DOCSLIB.ORG

SCIENCE and ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2020 Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SCIENCE and ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2020 Introduction NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD 2020 SCIENCE & ENGINEERING INDICATORS The State of U.S. Science & Engineering National Science Board Diane L. Souvaine, NSB Chair Victor R. McCrary Professor of Computer Science and Adjunct Professor Vice President for Research and Graduate Programs; of Mathematics Professor of Chemistry Tufts University University of the District of Columbia Ellen Ochoa, NSB Vice Chair Emilio F. Moran Director (retired) John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor of Global Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Change Science Michigan State University Sethuraman Panchanathan John L. Anderson Executive Vice President and Chief Research and Innovation President Officer of Knowledge Enterprise Development; Director of the National Academy of Engineering Center for Cognitive Ubiquitous Computing Arizona State University Roger N. Beachy Professor Emeritus of Biology G. P. “Bud” Peterson Washington University, St. Louis Professor, Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Arthur Bienenstock Professor Emeritus of Photon Science Julia M. Phillips Stanford University Executive Emeritus Sandia National Laboratories Vicki L. Chandler Dean of Faculty Daniel A. Reed Minerva Schools at KGI Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs (Provost) University of Utah Maureen L. Condic Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy Geraldine L. Richmond University of Utah, School of Medicine Presidential Chair in Science and Professor of Chemistry University of Oregon W. Kent Fuchs President Anneila I. Sargent University of Florida Ira S. Bowen Professor of Astronomy California Institute of Technology Suresh V. Garimella President S. Alan Stern University of Vermont Associate Vice President and Special Assistant to the President Robert M. Groves Southwest Research Institute Provost and Executive Vice President; Gerard J. Campbell, S.J. Professor in the Math and Statistics Department; Stephen H. Willard Professor in the Sociology Department CEO Georgetown University Cellphire, Inc. James S. Jackson Maria T. Zuber Daniel Katz Distinguished University Professor of Psychology; Vice President for Research Professor of Afro-American and African Studies; Research Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor, Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for Social Research University of Michigan France A. Córdova, Member ex officio Steven Leath Director President (retired) National Science Foundation Iowa State University and Auburn University W. Carl Lineberger Fellow of JILA and E. U. Condon Distinguished Professor John J. Veysey, II, Executive Officer of Chemistry Board Office Director University of Colorado National Science Board NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD 2020 SCIENCE & ENGINEERING INDICATORS The State of U.S. Science & Engineering January 2020 NSB-2020-1 Preface The National Science Board (Board) is required under the The indicators presented in the report are quantitative National Science Foundation (NSF) Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1863 (j) (1) representations relevant to the scope, quality, and vitality of to prepare and transmit the biennial Science and Engineering the S&E enterprise. Indicators (Indicators) report to the President and Congress every even-numbered year. The report is prepared by the With the 2020 edition, Indicators is being redesigned to be National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics maximally useful and accessible to a wide audience while (NCSES) within NSF under the guidance of the Board. It is maintaining the high quality of previous editions. It is being subject to extensive review by Board members, outside transformed from a single, voluminous report into a series experts, interested federal agencies, and NCSES internal of streamlined reports. Indicators 2020 will consist of nine reviewers for accuracy, coverage, and balance. thematic reports produced and published beginning in the fall of 2019. In addition, The State of U.S. Science and Indicators provides information on the state of the U.S. Engineering, which highlights the key findings from the science and engineering (S&E) enterprise over time and within Indicators 2020 thematic reports, will be delivered to the a global context. Indicators is a factual and policy-neutral President and Congress on 15 January 2020 in fulfillment of source of high-quality U.S. and international data; it does the congressional mandate. not offer policy options or make policy recommendations. Table of Contents Executive Summary . 2 Introduction . 3 U .S . and Global Education . 4 K–12 Mathematics and Science Degree Awards Internationally Mobile Students and Stay Rates U .S . S&E Workforce . 6 Workforce Growth and Employment Sector Women and Underrepresented Minorities Foreign-Born Scientists and Engineers Skilled Technical Workforce Global R&D . 8 Where Growth Intensity U .S . R&D Performance and Funding . 10 Performance and Funding Trends Type of R&D Federal R&D Global Science and Technology Capabilities . 12 Research Publications International Research Collaboration Knowledge- and Technology-Intensive Industry Output Invention, Innovation, and Perceptions of Science . 14 Invention Innovation Americans’ Perceptions about Science Conclusion . 16 Glossary . 17 Definitions Key to Acronyms and Abbreviations References . 20 Detailed Figure Notes . 22 Explore Further . 24 Acknowledgments and Citation . 