Preface I: Bill Gates to Congress on boosting innovation
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Preface I: Bill Gates to Congress on boosting
innovation:
In my view, our economic future is in peril
unless we take three important steps:
First, we must equip America's students and
workers with the knowledge and skills they
need to succeed in today's knowledge
economy.
Second, we need to reform our immigration
policies for high skilled workers so that we can
be sure our workforce includes the world's
most talented people.
And third, we need to provide a foundation for
future innovation by investing in new ideas and
providing a framework for capturing their value.
Priorities in order: Education Immigration Research, Taxes
APS post presidential talk 1
1
Preface II: Norman Augustine to Congress on
boosting innovation:
Our report, “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” makes
recommendations in the following sections:
o “Ten Thousand Teachers, Ten Million Minds”—which
addresses America’s K-12 education system. We
recommend that America’s talent pool in science, math and
technology be increased by vastly improving K-12
education.
o “Sowing the Seeds”—which addresses America’s research
base. We recommend strengthening the nation’s traditional
commitment to long-term basic research [by...] Increasing
federal investment in research by 10% per year over the
next seven years [...]
o “Best and Brightest”—which addresses higher education.
o “Incentives for Innovation”—in which we address the
innovation environment itself.
priorities, in order: education K-12, research, higher
education, immigration, taxes
APS post presidential talk 2
2
APS, Physics: Aspirations and Goals
Leo Kadanoff
University of Chicago
e-mail LeoP@UChicago.edu
abstract
I discuss the decline of support for physics and possible
strategies for arresting that decline or turning it around
APS post presidential talk 3
3
Status
At a cocktail party, the President of my University asked me about
how I felt about Physics’ decline in public prestige. This was to some
extent a putdown. He is an economist. Then and now economists had
risen to the top of my university’s status tree because of their
important impact on the economy. They had replaced physical
scientists in perches on the topmost limbs.
APS post presidential talk 4
4
Looking Back; looking down
Looking down from the top is jolly good fun. In
1960, the first year of my postdoc, I worked in
Copenhagen at the Bohr Institute for Theoretical
Physics. That in itself was exciting. Nobody in my
family had crossed the ocean in a civilian role since
my mother’s steerage passage in 1911. The best
indication of the institute’s status was what
happened when the Bolshoi Ballet came to town.
As the highest cultural institution in the USSR they
could only meet with ... us! So the often shy and
awkward physicists came to dance with the
ballerinas. Those graceful creatures moved under
the watchful eyes of heavy-set women who
worked, no doubt, for the Russian analog of
intelligence or security agencies. Promptly at 11:15
the watchers clapped their hands, the Bolshoi left.
We we left behind, much impressed by our own
APS post presidential talk 5
5At the top
Soon thereafter, I had become an assistant
professor and went to my first scientific meeting.
It was in a very nice Italian town, Ravello, just
South of Naples high above the Amalfi Drive. We
saw a movie company settled in our hotel who
were in the process of constructing an awful
movie. Like the Bolshoi the movie people thought
that we could share their status at the top. They
drew us into their circle by asking us what we
thought of the perpetual motion machine (first
kind) that one of them (Ronald Colman) had Ronald Colman and Shelley Winters
invented. We were indeed pleased and flattered,
most especially by their almost first-hand gossip
about their social world, including things about the
sex life of Bertrand Russell.
APS post presidential talk 6
6Back to the cocktail party
A little after that I attended the cocktail party in
which my University President jabbed at me with the
fact that Physics had fallen off its pedestal. “How did
I feel about our no longer being in intellectual ‘high
society’?” “Just fine” I said, “it gives us more time
to work on the really worthwhile thing, physics”*.
* I’m not quite sure I really said that.
Memory is often flattering
APS post presidential talk 7
7A Golden (or maybe Silver) Age
Physics and physicists started the period after World War II with a
great public reputation produced by the world shattering work of
Einstein, of the inventors of quantum mechanics, and of the developers
of nuclear weapons. (Radar, codes, computers, and operations research
counted too.) We helped invent new industries. We offered advice at
the highest levels of government.
At the height of this period, support for physics came from the great
bomb laboratories Los Alamos, Livermore, and Sandia and civilian labs
set up to support scientific or technical work (Oak Ridge, Argonne,
Brookhaven, Bureau of Standards). Parallel support came in the form of
excellent industrial labs with major components of both basic and
applied work(e.g. Bell, GE, IBM, and various oil companies. Monetary
support came from a myriad of military agencies (Navy, Army, Air Force,
DARPA ) and civilian ones (NSF, AEC (becoming Department of Energy),
Department of Commerce, NASA). Our work was kept going by the
invention of the laser, maser, and transistor and then by the large
response to Sputnik. But then things started falling apart.
