Collateral Damage: American Science and the War on Terrorism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Departmental Papers (BE) Department of Bioengineering September 2005 Collateral Damage: American Science and the War on Terrorism Kenneth R. Foster University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Irving A. Lerch American Physical Society Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/be_papers Recommended Citation Foster, K. R., & Lerch, I. A. (2005). Collateral Damage: American Science and the War on Terrorism. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/be_papers/60 Copyright 2005 IEEE. Reprinted from IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Volume 24, Issue 3, Fall 2005, pages 45-52. This material is posted here with permission of the IEEE. Such permission of the IEEE does not in any way imply IEEE endorsement of any of the University of Pennsylvania's products or services. Internal or personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material for advertising or promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution must be obtained from the IEEE by writing to [email protected]. By choosing to view this document, you agree to all provisions of the copyright laws protecting it. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/be_papers/60 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Collateral Damage: American Science and the War on Terrorism Abstract In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 2001, the United States government undertook a rushed effort to increase security. In addition to new legislation such as the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the government dramatically ramped up enforcement of laws that have long been on the books, and revised its policies to deal with new terrorist threats. While the need for increased security is undeniable, the costs of security measures need to be weighed as well, in terms of collateral damage they produce to the U.S. science and engineering (S&E) enterprise. That was the message of a panel discussion held at the June 2004 IEEE-SSIT International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS'04) in Worcester, MA [1]. We focus here on two main problems: the increasing difficulties facedy b students and scientists from abroad in obtaining visas to visit and study in the United States, and the barriers that are being erected to communication and collaboration between U.S. investigators and international scholars. Comments Copyright 2005 IEEE. Reprinted from IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Volume 24, Issue 3, Fall 2005, pages 45-52. This material is posted here with permission of the IEEE. Such permission of the IEEE does not in any way imply IEEE endorsement of any of the University of Pennsylvania's products or services. Internal or personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material for advertising or promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution must be obtained from the IEEE by writing to [email protected]. By choosing to view this document, you agree to all provisions of the copyright laws protecting it. This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/be_papers/60 Collateral Damage: American Science and the War on Terrorism KENNETH R. FOSTER AND IRVING A. LERCH “… the dependence of U.S. science on foreign scien- tists is such that biodefense research will be inhibited if we continue down a road of scientific isolationism. Apart from the obvious barriers that restrictions on access to scientific information and tools place on research, restrictions on scientific training for foreign nationals will delay those countries from developing expertise crucial to identifying and containing disease outbreaks — key to any global strategy against bioter- rorism. What is required is the proliferation of scien- tific training worldwide, not scientific isolationism.” Thomas May [1] n the wake of the terrorist faced by students attacks of 2001, the United and scientists from States government undertook abroad in obtaining a rushed effort to increase visas to visit and security. In addition to new study in the United Ilegislation such as the Patriot Act States, and the barri- and the Homeland Security Act of ers that are being 2002, the government dramatically erected to communi- ©PHOTODISC ramped up enforcement of laws that cation and collabo- have long been on the books, and ration between U.S. investigators the United States generated by far revised its policies to deal with new and international scholars. the largest fraction of the world’s terrorist threats. S&E literature, and was the sole While the need for increased “Flattening” of the Worlds proprietor of advanced technologies security is undeniable, the costs of of Science and Engineering with important “dual use” (military security measures need to be The effect of these changes must be and civilian) applications. weighed as well, in terms of collat- understood in the context of the The changing productivity of eral damage they produce to the U.S. long-term changes in the productiv- U.S. S&E enterprise vis-à-vis the science and engineering (S&E) ity of U.S. science vis-à-vis that in rest of the world can be seen clearly enterprise. That was the message of the rest of the world, and America’s in the bi-annual Science and Tech- a panel discussion held at the June increasing reliance on scientists and nology Indicators, published by the 2004 IEEE-SSIT International Sym- engineers from abroad. As World National Science Board [2]. Figs. 1 posium on Technology and Society War II drew to an end, Americans and 2 show the numbers of papers (ISTAS`04) in Worcester, MA [1]. might have been forgiven for a mis- published in the standard science We focus here on two main prob- taken impression that science began and engineering literature by U.S. lems: the increasing difficulties and ended in the U.S. At that time, authors, compared to those by their IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | FALL 2005 0278-0079/05/$20.00©2005IEEE | 45 Thousands In Europe and Asia, by comparison, 250 the numbers of people earning doc- toral degrees in S&E have rapidly Western Europe increased (Fig. 4) and now each 200 United States region surpasses the U.S. in produc- tion of doctoral-level scientists and U.S. Share of World Total engineers. Percent 150 50 This long-term decline in the 40 United States vis-à-vis other devel- 30 oped countries in its science and 100 20 engineering productivity does not 10 reflect a decline in absolute terms. 0 1988 1992 1995 1998 2001 The U.S. still has roughly 30% of 50 the world’s share in S&E productiv- Japan China, South Korea, ity, far surpassing that of any other Singapore, Taiwan individual nation. The changes 0 reflect, rather, the huge government 1988 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 and private-sector investments by other countries, and concomitant Fig. 1. S&E articles, by selected country/region and U.S. share of world total: declines in U.S. investment in sci- 1988–2001 (source: [2]). ence and technology vis-à-vis the rest of the world. It means, however, that any Western monopoly the U.S. might once have Europe had on science and technology United around the world has evaporated, States and that the U.S. now depends on Asia scientific ideas and manpower that Eastern 1999 originate outside its borders. In high- Europe 1986 energy physics and materials Pacific research, for example, major Latin research facilities have been estab- America lished in Europe and Asia. This has Near East caused the focus of research on Sub-Saharan some topics to shift to those regions Africa from the United States. It also means 010203040 Percent that European and Asian firms now have the option of investing in new Fig. 2. Scientific publications: regional share of world output (source: [2]). research facilities outside the U.S., where they will find a ready supply of highly educated technical person- peers in other countries. from abroad to fill its ranks of engi- nel and vibrant research programs. In terms of numbers of papers, neers and scientists. Since the early Columnist Thomas L. Friedman has the productivity of the U.S. S&E 1980s, the number of U.S. white called this process the “flattening” of community has remained essentially males earning doctoral degrees each the world [3], and it is clearly taking flat for the past decade, whereas that year in science and engineering has place in science and technology as of Western Europe, Japan, and other been declining (Fig. 3). (Tragically, well as in other economic activities. Asian countries has increased sub- similar declines are seen in the num- stantially. In 1945, U.S. scientists bers of doctoral degrees earned by In the Wake of 9/11 and engineers published about 80% white female and U.S. minorities as In response to the terrorist attacks of of the world’s S&E literature; they well). Until 2001, these declines September 11, 2001, the U.S. govern- now account for less than one-third were offset by increases in degrees ment passed three major new laws in of the world’s scientific papers. earned by students holding tempo- 2002 (The Enhanced Border Security A second major trend has been rary visas. Now, for reasons that we and Visa Entry Reform Act, the Patri- the increasing reliance of the United discuss in the following section, ot Act and the Homeland Security States on professionals and students these numbers are in drastic decline. Act), and administratively ramped up 46 | IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | FALL 2005 the enforcement of existing laws.