25 https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/ 1 Executive Summary The State of U.S. Science and Engineering shows that the Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) U.S. S&E enterprise continues to advance along several competencies in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary dimensions. The United States continues to perform the schooling are an important component of the pathway to largest share of global research and development (R&D), an S&E-capable workforce. U.S. eighth graders continue to generate the largest share of R&D-intensive industry output rank in the middle of advanced economies in international globally, award the largest number of S&E doctoral degrees, mathematics and science assessments. Similarly, U.S. and account for significant shares of S&E research articles national assessments of mathematics show little to no and citations worldwide. However, other nations, particularly growth in scores over the past decade. At the same time, for China, are rapidly developing their science and technology higher education, the United States remains the destination (S&T) capacity. The changing global landscape affects the for the largest number of internationally mobile students. position of the United States relative to the other major global Foreign-born noncitizens make up a considerable proportion players. For example, the United States has seen its relative of S&E doctorate recipients, including half or more of the share of global S&T activity remain unchanged or shrink, even doctorate recipients in engineering, mathematics and as its absolute activity levels have continued to rise. computer sciences, and economics. Many of these students stay in the United States after graduation. As such, foreign- Although total U.S. R&D investment has grown, funding and born individuals account for a sizeable share of U.S. S&E performance patterns have changed. Since 2000, the rise employment, particularly among workers with in U.S. R&D was driven mainly by the business sector, which graduate degrees. continues to perform and fund most of the overall R&D in the United States, as well as most of the applied research and Although The State of U.S. Science and Engineering does not experimental development. During this period, the share of forecast future outcomes, the data clearly show the evolution U.S. R&D funded by the federal government has declined. This of the United States in the global S&E enterprise. Increasingly, decline is notable as federally funded R&D is an important the United States is seen globally as an important leader source of support, particularly for the higher education sector rather than the uncontested leader. Whether and how long the and for the nation’s basic research enterprise. current global trends continue is an important question that will be affected by the overall S&E environment, along with The U.S. S&E workforce continues to grow overall. The the economic, social, and political forces that shape the S&E number of women and underrepresented minorities (URMs)— environment in the United States and around the world. blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians or Alaska Natives— has grown. However, these groups remain underrepresented in the S&E workforce relative to their overall presence in the workforce and the population. 2 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2020 Introduction Contributions from and innovation in S&T over many decades higher education, S&E workforce, S&E publications, R&D have resulted in dramatic improvements to American lives, investment, academic R&D, R&D-intensive industries, including enhanced living standards and life expectancy, innovation, and public perceptions of S&T. These thematic better access to information and connectivity across the reports along with the detailed underlying data are available globe, and increased access to and affordability of consumer online at https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/. This report, goods (Baumol 1989; Cutler and McClellan 2001; Gordon The State of U.S. Science and Engineering, highlights the key 2012; Alston, Beddow, and Pardey 2009). Even though the findings and indicators from the Indicators 2020 thematic transformative nature of S&T is not free of risks (e.g., privacy
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Science Standards
    SCIENCE It is the policy of the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, or disability in its programs or employment practices as required by Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Civil rights compliance inquiries related to the OSDE may be directed to the Affirmative Action Officer, Room 111, 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-4599, telephone number (405) 522-4930; or, the United States Department of Education’s Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. Inquires or concerns regarding compliance with Title IX by local school districts should be presented to the local school district Title IX coordinator. This publication, printed by the State Department of Education Printing Services, is issued by the Oklahoma State Department of Education as authorized by 70 O.S. § 3-104. Five hundred copies have been prepared using Title I, Part A, School Improvement funds at a cost of $.15 per copy. Copies have been deposited with the Publications Clearinghouse of the Oklahoma Department of Libraries. DECEMBER 2013. SCIENCE Table of Contents 5-8 Introduction 9 K-5 Overview 10-18 ■ KINDERGARTEN 19-28 ■ 1ST GRADE 29-39 ■ 2ND GRADE 40-54 ■ 3RD GRADE 55-68 ■ 4TH GRADE 69-82 ■ 5TH GRADE 83 6-12 Overview 84-101 ■ 6TH GRADE 102-119 ■ 7TH GRADE 120-137 ■ 8TH GRADE 138-152 ■ PHYSICAL SCIENCE 153-165 ■ CHEMISTRY 166-181 ■ PHYSICS 182-203 ■ BIOLOGY I 204-219 ■ EARTH & SPACE SCIENCE 220-235 ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE Introduction Science uses observation and experimentation to explain natural phenomena.
