After the 1957 launch of Sputnik, the first satellite to orbit Earth, federal
funding for science and engineering to drive innovation and advance technology
in the 20th century climaxed. Developed by the Soviet Union, Sputnik reawakened
the United States to the need to invest in research and development, so that
it could remain competitive in the global marketplace and the Cold War.
As a result, in the 1960s, research and development funding as a percentage
of gross domestic product (GDP) nearly doubled (it peaked at 1.92 percent in
1964), mostly for defense and space exploration. Although research and development
spending decreased as the Apollo program wound down, it was again buoyed
slightly by funding for energy-related technology during the energy-volatile
1970s. Since then, expenditures for research and development in the physical
sciences have declined drastically and now hover around 0.78 percent of GDP.
With those decreases has come a creeping crisis of a shrinking skilled workforce
and dampened technological advances in the United States. The country seems
to be waiting for the next Sputnik moment to wake it from this malaise.
Domestic harbingers of the creeping crisis include a growing demand for more
skilled labor, complicated by a decline in the average number of students earning
science and engineering degrees, and an aging skilled workforce. In response,
a growing chorus of government agencies, nonprofit societies, trade organizations
and private companies are taking action individually or in coalitions to awaken
the sleeping giant of American ingenuity. Their actions have led to the release
of more than 16 studies in the past two years on the status of U.S. innovation
and competitiveness.
Many of these studies have ominous titles such as “Looming Workforce Crisis.”
Their main point is that the United States is losing its competitive edge in
science and technology and needs a more significant commitment to increased
federal funding for research and development and improved math and science education.
The Bush administration and many members of Congress are now heeding the warnings
and embracing the recommendations of these studies, especially the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, which
contains 20 specific policy recommendations for improving innovation and competitiveness
(see Geotimes, January 2006). In his State of the
Union Address in January, President Bush announced the American Competitiveness
Initiative. Meanwhile in the Senate, Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.),
Lamar Alexander (R-Ala.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) introduced a bill called
“Protecting America’s Competitive Advantage” (PACE). And in the
House, Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), the ranking member on the House Science Committee,
introduced three bills based on the NAS report’s recommendations.
All of these proposals request a doubling of federal funding for physical science
basic research over seven to 10 years, and provide significant funds for math
and science K-12 education, as well as more grants, scholarships and tax incentives
for math and science undergraduate and advanced degree students. The congressional
legislation also focuses on energy research and development and establishes
an Advanced Research Project Agency in the Department of Energy to fund high-risk
research projects to develop energy resources.
In his State of the Union Address, Bush proposed a different initiative —
the Advanced Energy Initiative, which includes a 22 percent increase in clean-energy
research — noting America’s addiction to oil (see Geotimes
online, Web Extra, Feb. 3, 2006). Americans consume about 25 percent of
global oil resources and global energy demand is expected to increase by 57
percent by 2025, according to the Energy Information Administration. Not only
must the United States conserve more energy as exploding economies in China
and India demand more, but it also must develop cleaner and more cost-effective
energy resources, as well as cleaner, more efficient and more cost-effective
exploration and extraction methods.
The energy initiative and the competitiveness proposals address the global energy
supply-demand pressures from two complementary directions. To develop energy
resources and exploration methods, more funding and more skilled labor are both
necessary.
Currently, only 6 percent of American undergraduates are completing degrees
in engineering, compared to more than 40 percent of Chinese undergraduates,
according to the recent NAS report. In addition, since 1983, half of the petroleum
engineering programs (17 of 34) and about half of the mining programs (13 of
25) in the United States have closed, leaving fewer opportunities for research
and education in vital areas of applied geology.
The president’s competitiveness initiative would cost about $136 billion,
with $86 billion estimated for tax credits and only about $50 billion for research
funding over 10 years. The PACE legislation would cost about $50 billion over
seven years. With the country facing a ballooning budget deficit, with the war
in Iraq and continued emergency relief for Hurricane Katrina, cost is where
these bills may lose their momentum. Nonetheless, even with this gloomy budget
forecast, the bipartisan introduction of so many initiatives with such ambitious
programs is a positive indication that more funding for science and engineering
is a national priority (see Geotimes online, Web Extra,
Feb. 7, 2006).
Meeting the country’s energy needs represents a major component of the
creeping crisis and may be the Sputnik moment we need to gain significant and
necessary advancements in research and math and science education. We need increased
investment now to efficiently and securely tap into new energy resources and
technology for current and future demands.
 |
Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers  |