APS post presidential talk 8
8Decline
Our mutually supportive arrangement with the military fell away when
we physicists did not fully support the Vietnam war. The river of military
money became a stream.
U.S. industrial labs also started to disappear. In general, with Bell and
IBM being major exceptions, industrial labs often seem to have a roughly
seven year lifetime. They would then close and be replaced by new labs.
This process worked just fine until, over the past twenty years in the
U.S. the replacement labs stopped coming, perhaps because investors
began to demand a better short-term return. Overall, our industrial
research showed a gradual decline over a long period punctuated by the
abrupt decline of Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, and Exxon’s big central research
facility. From the perspective of U.S. scientists, it was particularly
discouraging to see firms building new labs abroad at the same time as
their labs at home were shrinking.
With the decline of industrial support, more than half the financial
base for U.S. physics disappeared. This loss seemed to be little noticed,
except by the people directly concerned.
APS post presidential talk 9
9The Army retreats from basic research
I recently attended an Army Research Office
(ARO) conference intended to celebrate 50
years of the ARO’s accomplishments. They
gloried in their past support for basic
research, including most impressively the
development of the atomic physics which made
possible the global positioning satellite system.
They also pointed out that future
accomplishments would be very different from
past ones. No more basic research. Instead
they wanted work on the immediate problems
posed by the redesign of they army based upon
much more intense firepower. They
mentioned, for example, the design of better
cloth for parachutes.
Daniel Kleppner
APS post presidential talk 10
10Disaster after disaster
In the midst of the U.S. industrial lab decline, high
energy physics was struck by its own very
significant disaster: the failure of the
superconducting super collider (SSC) project in
1993. This Texas machine would have kept the
center of particle physics in the US for a
substantial time. One of the reasons for this
failure is that we could not set up any scheme for
international collaboration on this work. Our
governmental could or would not make meaningful
long-term promises. So there were no long-term
international agreements to anchor the project
when it ran into cost problems and badmouthing
from a major portion of the scientific community.
APS post presidential talk 11
11APS contribution
APS did nothing whatsoever on several of these important setbacks for
the profession. The APS web page lists the policy statements of the
APS Council, which are the only statements one can ascribe to APS.
Nothing on the SSC on these pages*. Nothing on the closure of
industrial labs. Nothing on the flight of industrial labs abroad.
This lack is not surprising. The APS could do little on the SSC because
its members were not in sufficient agreement to back any specific
action. The two industrial lab/workforce issues were in the same
position. The companies wanted to close labs to increase short-term
profit. They wanted to move labs abroad to increase long-term profits.
APS had a lot of support from the corporations involved. But many of
the people who would find diminished jobs opportunities or diminished
wages were our members.
APS kept silent
* Correction after the talk was given. There are more Council
statements than are listed on the web pages, One of these does refer
to the SSC.
APS post presidential talk 12
12An attempt to reinvigorate science
"Science in the National Interest" is a policy document,
released on August 3, 1994, that details the Clinton
Administration's commitment to Fundamental Science.
This program sets five main goals for U.S. Science
Policy:
* Maintain leadership across the frontiers of scientific
knowledge
* Enhance connections between fundamental research
and national goals
* Stimulate partnerships that promote investments in
fundamental science and engineering and effective use
of physical, human, and financial resources
* Produce the finest scientists and engineers for the
twenty-first century
* Raise the scientific and technological literacy of all
Americans
APS post presidential talk 13
13[...]
APS responds, 1994:
"Science in the National Interest" recognizes that long-term investments
in education, research, and in the scientific infrastructure are essential
for the nation's well being in the 21st century. It assesses the balance
between research directed toward the immediate needs of society and
long- range fundamental research aimed at a better understanding of
Nature. The new policy not only recognizes the need to invest in the
training of tomorrow's scientists but also in the scientific education of
the general public. It also recognizes the need for more effective
coupling of the universities with industry.
The American Physical Society's 43,000 members serve the nation by
conducting research in industry, university and government laboratories
and training the next generation of physicists.* We welcome the
Administration's challenge to the scientific community to advance the
scientific frontiers and simultaneously to participate more vigorously in
addressing broad societal needs, particularly improvements in science
education and in the diversity of the scientific workforce. We look
forward to working with the Administration and with Congress to
translate this policy into new programs.”