    [Show full text]
  • GERALDINE L. RICHMOND Website
    1 GERALDINE L. RICHMOND Website: http://RichmondScience.uoregon.edu Address: 1253 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 Phone: (541) 346-4635 Email: [email protected] Fax: (541) 346-5859 EDUCATION 1976—1980 Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, Advisor: George C. Pimentel 1971—1975 B.S. Chemistry, Kansas State University EMPLOYMENT 2013- Presidential Chair of Science and Professor of Chemistry, University of Oregon Research Interests: Understanding the molecular structure and dynamics of interfacial processes that have relevance to environmental remediation, biomolecular assembly, atmospheric chemistry and alternative energy sources. Teaching Interests: Science literacy for nonscientists; career development courses for emerging and career scientists and engineers in the US and developing countries. 2001-2013 Richard M. and Patricia H. Noyes Professor of Chemistry, University of Oregon 1998-2001 Knight Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Oregon 1991- Professor of Chemistry, University of Oregon 1991-1995 Director, Chemical Physics Institute, University of Oregon 1985-l991 Associate Professor of Chemistry, University of Oregon 1980-1985 Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Bryn Mawr College AWARDS AND HONORS 2019 Linus Pauling Legacy Award, Oregon State University 2018 Linus Pauling Medal Award 2018 Priestley Medal, American Chemical Society (ACS) 2018 MHS Wall of Fame, Manhattan High School, Manhattan, Kansas 2018/19 Visiting Fellow, Chemical Institute of Technology, Mumbai, India 2017 Howard Vollum Award for Distinguished Achievement in Science and Technology, Reed College 2017 Honorary Doctorate Degree, Kansas State University 2017 Honorary Doctorate Degree, Illinois Institute of Technology 2016- Secretary, American Academy of Arts and Sciences; Member of the Board, Council and Trust 2015 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comprehensive Framework to Reinforce Evidence Synthesis Features in Cloud-Based Systematic Review Tools
    applied sciences Article A Comprehensive Framework to Reinforce Evidence Synthesis Features in Cloud-Based Systematic Review Tools Tatiana Person 1,* , Iván Ruiz-Rube 1 , José Miguel Mota 1 , Manuel Jesús Cobo 1 , Alexey Tselykh 2 and Juan Manuel Dodero 1 1 Department of Informatics Engineering, University of Cadiz, 11519 Puerto Real, Spain; [email protected] (I.R.-R.); [email protected] (J.M.M.); [email protected] (M.J.C.); [email protected] (J.M.D.) 2 Department of Information and Analytical Security Systems, Institute of Computer Technologies and Information Security, Southern Federal University, 347922 Taganrog, Russia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Systematic reviews are powerful methods used to determine the state-of-the-art in a given field from existing studies and literature. They are critical but time-consuming in research and decision making for various disciplines. When conducting a review, a large volume of data is usually generated from relevant studies. Computer-based tools are often used to manage such data and to support the systematic review process. This paper describes a comprehensive analysis to gather the required features of a systematic review tool, in order to support the complete evidence synthesis process. We propose a framework, elaborated by consulting experts in different knowledge areas, to evaluate significant features and thus reinforce existing tool capabilities. The framework will be used to enhance the currently available functionality of CloudSERA, a cloud-based systematic review Citation: Person, T.; Ruiz-Rube, I.; Mota, J.M.; Cobo, M.J.; Tselykh, A.; tool focused on Computer Science, to implement evidence-based systematic review processes in Dodero, J.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Mothers in Science
    The aim of this book is to illustrate, graphically, that it is perfectly possible to combine a successful and fulfilling career in research science with motherhood, and that there are no rules about how to do this. On each page you will find a timeline showing on one side, the career path of a research group leader in academic science, and on the other side, important events in her family life. Each contributor has also provided a brief text about their research and about how they have combined their career and family commitments. This project was funded by a Rosalind Franklin Award from the Royal Society 1 Foreword It is well known that women are under-represented in careers in These rules are part of a much wider mythology among scientists of science. In academia, considerable attention has been focused on the both genders at the PhD and post-doctoral stages in their careers. paucity of women at lecturer level, and the even more lamentable The myths bubble up from the combination of two aspects of the state of affairs at more senior levels. The academic career path has academic science environment. First, a quick look at the numbers a long apprenticeship. Typically there is an undergraduate degree, immediately shows that there are far fewer lectureship positions followed by a PhD, then some post-doctoral research contracts and than qualified candidates to fill them. Second, the mentors of early research fellowships, and then finally a more stable lectureship or career researchers are academic scientists who have successfully permanent research leader position, with promotion on up the made the transition to lectureships and beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • How Science Works
