Scientific manpower : hearing before the Subcommittee on Science of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, first session, July 31, 1991.

  • United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Subcommittee on Science
Date:
1991
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Scientific manpower : hearing before the Subcommittee on Science of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, first session, July 31, 1991. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    11/176 page 7
    Mr. BoucHEr. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Gitcurest. No comments, Mr. Chairman, I’m just looking forward to the testimony. Mr. BoucHeEr. We will now welcome our first panel of witnesses: Dr. Alan E. Fechter, the Executive Director of the Office of Scien- tific and Engineering Personnel for the National Research Council; Dr. Robert C. Dauffenbach, Director for the Center for Economic and Management Research of the University of Oklahoma; and Mr. Richard Ellis, the Director of Manpower Studies for the American Association of Engineering Societies. Without objection the prepared statement of each of the wit- nesses will be made a part of the record. We would welcome your oral summaries and would ask that you keep your oral summaries to five minutes so that we’ll have ample time for questions. And Dr. Fechter, we will be pleased to begin with you. STATEMENT OF ALAN E. FECHTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING PERSONNEL, NA- TIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Dr. FECHTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I first want to express my appreciation for your invitation to come here and share my thoughts on this thorny issue of projec- tions of supply and demand with you. I also want to reiterate what I said in my formal statement. I’m here as a kind of a past modeler and student of labor markets and not in my capacity as the execu- tive director of National Research Council’s Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel. And so the remarks I make and my views are those of my own and do not reflect those of the Research Coun- cil or its parent bodies, the Academies of Science or Engineering or the Institute of Medicine. With those formalities past, let me get down to the nitty gritty of the topic. I’d like to devote my five minutes to try to stress and underscore several points I made in my paper. Let me start with what I call the four questions that ! thought I was being asked to address. ; The first question was, how much confidence do I place in the existing models of supply and demand that project the future? The second question is, what are the value of these kinds of efforts and, in effect the question, should we do these things at all? And if we do, how should we do them? The third question dealt with whether demography is destiny. That is to say, to what extent are demo- graphic factors predominant with respect to these projections and is it valid to assume such predomination on the part of such demo- graphic factors. And finally, what actions might one take to do a better job with respect to these efforts in the future. Let me start with confidence. I would cite two reasons for lack of confidence in the existing models. One of these is the model—the structure of the models themselves. And what I mean by that is, do the models assume any kind of mechanism in the labor market to equilibrate disparities that might arise between supply demand? Some models do and some models don’t. One of the models that
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3