecessary wars while cutting investment in basic research by tightening budgets at the NIH and NSF? Or is it the government that rewards true innovation by promoting ground-breaking basic research that leads to the founding of the industries of tomorrow?</p>
<p>I give an example: recombinant DNA technology is the very foundation of the biotech industry that provides employment to tens of thousands of scientists and led to the discovery and commercialization of a whole host of beneficial new products - mostly medical and agricultural that are worth billions to the economy annually. The whole recombinant DNA technology arose out of basic research into bacterial plasmids funded by the government back in the 60s and 70s. At the time a more obscure corner of the world of science was hard to imagine. But that's the way it is with true innovation, you can't predict where it is going to come from. That's why we need to invest widely. If we want to provide employment for US scientists (such as me) and drive the economy of the future, we should be boosting NIH and NSF funding big time, not cutting it. </p>
<p>The pharmaceutical industry isn't going to fund it. They are implementers of the of the discoveries of others (which is good - we need them for that) and not the generators of very many of the truly new discoveries.</p>
<p>I believe that the downturn in Big Pharma results from many factors, most of which are complex. Sure, it's partly political. Sure, the industry itself can be inefficient, and looming patent expirations (good for consumers, bad for the companies) will negatively impact a lot of bottom lines. Plus, scientific research is messy and unpredictable even in industry - the profits of today came from discoveries 10+ years ago, and it's tough for some CEOs to look at the big picture. (Investors don't like long-term prospects either; it's more like "what will you do for me next quarter?") And face it, a lot of the "easy" drug targets are gone.</p>
<p>Don't get me started on outsourcing. Despite questions about quality control and intellectual property, a lot of scale-up and even basic research is being sent to India and China.</p>
<p>The biggest problem with the pharma industry is that their research departments have by and large failed to find new blockbuster drugs. Based just on sound business principles, the layoffs are hard to argue with, as the productivity (as measured by the value of the drugs discovered) of in-house research efforts have been pitiful.</p>
<p>As to why we have heard so much about the "scientist and engineer shortage", the cry has been all about $. If the public and/or congress believe the shortage exists and act on it, that would lead to more $ going toward science education. The establishment, particularly higher ed, gain from this. If more students actually go into science and engineering, companies obviously benefit (supply of labor goes up, salaries go down).</p>
<p>Final comment: the fact that a minority percentage of BA/BS science majors go into science means diddly squat. Most of them have little more knowledge of true science than the history majors. All a BS in a science gets you is a lab tech job, and there are better ways to make a living, as most of them quickly discover.</p>
<p>Besides, who ever said having a science major working outside science in the business world is a bad thing? Any worse than a history major not working in history? English in english? BA/BS degrees are not career training! (EDIT: apologies to the accountants and engineers here!)</p>
<p>I agree 100 percent. I know many IT professionals who have trouble finding jobs when they are over 50. Meanwhile, thousands of Indian IT people are coming to this country on H1B visas.</p>
<p>The author of this Bizweek article, Vivek Wadhwa, is a researcher at Duke's Global Engineering & Entrepreneurship Center. He & fellow researchers have written extensively on the subject of US science/engineering education, competition with India & China, and immigration. I found his paper on "Where the Engineers Are" to be most enlightening on this subject.......
<a href="http://www.globalizationresearch.com/%5B/url%5D">http://www.globalizationresearch.com/</a></p>
<p>Agree with newmassdad. The statistics quoted are meaningless if they include all science/engineering UG and G degrees. An UG degree in "science" prepares you for not much in today's hi-tech world of research/dev.</p>
<p>Look at the stats for those with a MS degree, then. 31% of these students eventually find employemnt OUTSIDE of science. Five, ten years ago, we couldn't hire these MS guys FAST enough in pharma.... and these were not "technician" jobs, either (neither were the wages.) Oh, and 5-10 years ago, we did hire a lot of those BS chemists as well.</p>
<p>Of course, today it's a very different story. I tend to agree with the article's statement that the opportunities in some scientific professions do not warrant continued study (or employment) for many students. Check out the comments on the "Business Week" web page - lots of disgruntled scientists out there!</p>
<p>The CEO of my husband's employer, a very large and well known U.S. corporation, has been quoted in the media bemoaning the shortage of U.S. students studying science and engineering. On the other hand, this same corporation has massively cut its research programs in the U.S. and has started new research centers overseas. If there are very few jobs for scientists in the U.S., it makes sense that students consider this factor and many who are interested and talented in science choose to pursue other fields.</p>
<p>coureur - government funded basic research at universities is a really good investment but it takes a corporation to take on the extraordinary risk and expense of taking a drug to market. Even when it passes all the regulatory hurdles (higher all the time) then there's the question of marketability, formulary inclusion. It's a "business" of extreme risk. If we continue to take away the profit incentive, fewer and fewer talented minds will want to play.</p>
<p>mammall,</p>
<p>The government's spending on basic research is crappy from an investment POV, but could be good from a societal POV, although that is debatable, too.</p>
<p>Regarding drug company "extraordinary risk and expense of taking a drug to market" I would argue that they actually do a crappy job of it which is why their research costs are so high. </p>
<p>I also note that many of these same drug firms spend more on sales and admin than on research. For example Pfizer has spent almost twice as much on "Selling, informational and administrative expenses" as on R&D so far this year according to their most recent quarterly report.</p>
<p>So I suggest that drug companies need their high prices in order to support their high sales and advertizing budgets that then drive the demand at those same high prices. (seems somewhat circular, but there you have it)</p>