    PB 1 How science works The Scientific Method is traditionally presented in the first chapter of science text- books as a simple recipe for performing scientific investigations. Though many use- ful points are embodied in this method, it can easily be misinterpreted as linear and “cookbook”: pull a problem off the shelf, throw in an observation, mix in a few ques- tions, sprinkle on a hypothesis, put the whole mixture into a 350° experiment—and voila, 50 minutes later you’ll be pulling a conclusion out of the oven! That might work if science were like Hamburger Helper®, but science is complex and cannot be re- duced to a single, prepackaged recipe. The linear, stepwise representation of the process of science is simplified, but it does get at least one thing right. It captures the core logic of science: testing ideas with evidence. However, this version of the scientific method is so simplified and rigid that it fails to accurately portray how real science works. It more accurately describes how science is summarized after the fact—in textbooks and journal articles—than how sci- ence is actually done. The simplified, linear scientific method implies that scientific studies follow an unvarying, linear recipe. But in reality, in their work, scientists engage in many different activities in many different sequences. Scientific investigations often involve repeating the same steps many times to account for new information and ideas. The simplified, linear scientific method implies that science is done by individual scientists working through these steps in isolation. But in reality, science depends on interactions within the scientific community.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaker Biographies June 29, 2021
    Summit on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Anti-Racism in 21st Century STEMM Organizations June 29-30, 2021 | Virtual Event Speaker Biographies June 29, 2021: The systemic and structural nature of racism and bias Welcoming Remarks John L. Anderson is president of the National Academy of Engineering since July 1, 2019. He was born in Wilmington, DE, and received his undergraduate degree from the University of Delaware in 1967 and PhD degree from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1971, both in chemical engineering. He was most recently Distinguished Professor of Chemical Engineering and president (2007–2015) of the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT). Before that he was provost and executive vice president at Case Western Reserve University (2004–2007), following 28 years at Carnegie Mellon University, including 8 years as dean of the College of Engineering and 11 years as head of the Chemical Engineering Department. He began his professional career as an assistant professor of chemical engineering at Cornell University (1971–1976). Dr. Anderson was elected to the NAE in 1992 for contributions to the understanding of colloidal hydro-dynamics and membrane transport phenomena and was elected an NAE councillor in 2015. His service also includes numerous National Academies activities, such as the Committee on Determining Basic Research Needs to Interrupt the Improvised Explosive Device Delivery Chain (chair); Committee on Review of Existing and Potential Standoff Explosives Detection Techniques (chair); Organizing Committee for the National Security and Homeland Defense Workshop (cochair); Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology (cochair); and Ford Foundation Minority Postdoctoral Review Panel on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Engineering.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Science Reading List
