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.

    31/176 page 27
    fields within that set largely at the expense of other fields in that se. We have never made any claim about the stability of participation rates in engineering taken by itself. Figure 2 is a saw man (indeed replicates part of a PRA figure which shows the more aggregated NS&E participa- tion rates as well, demonstrating the variation in stability noted above). e Fechter claims that we fail to acknowledge the uncertainty of our projections, p. 18. To the contrary, we stated clearly that this was an “if...then” analysis: if these historical relationships con- tinue, and without specific interventions, and before the market clears as we acknowledge it will, then these are the implications. On the very first page of our paper, we state: “The analyses in this paper have used trend projections [of] past relationships between variables only if these are stable in the sense that they have held for years, in a few cases, decades. All such assumptions about the persistence of past trends and relationships have been identified, and the analyses should be interpreted as conditonal on their continuation.” @ We should not be criticized for not acknowledging sources of supply other than new bache- lor's degree earners (p. 18), since we did not undertake to analyze the “supply” of NS&E per- sonnel. @ On page 19, Fechter points out that our degree projection may not be consistent with NSF and BLS estimates of the growth of the engineering work force. Again, the only appropriate comparison would be for NS&Es. That comparison would be interesting but the concepts being measured are so different, thus requiring a number of assumptions to infer a work force growth rate from a projection of bachelor’s degrees, that it would not provide a very powerful check on the projections. A better check of the projections is simply the actual number of bach- elor’s degrees in NS&E. For the 2 years of data that have come out recenuy, 1987 and 1988, the decline in the number of NS&E bachelor’s degrees has been almost as we projected. @ We agree with Fechter that “the relevant policy issue should be whether the expected equilib- rium mechanisms triggered to correct . . . imbalances will be consistent with national needs and more global social objectives” (p. 19). Our efforts were intended to stimulate discussion about the consequences of a potential downturn in NS&E degrees. e Fechter claims that failure to document uncertainties associated with the number can ulti- mate undermine the credibility of simulation modeling. But (1) the B.S. projections are not simulation modeling, and (2) our paper contains discussions of uncertainty. @ He also believes that “the integrity of those who associate themselves with the model’s find- ings” will be “seriously undermined”, “—especially if the specter of crisis implied by this model does not occur”. It is statements of this sort that, in addition to the misinterpretation of our paper itself, makes Dr. Fechter’s piece particularly difficult to treat as an even-handed critque. The questions with which Fechter concludes his argument are the right questions. Valid answers would better inform policymakers than our projection of historical relatonships. But they are very difficult questions, and Fechter has not helped answer them. Peter W. House, Director Division of Policy Research and Analysis National Science Foundation Editors’ Note: Peter House’s comments are based on a prepublication copy of the article by Alan Fechter that appears on pages 16-20 in this issue.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3