The U.S. Is Not Making A Big Enough Investment In Its Own Scientific Future

Since the inception in California of the science-technology domain now known as “biotechnology,” the United States has been its leader internationally. Indeed, the U.S. is a major force—if not the major force—in most bioscience activity around the globe. A 1987 National Science Foundation study of 3,500 journals published worldwide found that the U.S. was the source of 20,000 of some 51,000 articles in molecular biology, pharmacology, immunology, cardiovascular research

Martin Apple
Oct 15, 1989

Since the inception in California of the science-technology domain now known as “biotechnology,” the United States has been its leader internationally. Indeed, the U.S. is a major force—if not the major force—in most bioscience activity around the globe. A 1987 National Science Foundation study of 3,500 journals published worldwide found that the U.S. was the source of 20,000 of some 51,000 articles in molecular biology, pharmacology, immunology, cardiovascular research, and agricultural sciences.

However, this dominance can drop dramatically in the next decade, and only partially for reasons of increasing capability among other nations. Much more significant, the U.S. has not invested adequately in its own scientific future. For example, more than 60% of U.S. high school math teachers have not taken a college level course in applications of math to problem solving. A fourth have not taken a college-level course involving probability and statistics. One seventh have not even taken...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?