    Philosophy of Science Area Comprehensive Exam Reading List Revised September 2011 Exam Format: Students will have four hours to write answers to four questions, chosen from a list of approximately 20-30 questions organized according to topic: I. General Philosophy of Science II. History of Philosophy of Science III. Special Topics a. Philosophy of Physics b. Philosophy of Biology c. Philosophy of Mind / Cognitive Science d. Logic and Foundations of Mathematics Students are required to answer a total of three questions from sections I and II (at least one from each section), and one question from section III. For each section, we have provided a list of core readings—mostly journal articles and book chapters—that are representative of the material with which we expect you to be familiar. Many of these readings will already be familiar to you from your coursework and other reading. Use this as a guide to filling in areas in which you are less well- prepared. Please note, however, that these readings do not constitute necessary or sufficient background to pass the comp. The Philosophy of Science area committee assumes that anyone who plans to write this exam has a good general background in the area acquired through previous coursework and independent reading. Some anthologies There are several good anthologies of Philosophy of Science that will be useful for further background (many of the articles listed below are anthologized; references included in the list below). Richard Boyd, Philip Gasper, and J.D. Trout, eds., The Philosophy of Science (MIT Press, 991). Martin Curd and J.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from the History of UK Science Policy
    Lessons from the History of UK Science Policy August 2019 2 Science Policy History Foreword The British Academy is the UK’s national body for the humanities and social sciences. Our purpose is to deepen understanding of people, societies and cultures, enabling everyone to learn, progress and prosper. The Academy inspires, supports and promotes outstanding achievement and global advances in the humanities and social sciences. We are a fellowship of over 1000 of the most outstanding academics, an international community of leading experts focused on people, culture and societies, and are the voice for the humanities and social sciences.1 The British Academy aims to use insights from the past and the present to help shape the future, by influencing policy and affecting change in the UK and overseas. Given this, the Academy is well-placed to bring humanities and social science insight from the past into policymaking for the present and the future. One way to do this is in using historical insights to inform policymaking – ‘looking back to look forward’. To support these efforts, the Academy’s public policy team in collaboration with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has undertaken a new programme of work on policy histories. The policy histories series develop historical analyses for individual policy areas. These analyses are used to provide: • a structured, rigorous and objective account of the history of a given policy area and the significance of key milestones in context, • an informed basis for analysis and insights from the timelines as well as dialogue and discussion about what history can tell us about the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Science and Innovation: the Under-Fueled Engine of Prosperity
    Science and Innovation: The Under-Fueled Engine of Prosperity JULY 14, 2021 AUTHOR Benjamin F. Jones* ABSTRACT Science and innovation are central to human progress and national economic success. Currently, the United States invests 2.8% of GDP in research and development, which is supported by a range of public policies. This paper asks whether the United States invests enough. To answer that question, the conceptual case for government intervention and skepticism about that case are reviewed. The paper then turns to systematic evidence, including the very latest evidence, regarding the operation of the science and innovation system and its social returns. This evidence suggests a clear answer: We massively underinvest in science and innovation, with implications for our standards of living, health, national competitiveness, and capacity to respond to crisis. * Kellogg School of Management and National Bureau of Economic Research. Email: [email protected]. 1. Introduction Scientific and technological advances have long been recognized as engines of economic growth and rising prosperity. The fruits of these advances—instantaneous global communications, vaccines, airplanes, heart surgery, computers, skyscrapers, industrial robots, on-demand entertainment, to name a few—might seem almost magical to our ancestors from not-too-many generations ago. The power of this progress has been broadly evident since the Industrial Revolution and was recognized at the time, including by political leaders. As the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli noted in 1873, “How much has happened in these fifty years … I am thinking of those revolutions of science which … have changed the position and prospects of mankind more than all the conquests and all the codes and all the legislators that ever lived.” Disraeli was talking of things like the steam engine, the telegraph, and textile manufacturing.