* Note the peculiarly narrow view of what physicists do to serve the nation.
APS post presidential talk 14
14After that, business as usual
After some noise by the Clinton administration, APS, and others,
rather little happened. The decline of American high tech facilities
continued.
APS post presidential talk 15
15The world is flat; we are sliding off
That’s ancient history. Let’s jump to more recent events. After a long
dry period for the physical sciences, about three years ago various
industrial leaders including Norman Augustine, former head of Lockheed,
and Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel, again began to lobby
intensively for better federal support for the physical sciences. As I see
it, this effort was in large measure a response to the flight of high tech
facilities to places like Ireland and India and China. Some of our leading
firms were moving these facilities abroad at a great pace. Apparently
one main purpose of the moves was to allow to allow the factories and
labs to operate more economically by obtaining a better educated and
cheaper workforce. Another purpose for building abroad is that these
facilities do serve an an advertisement for the firms in their growing
markets.
The flight is a scary symptom of some sort of US decline.
Response:
APS post presidential talk 16
16“Rising above the Gathering Storm”
Both industrial leaders and the scientific leaders working with them felt
it was imperative to arrest this decline. They sought to do this by (in
their priority ordering)
1. seeking a better educated U.S. workforce and
2. by asking for more government support for physical sciences research
in the US.
3. by asking for priority immigration quotas for high tech people
4. by seeking tax breaks for industrial research
They put together these goals in a report “Rising above the Gathering
Storm” which advocated for these subjects as an aid to US industrial
productivity, innovation, and competitiveness.
APS post presidential talk 17
17APS joins the team
Long before “The gathering storm..”, APS had acquired a
lobbying staff and learned some of the lessons of classical
lobbying: You need a large and rich team to accomplish things.
APS decided to hitch its wagon to the larger movement, later
represented by the “gathering storm” and set out to lobby
Congress and the White House
As we have seen the larger movement worked for
1. better education in schools
2. financial support of useful research in physical sciences
3. support for higher education
4. more immigration for high tech workers
5. lower taxes on high tech in industry
APS post presidential talk 18
18Lobbying Goals
As we have seen the larger movement worked for
1. better education in schools
2. financial support of useful research in physical sciences
3. support for higher education
4. more immigration for high tech workers
5. lower taxes on high tech in industry
APS mostly advocated for
1.
2. financial support of research in physical sciences
3.
4.
5.
APS post presidential talk 19
192007: A good year foreseen
Last year, 2007, started out as a very good year for both the
American Physical Society and American Physics. The previous year had
brought broad support to the ideas of “Rising Above...” Early in the
year, authorization bills had been passed, which would, if converted into
action, support both research and education as suggested in “Rising
Above...”. These bills got support from the White House, both Houses
of Congress, and both Democrats and Republicans. All that was needed
was an appropriation which would convert the plans into reality. We
continued to press for our goals
APS post presidential talk 20
20Worries
One might be able to see on the horizon clouds, no larger than a man’s
hand, which could potentially mar this fine picture. First cloud: talk
about the previous two appropriation bills had promised great leaps in
physical science funding, and in both cases the leaps has disappeared at
the last moment. Second cloud: the push toward new research funding
was based upon the premise that short-run business competitiveness or
creativity could be based upon a fertile research establishment. A
buzzing of business opinion, for example in the Economist magazine, put
forward the contrary premise that the important factor in corporate
innovation was the creative push of business managers. Third cloud:
although the support for increasing research and education was very
broad, it was also very shallow. The same generation of businesses
leaders who were now pushing federal support of research had
previously rejected supporting research within the own organizations.
What would happen when push came to shove?
APS post presidential talk 21
21Out in the Rain
All through the year, APS’ lobbyists kept pushing congress on the
numbers in the various bills that were intended to support research. In
this way, APS worked to ensure that physics got the full dose, or more,
of the moneys which had been quasi-promised in the authorization
process. We kept our eyes on the research money, only on that money.
Well push did come to shove. Toward the end of the appropriations
process there was a $20 billion difference between congressional bills
and presidential statements. The president threatened a veto over that
$20 billion. The people in congress, our supporters and our critics,
agreed to a final bill half way between the President’s number and
Congress’. In that compromise, almost all increases for physical
sciences were eliminated.
