I think the education process is too long. Schools benefit from long education so the time a student can get to do "real research" is put further and further in the future.
You don't need a PhD to be a scientist and do real research. You need a PhD to be a tenure-track professor and hold a research position in many industrial labs.
The education process produces credentials. Curiosity about the world and the courage to ask questions (and lots of math and other technical skills) produce scientists. Same thing for inventors.
But the fact of the matter is that as our knowledge of different subjects advances, there are more and more
things to learn before a student can get down to doing
actual research. Together with increased automation of
many mundane jobs as a result of computers, this makes a long
education almost mandatory for people wishing to maximise their chances of employment.
I posted the story, but actually disagree with the author's assessment. I don't think when people refer to the lack of scientists and engineers in the US, they are referring to a lack of tenure-track faculty. The shortage of technically skilled people is in industry, not academia.
The education process is long, and it isn't very glamorous or sexy. When someone unveils an engineering marvel its likely met with "hmm...thats nice, lets see what the kids on jersey shore are doing tonight".
Also innovation is stifled by a "simpsons did it" mentality, where if any layperson can understand each component of a technology, the think that integrating it would be easy.
How many people have you met that "invented" something only to have it "stolen". Such as putting a cell phone and a camera to produce ta-da...a camera phone!!
I support organizations that give students actual project experience. FIRST is a good one: http://www.usfirst.org/
"Research Scientists" and "People with basic scientific literacy" are different sets — it's perfectly possible for the first set to be too large and the second to be too small.
We need to shift away from our dependency on the grant system, and the only way to do that is to make basic research profitable for private industry. I just don't see any other way to do it.
What America really needs isn't more scientists, although that would be nice. What's required is more scientific training for entrepreneurs and business people, so that they can help shepherd projects out of the lab and into products. If having a research lab becomes viewed as a competitive advantage by investors, then getting funding becomes simple.
There are a few major success stories, where companies consistently use advanced research to churn out profitable products - Google and 3M spring immediately to mind. We should be trying to replicate those models.
I've always used this example for those that think our medicine and medical care in the US are #1 because of our "exchange-based" health care system.
You'd be hard-pressed to name one cure to a deadly world-wide condition that a private corporation has developed based on solely their own R&D. From Diptheria to Polio, the cure or vaccine for the vast majority of diseases afflicting the world in any significant way were developed in Academic laboratories, usually under government funding such as NIH grants.
In fact, alot of our most significant technologies are grounded in academia, then later licensed or commercialized. Google's one. In fact the government's NIST technology transfer and Small Business Innovation Research orgs promote start-up researchers to use NIST resources such as grants and lab space/time to bring experimental technologies to market.
Meanwhile, companies are _usually_ punished by Wall St. for giving more and more toward R&D. Most public companies simply cannot do it for fear of investor revolt.
A 2001 poll conducted by the National Science Foundation in the US revealed the pervasiveness of the problem. Results showed that:
-Only 48% of Americans knew that the earliest humans did not live at the same time as the dinosaurs.
-Only 22% could properly define a molecule.
-Only 45% knew what DNA was and that lasers don't work by focusing sound waves
-Only 48% knew that electrons were smaller than atoms.
I can not comment how many times I have worked with people that have no grasp of the fundamentals of science and the scientific method. Not only we not produce enough scientists, but we produce a ridiculous amount of scientifically illiterate people.
The number of scientists and the number of scientifically literate people are two different issues.
It seems entirely plausible to me that the American education system produces more prospective research scientists than there are job openings for them, but that it also completely fails at teaching basic mathematic and scientific concepts to those who have no desire to be career scientists.
13 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 40.9 ms ] threadThe education process produces credentials. Curiosity about the world and the courage to ask questions (and lots of math and other technical skills) produce scientists. Same thing for inventors.
Also innovation is stifled by a "simpsons did it" mentality, where if any layperson can understand each component of a technology, the think that integrating it would be easy.
How many people have you met that "invented" something only to have it "stolen". Such as putting a cell phone and a camera to produce ta-da...a camera phone!!
I support organizations that give students actual project experience. FIRST is a good one: http://www.usfirst.org/
And, BTW, this is not a US-only problem.
What America really needs isn't more scientists, although that would be nice. What's required is more scientific training for entrepreneurs and business people, so that they can help shepherd projects out of the lab and into products. If having a research lab becomes viewed as a competitive advantage by investors, then getting funding becomes simple.
There are a few major success stories, where companies consistently use advanced research to churn out profitable products - Google and 3M spring immediately to mind. We should be trying to replicate those models.
You'd be hard-pressed to name one cure to a deadly world-wide condition that a private corporation has developed based on solely their own R&D. From Diptheria to Polio, the cure or vaccine for the vast majority of diseases afflicting the world in any significant way were developed in Academic laboratories, usually under government funding such as NIH grants.
In fact, alot of our most significant technologies are grounded in academia, then later licensed or commercialized. Google's one. In fact the government's NIST technology transfer and Small Business Innovation Research orgs promote start-up researchers to use NIST resources such as grants and lab space/time to bring experimental technologies to market.
Meanwhile, companies are _usually_ punished by Wall St. for giving more and more toward R&D. Most public companies simply cannot do it for fear of investor revolt.
-Only 48% of Americans knew that the earliest humans did not live at the same time as the dinosaurs.
-Only 22% could properly define a molecule.
-Only 45% knew what DNA was and that lasers don't work by focusing sound waves
-Only 48% knew that electrons were smaller than atoms.
I can not comment how many times I have worked with people that have no grasp of the fundamentals of science and the scientific method. Not only we not produce enough scientists, but we produce a ridiculous amount of scientifically illiterate people.
It seems entirely plausible to me that the American education system produces more prospective research scientists than there are job openings for them, but that it also completely fails at teaching basic mathematic and scientific concepts to those who have no desire to be career scientists.