    [Show full text]
  • National Science Board: the Skilled Technical Workforce
    NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD THE SKILLED TECHNICAL WORKFORCE: Crafting America’s Science & Engineering Enterprise Why do the National Academies expect 3.4 million unfilled skilled 3.4M technical jobs by 2022? What did 139 stakeholders from across the country say the U.S. should do to 139 improve opportunities for skilled technical workers? What 4 recommendations do we offer for building the Skilled Technical 4 Workforce of the future? 2 THE SKILLED TECHNICAL WORKFORCE Cover Photo Credit: Darryl Estrine THE SKILLED TECHNICAL WORKFORCE 3 THE SKILLED TECHNICAL WORKFORCE: Crafting America’s Science & Engineering Enterprise September 2019 Report #: NSB-2019-23 4 THE SKILLED TECHNICAL WORKFORCE DIANE L. SOUVAINE ELLEN OCHOA NSB Chair NSB Vice Chair Professor of Computer Director (retired) Science and Adjunct Lyndon B. Johnson Space Professor of Mathematics Center Tufts University JOHN L. ANDERSON JAMES S. JACKSON G.P. “BUD” PETERSON President Daniel Katz Distinguished Professor National Academy of University Professor of Woodruff School of Engineering Psychology; Professor of Mechanical Engineering Afro-American and African Georgia Institute of ROGER N. BEACHY Studies; Research Professor, Technology Professor Emeritus of Research Center for Group Biology Dynamics, Institute for Social JULIA M. PHILLIPS Washington University, St. Research Executive Emeritus Louis University of Michigan Sandia National Laboratories ARTHUR BIENENSTOCK STEVEN LEATH DANIEL A. REED Professor Emeritus of President (retired) Senior Vice President for Iowa State University and Photon Science Academic Affairs (Provost) Stanford University Auburn University University of Utah VICKI L. CHANDLER W. CARL LINEBERGER GERALDINE L. Fellow of JILA and E. U. Dean of Faculty RICHMOND Minerva Schools at KGI Condon Distinguished Professor of Chemistry Presidential Chair in Science University of Colorado and Professor of Chemistry MAUREEN L.
    [Show full text]
  • National Science Board: Vision 2030
    NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD 2 VISION 2030 VISION 2030 3 VISION 2030 Cover Photo Credit: May 2020 Getty Images Report #: NSB-2020-15 4 VISION 2030 VISION 2030 5 The U.S. has made the investments The U.S. has needed to fuel an increased STEM innovation economy skills in its workforce, and remain preeminent creating more in science and opportunities for engineering. all Americans. U.S. scientists and engineers are modeling scientific values that are practiced The U.S. throughout remains a the world. magnet for the The U.S. has world’s best created an accessible, talent. attractive S&E enterprise that more closely reflects the nation’s demographic and geographic diversity. U.S. government, VISION industry, and academic partners are working in coordination to realize national R&D priorities and accelerate FOR THE the discovery-to- innovation cycle. NSF continues to drive U.S innovation FUTURE through fundamental research and lead the This report lays out what the National Science Board evolution of the global believes the U.S. must do to achieve this vision and remain practice of science the world innovation leader in 2030. and engineering. 6 VISION 2030 VISION 2030 7 GLOBALIZATION OF S&E than in 2000,4 the share of basic research that is federally funded declined from 58% S&E is now a truly worldwide enterprise, to 42% during that period. Basic research with more players and opportunities, from across all fields of S&E, performed primarily at which humanity’s collective knowledge is colleges and universities and funded by federal growing rapidly.
    [Show full text]
  • How Academic Science Gave Its Soul to the Publishing Industry
    SCIENCE, THE ENDLESS FRONTIER AT 75 MARK W. NEFF How Academic Science Gave Its Soul to the Publishing Industry Self-governance of science was supposed to mean freedom of inquiry, but it also ended up serving the business model of scientific publishers while undermining the goals of science policy. merica’s globally preeminent university secure social and economic benefits in the postwar period, research enterprise is constructed on two including more and better paying jobs, more productive bedrock principles of self-governance. The first agriculture, and innovative industrial products desired by Ais autonomy: academic scientists should be left free to consumers, “the flow of scientific knowledge must be both determine their own research agendas. The second is continuous and substantial.” To achieve this knowledge internal accountability: the quality of academic science flow he felt that the government should provide generous is best assessed by academic scientists. The commitment funding for the scientific community, as it had during the to scientific self-governance carries with it a policy war. requirement as well: support for research will mostly But counter to the coordinated wartime R&D effort have to come from the federal government; companies he had headed, Bush insisted that scientists must be will never make the necessary investments in undirected allowed to work “on subjects of their own choice, in the research because they cannot capture the economic manner dictated by their curiosity for the exploration of benefits for themselves. the unknown.” Such curiosity-driven basic science would The origin story of how this arrangement came about yield essential but unpredictable benefits at unknowable is a familiar one.
    [Show full text]