Now we are in a tight spot. We were speaking out for doubling the
research spending of three federal agencies: DOE, NSF, NIST. Almost all
the momentum has fallen out of this process. In contrast, in the next
months, the nation is planning to spend more than $400 billion over
budget to make up for some errors of greedy moneylenders. As far as I
can see, our more modest numbers have been drowned in that ocean of
money.
APS post presidential talk 22
22Back to Basics
In my view, we have to go back to the beginning and concoct a new long-
range plan. To do this we have to recognize that “Rising above the
Gathering Storm” and associated efforts are in large measure based upon
workforce worries, and only secondarily based on the relative decline in
the U.S.’s research effectiveness. The workforce could be improved by
better education. In our advocacy, we can probably do better by making
education and research equally the goals of the APS. If we argue and work
for research, but not education, we will appear to be crass and selfish.
The APS, its members, and physicists in general should, I believe, follow
the mandate of the APS Council which tells us that
“A strong educational program in Science and Mathematics is
crucial for our national well-being. [...] Science literacy for all
citizens is necessary to ensure full participation in the society of
the future.” (1983)
APS post presidential talk 23
23Urges, I
I would urge APS’ lobbyists to spend as much time on educational
issues as upon research budgeting. APS’ concerns should include
• graduate education: admissions, teaching methods, workforce
implications
• for undergraduates: student numbers, teaching methods, and
occupational goals
• for K-12: teachers’ quality, teachers’ training, and educational goals
• for all: science literacy.
This should be backed by APS study and assessment of policy issues in
all of these areas.
In addition, our lobbyists should spend a an increased proportion of their
time on publicizing and advocating the public policy positions taken by
APS and its policy experts POPA and PPC.
In particular, APS should take a much larger role in
asking for better training of teachers
APS post presidential talk 24
24Urges II
I would urge the richer of the physicists institutions-- Stanford,
Princeton, Chicago, Livermore, etc.-- to devote a small percentage* of
their great resources to the enhancement of the education around
them. I would urge them to do some of this enhancement by freeing
the time of concerned staff members to lead and participate in
programs enhancing the education of children, not only nationwide, but
in their own communities.
*two percent of their endowment, plus monies donated for that purpose
seems about right to me, and to others
In particular, they should take a much larger role in the
training of teachers
APS post presidential talk 25
25More urges
I would urge the richer of the associations of physicists (AIP, APS,
AAAS, etc.) to do likewise: to budget and organize their staff time and
their own monies so that they can make a real contribution to
education. We should more fully participate in organizing programs
designed to enhance American schools and American children. We
should do this by sponsoring programs with nationwide impact and also
by participating in programs which work directly with the schools and
children in own own neighborhoods in Maryland and Washington. We
could do this, as I see it, by freeing a small proportion of our staff time
for such purposes and by adding this activity to our regular annual
budgets.*
*two percent of our savings each year, plus monies donated for that
purpose seems about right to me, and to others
Specifically, APS should take a much larger role in the
training of teachers
APS post presidential talk 26
26Un-urges (inhibitions)
no APS advocacy for increased numbers of technical immigrants
without an APS study and discussion of negative impacts upon
the present workforce here and abroad
no APS advocacy for increased numbers of PhD’s and physics
majors’s without a study and discussion of negative impacts upon
present workforces
no APS advocacy for increased tax credits or deductions without
a study and discussion of effects of reduced taxation upon
research support
APS post presidential talk 27
27Gates’ focus: education and workforce
development
still come first
WASHINGTON — March 12, 2008 — Microsoft Corp. Chairman
Bill Gates will testify before the U.S. House
Committee on Science and Technology today at 10 a.m.
EDT on the future of innovation and U.S.
competitiveness. At a hearing to commemorate the
committee’s 50th anniversary, Gates will focus on
issues of U.S. competitiveness, including education
and work-force development, the need for immigration
reform to allow highly skilled workers to remain in
the U.S, and the need to continue to invest in basic
research.
APS post presidential talk 28
28For us physicists: why support education?
• It is a major part of our everyday business
• A more educated workforce and citizenry is needed
everywhere
• It provides foci for new research efforts
• It provides exciting opportunities for those of us who want to
be part of it
• Having some of us making contributions will relieve the
pressure for all of us to produce a “broad impact” as the
immediate product of our research endeavors.
• Reaching out to parents, teachers, and industrialists will give us
new and better allies for our lobbying efforts
• Work on education will help bring us into the worlds beyond
our own labs, and help us to better serve our classrooms.
APS post presidential talk 29
29You can also read
