On November 18, the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC)
met for the last time in its current form. At the meeting, a substantial
portion of time was devoted to the nuclear science and engineering workforce,
and how best to educate, prepare, diversify and maintain it for the
21st century.
According to Dennis Kovar of DOE's Office of Science, NSAC will effectively
go out of existence on December 10, until its charter is revised. It
will "change character," he said, from a committee of representatives
to a committee of experts. This means, he explained, that committee
members will have to be sworn in as temporary special government employees,
participate in ethics training, and abide by the relevant conflict of
interest and financial disclosure regulations. DOE's Office of Science
intends to transform all of its advisory committees in this way, in
a decision that Kovar said was "driven by" an April GAO report
that reviewed the federal scientific advisory committee system (see
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/064.html).
He expected the transition to be "straightforward," and added
that most other federal advisory committees already operated as committees
of experts. "If they can do it, so can we," he remarked.
Committee members then heard presentations on the demographics of the
nuclear science community and ways to ensure adequate numbers and adequate
preparation of nuclear scientists and engineers for the future. The
Office of Science's James Hawkins summarized the results of a survey
of the DOE-supported nuclear physicists workforce. The survey showed
a downward trend in PhD production over the last few years. It also
showed headcounts increasing in the past year at universities and generally
decreasing at the national labs. At some labs, the headcount rose at
the same time that the number of FTEs (full-time equivalents) dropped,
indicating that more nuclear physicists at the labs were receiving only
partial DOE support. Asked whether this was "a good thing or a
bad thing," Kovar opined that if DOE was only funding a fraction
of a person's time, "we don't know whether that fraction is more
or less than we're paying for." Some other issues of concern raised
by the manpower survey, Hawkins said, were a downward trend in PhD production,
the time it takes to obtain a PhD, and a lack of diversity.
Joseph Cerny of UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
described the findings and recommendations of an NSAC subcommittee tasked
with evaluating DOE and NSF investments in education relevant to nuclear
science. Many of the concerns emphasized by the subcommittee echoed
Hawkins' comments, including declining PhD production, time to degree,
and lack of gender and ethnic diversity. To obtain its data, the subcommittee
surveyed current graduate students, postdocs, undergraduates involved
in research, and PhDs with 5-10 years of experience.
The survey generally showed "substantial satisfaction" with
a career in nuclear science, Cerny said, but also revealed "a significant
fraction" of highly dissatisfied individuals. Cerny reported that
much of the dissatisfaction stemmed from students lacking a realistic
view of the job market and not being adequately prepared for the broad
range and interdisciplinary nature of jobs outside of academia and the
national labs. The subcommittee's general findings included "slowly
declining PhD production" that may be insufficient to meet demand
in the traditional job market, a "striking underrepresentation
of women and minorities in the nuclear science workforce," a median
time of 7.0 years for graduate students to receive a PhD, and a sense
among U.S. grad students that their foreign counterparts were better
trained.
Citing public misconceptions of terms such as "nuclear" and
"radiation," the subcommittee named, as its highest priority
for new investment in education, "the creation by the DOE and the
NSF of a Center for Nuclear Science Outreach." The subcommittee
recommended that such a center provide educational materials and a nuclear
science website for K-12 teachers, students, and the public; leverage
existing outreach efforts; and encourage outreach activities by "every
active nuclear scientist."
According to Cerny, the nuclear science community produces approximately
85 PhDs per year, while the expected base need will be 100 per year,
with growing demand in the areas of medical physics, nuclear medicine,
and national security. This led to the subcommittee's second recommendation,
that "the nuclear science community work to increase the number
of new PhD's...by approximately 20 percent over the next five to ten
years."
The subcommittee also addressed ways to enhance the undergraduate and
graduate experiences and expand diversity. Suggestions for enhancing
the undergraduate experience included ensuring good physics preparation
in high school, research participation in college, and interaction with
the broader nuclear science community. The subcommittee recommended
an online nuclear science instructional materials database and more
proactive outreach and recruitment, especially to underrepresented groups,
continued DOE and NSF support for undergraduate research experiences,
awards for exceptional mentors, and establishment of another nuclear
chemistry summer school if there was sufficient demand.
Challenges to enhancing the graduate and postdoctoral experiences,
the subcommittee found, included continuing to attract outstanding students,
preparing them for careers in a wide variety of jobs, reducing the "time
to scientific independence," and working to create a "culture
of inclusion." The subcommittee encouraged DOE and NSF to establish
new, prestigious graduate and postdoctoral fellowships, and issued a
specific recommendation to the nuclear science community to "assume
greater responsibility" for shortening the average time to a PhD
and time spent in postdoctoral positions.
Regarding gender diversity, Cerny noted that among the physical science
disciplines, physics and astronomy (combined) rank the lowest in production
of women PhDs, with a three-year average of 15.0 percent, and that nuclear
sciences' six-year average is even lower, at 14.1 percent. Regarding
ethnic diversity, Cerny said nuclear science "resembles the most
well-known white men's club...the U.S. Senate." Remarking on the
"bleak current picture" of diversity in the field, the subcommittee's
report cited a number of "impediments to improvement" and
recommended "a concerted commitment by the nuclear science community,"
with the support of DOE and NSF, to increase diversity through better
connections with minority-serving institutions, "bridge" programs,
more family-friendly policies, and greater visibility of role models.
The subcommittee's report also addressed mentoring and professional
development, highlighting the importance of "realistic career advice"
and the unrealistic expectations of many survey respondents. It recommended
that the nuclear science community establish mentoring and professional
development programs "and that the agencies support such efforts
through the funding of competitive proposals."
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl