Looking Back and Ahead: The U.S. Scientific and
Technical Workforce
Asking the provocative question, "How we will recognize a shortage
or surplus in the scientific and technical workforce?" the recently-published
proceedings of a conference held last December highlight the second
half of the conference's theme, "improving the data system for
decisionmaking."
Since Sputnik, there has been continuing controversy about whether
the United States will have a sufficient number of scientifically and
technically trained workers to maintain our country's position in the
world economy. A two-day conference organized by the RAND Corporation
for the OSTP and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation explored the relationship
between data projections and policy making. While there was disagreement
among the 25 attending researchers, federal S&T policymakers and
statistical agency officials about future projections, there was agreement
that there are significant shortfalls in collected data on the S&T
workforce.
The conference proceedings were compiled in a 114-page report available
at http://www.rand.org/publications/CF/CF194.
The eight-page Introduction neatly summarizes the range of opinions
on whether there might be S&T workforce shortfalls. On one hand,
"evidence for these periodically anticipated shortages in the general
STEM [scientific, technical, engineering and mathematics] workforce
has been hard to find. Indications of resulting national crises have,
so far, been even less evident." Yet "the failure of previously
anticipated STEM workforce shortages to materialize should not be grounds
for complacency."
The "Rapporteur's Summary" by William P. Butz well summarizes
the conference:
"Again and again, the conference discussion returned
to the connection between data and decisionmaking and reiterated the
basic point that decisionmaking does not grind to a halt in the absence
of adequate data. It simply proceeds with inadequate data. Employers
and managers who lack a credible information base produced by statistical
experts may base decisions on information and analyses that they themselves
have produced, often on the fly, or that are produced by others lacking
statistical expertise. Administrators of science funding agencies
who lack such information may base funding allocations across scientific
disciplines on judgments about where the science is most exciting
or where other support is lacking, to the detriment of students encouraged
toward fields, however exciting, without waiting jobs. Moreover, without
understanding key decision points for STEM students and workers, universities
and their science funders cannot efficiently design interventions
to affect such decisions. Among all these decisionmakers, students
and workers are the most disadvantaged, for they typically command
insufficient resources to uncover any but the most rudimentary information
about trends in potentially interesting fields. And yet, ironically,
it is they who bear the largest burden of mistaken decisions
lengthy training and uncertain outcomes, job insecurity, and potential
disillusionment with the scientific enterprise."
The "bottom line" of the conference was a two and one-half
page list of supply and demand data needs sought by organizations and
researchers. Each need was followed by a response from statistical agencies
about current or potential availability of this data. In many cases
the agency response was "not available or planned."
Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
American Institute of Physics fyi@aip.org
301-209-3095