Science has no borders

I agree with the many points made by Scrawed. In fact, the situation is, if anything, even more dire than he portrays.

The notion that engineering and science should be promoted flies in the face of social and economic realities. Due to the mass exportation of technical jobs, as well as the mass importation of H1 Visa workers, it is foolhardy to encourage American students to pursue such careers. Better to major in something else.

Of course, if a student wants to study engineering and science for the love of it, well, that is how it should be. I mean, people decide to major in art, for example, without the benefit of government programs and, frankly, much in the way of job prospects, relatively speaking.

However, with the current, almost irreversible, trend toward outsourcing and insourcing of technical jobs, there is little point of pretending that these are viable careers.

But, I agree that it is the ultimate slap in the face to have these national organizations essentially funding those who are taking away the jobs.

One last thought on the matter. If outsourcing/insourcing technical jobs is such a good idea, then let us do the same with lawyers and politicians. Let us flood the market with foreign lawyers and politcians. Hey, at least then we might get national healthcare.

JoeC, at 7:00 am EDT on July 16, 2008

Collborative science is what makes boundaries obsolete

“Scrawed” and “Joe” can’t see beyond the ends of their noses. Collaboration is precisely what is needed to assure that jobs come bsck the other way. It can’t happen if money is thrown at American youngsters and their teachers if they have little interest or knowledge of science, math and technology. We need skilled scientists and technologists in and in the marketplace to serve as role models and stimulate science and technology without borders. America’s competitive posture depends on the unfettered pursuit of collaboration in evey field of endeavor, and the same is true for other nations whether they are our ideological bed partners or not.It is time to wake up!

Skip

Skip, at 10:35 am EDT on July 16, 2008

“Skip” at least may not have understood the gist of my earlier comment. The problem is not whether collaboration in the abstract is a good idea. The problem is that the merits of the framework and concrete details of that collaboration have to be considered objectively, and that the right of refusal is not strictly honored by its absence. In most circumstances this is considered sound practice.

The AAAS is using existing solutions to promote the same lopsided “collaboration” that’s already in existence. The existing framework has ensured that education, tech and IP transfer to China, and US citizens pay for that transfer. I would further contend that the US is gaining little other than an increasingly disrupted economy.

What exactly is the AAAS proposing? Calvin would like to see “...a granting entity jointly funded by the Chinese and U.S. governments [that] could promote scholarly collaboration,” going on to say “that he wouldn’t want to dilute existing research funds available through the National Science Foundation.” Sounds like the first proposal is institutional redundancy expanding on pre-existing NSF funds — requiring additional government expense — and at cost to US taxpayers and opportunities for both US citizen academics and professionals.

Calvin goes on to note two challenges — “the difficulty of coordinating research when partners have different governmental agencies to ask of and answer to, and, at least in the U.S. government’s case, the legal limitations on funding foreign collaborators.” This could have been phoned in — it is the same contention that has been used over the last decade to expand access to the US — that the US, currently the most open and unrestricted nation on the planet with respect to R & D and international collaboration, immigration, and education — is somehow too restrictive! The answer is apparently to reduce government oversight — already documentably poor when it comes to skill-based immigration and international education issues — and reduce thought-out restrictions on funding for “foreign collaborators” — Calvin’s phrase, not mine. There is no mention of developing reciprocal US talent either in sciences or language — or even developing American citizen talent with the skill sets necessary to administer and oversee such exchanges, which is probably one reason why “after three conferences we’re still at the same phase.”

Why has there not been any discussion of *this* “culturally sensitive” issue, which certainly should be a consideration in this debate? The US in aggregate is MAD to suppose that this has not had an enduring and steeply damaging impact on US graduate and undergraduate education in the sciences and engineering. I provide two articles — one from the PRC and one from the US engineering establishment:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-03/15/content_536719.htm

http://www.prism-magazine.org/nov06/feature_plagiarism.cfm

Leshner’s statement (“Although we do agree with the view that U.S. taxpayer funds should be used primarily to support American science, there are instances, such as in international science development activities, where we believe this limitation can impede the ability of the programs to achieve their goals”) is disingenuous as US taxpayer dollars are already flowing in incredible amounts to fund these activities through multiple channels — and has been for a long time.

As a Chinese-speaking US citizen with an engineering background, I wish I could come down on the side of the AAAS on this ideal of international collaboration. However, the realities of having been on the US side of these “collaborations” have led me to realize that this is less about international collaboration and more about socio-economic engineering that at root is both racist and discriminatory. Consider Skip’s statement “it can’t happen if money is thrown at American youngsters and their teachers if they have little interest or knowledge of science, math and technology.” Is it accurate? Is it fair? Is it just? These “collaborations” as presently constructed will prove to have been incredibly short-sighted and steeply damaging for US competitiveness. Skip claims that “collaboration is precisely what is needed to assure that jobs come bsck (sic) the other way,” but the fact is the jobs in question are fleeing our shores for good. They are not coming back. In addition we are losing the competencies and the communities needed to sustain their industries’ existence here.

Scrawed, at 8:05 pm EDT on July 17, 2008