. . . But The Figures Can Exaggerate Our Anxiety

Although Richard Atkinson makes an eloquent appeal for increasing the flow of individuals into science and engineering, his basic argument is flawed. He states that "a fortuitous coincidence between an available college-age population and an expanding financial base for science and technology" combined to fuel the three major surges in college enrollments, and in turn, the production of scientists and engineers during this century. Isn't it interesting that this growth and interest in science is "fortuitous," yet later on in his analysis, statistics are used to "predict" supply and demand to the year 2010! Was it a coincidence that over the last five years - a period in which the stock market reached new highs - there was a huge surge in the number of graduate students in business administration and finance programs? I would argue that chance played no role in this increase. Rather, there was a clear recognition of a strong market for business and investment professionals coupled with substantial salaries (particularly in Wall Street banking). This year, by contrast, following the demise of junk bonds, the fall of Drexel Burnham and an overall downturn in the market, business schools report fewer students enrolling in Master of Business Administration programs. I am unaware of any "statistics" that could have predicted either of these trends a decade ago. This is because market forces - and only market forces - prompted both the expansion and contraction in the number of students entering business. In the final analysis, it is the marketplace that is the only determining factor in the growth and/or decline of any profession, business, or, in fact, nation. Thus, statistics cannot accurately predict a shortage of scientists. There also is a correlation greater than "a fortuitous coincidence" between the supply and demand for scientists. Factors that figure prominently in this correlation are salaries offered, availability of jobs in science and engineering, and the stability and prestige associated with those jobs. The decline in students majoring in the sciences is a direct function of poor job opportunities, salaries that are not competitive with other professions, and the large number of cutbacks at many firms, especially those in the pharmaceutical and speciality chemical industries. But once again, the major determining factor clearly is salaries and job availability. A recent unofficial survey of my 1965 Ph.D. chemistry class from Rutgers University has shown that in the last 25 years at least 70 percent of my colleagues have lost their jobs at least once and sometimes twice. Some have left chemistry altogether after they could not obtain employment over a one- to two-year period - and these are professionals with solid publication credentials, impressive patent histories, and impeccable work references. My son, who at age 27 has an undergraduate business degree, now earns as much as most technical department heads twice his age. To argue that the excitement and "fun" of science should, by itself, be enough to attract and motivate students into science and engineering is rather naive. I wonder what would happen if the salaries of physicians were suddenly cut in half? I wonder how many students would continue to rush into medicine, despite its humanitarian appeal. I note with interest that, in general, none of the studies that I've seen concerning the scientist shortage address what I consider one of the most distressing problems that exists today in the scientific and technical arena; namely, the large number of individuals with less than 10 and 15 years of experience who are either unemployed or underemployed. Most employment advertisements for scientists as well as studies about them address mainly those professionals with fewer than 10 years of experience and, in most cases, less than five years of experience. My guess is that any technical shortages are - and will be - isolated to the under-35 age group if any "shortage" does in fact occur. Why don't companies and universities seek out well-experienced, available individuals? The answer is obvious: They want cheap labor. There is no shortage and there never will be - for very long - because economic cycles will quickly shift the equilibrium. The fact that not too many American-born students enter science is, in my opinion, based mainly on economic considerations; compensation and other factors have not made science attractive. As chemist Christopher Cramer pointed out in a recent letter to Chemical and Engineering News (68:5, 1990), "the reality is that prescribing a drug, marketing it, and protecting its patent are still far more lucrative for the practitioner than making it." Greater government assistance and other such programs will only artificially and for a short time resolve the problem of decreased enrollment in the sciences. But the market will take its course. If and when academic and industrial scientific personnel are really needed, they will be there in abundance. Finally, relying on studies and statistics to predict a shortage of scientists is a mistake. Several years ago, property at the New Jersey shore was increasing in value by 20 to 30 percent per year. If one performed the same type of statistical studies done by those Atkinson cites in his essay, the market value of the average home would now be $500,000 to $600,000. But as we all know, the housing market has collapsed. Why didn't statistics predict this fall? Because economic cycles - not statistics - drive all aspects of the economy. Ten years from now we may be able to determine if that housing falloff was a correction in a long-term trend or the beginning of a new cycle. But for now, we cannot predict in advance shortages of technical individuals any more than we can predict the value of real estate. To prepare ourselves for the scientist "shortages" of the next decade clearly makes as much sense as using a statistical correlation chart to decide whether or not to buy property. Chemist Morton S. Lefar is vice president of Epolin Inc., a specialty chemical company in Newark, N.J., and adjunct professor of entrepreneurship at Fairleigh Dickinson University in Rutherford, N.J.

. . . But The Figures Can Exaggerate Our Anxiety

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of