By JOHN RICHARD SCHROCK
The three Nobel Prizes in science have often been used as an indicator of a country’s strength in research and education. Superficial coverage of the recent awards would mistakenly declare the United States the winner in this “world cup” of science.
The Nobel Prize in chemistry was shared by John B. Goodenough at the University of Texas; M. Stanley Whittingham at the State University of New York at Binghamton, and Akira Yoshino at Meijo University in Japan, for their work on lithium-ion batteries.
The Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine was shared by Sir Peter Ratcliffe at Oxford University and the Francis Crick Institute in London, Gregg Semenza at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and William Kaelin Jr. at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard University in Massachusetts. They worked on how cells sense falling oxygen levels and respond by making new blood cells and vessels.
The Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded “for contributions to our understanding of the evolution of the universe and Earth’s place in the cosmos” with one half to James Peebles at Princeton University “for theoretical discoveries in physical cosmology” and the other half jointly to Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz”of the University of Geneva, Switzerland for the discovery of an exoplanet….”
So, five-out-of-nine appear to be Americans. To many world-watchers, that might confirm the superiority of the American educational system and the primacy of American research. They would be wrong. Gregg Semenza and William Kaelin were born and educated in America. Goodenough was German-born but American educated. Over these last decades, many awardees conducted research in America but were born and educated elsewhere, as was the case with James Peebles who was educated in Canada, and British-born and educated M. Stanley Whittingham.
There appears to be a clear advantage to being a researcher who speaks several languages and has international experiences that allow viewing a problem from a broader viewpoint. In addition, these Nobel researchers spoke clearly of the importance of international cooperation and building on each other’s work. In addition, none of this was secret military research or corporate intellectual property. Their work was published in the open science literature where many readers worldwide could move forward with applications.
It is also important to recognize that Nobel Prizes are usually “wait-and-see” awards that have required time to establish that these earlier discoveries have actually resulted in major breakthroughs. The awards therefore reflect the science expertise of 20-to-40 years ago. Are the most brilliant researchers worldwide still flocking to the United States for state-of-the-art facilities?
Web of Science released a global research report during the 2019 G20 summit held in Osaka, Japan, in late June. U.S. science impact is now less than the U.K. across all disciplines and U.S. research “…output and impact are in decline and output per researcher has fallen below the G20 average.”
According to “Benchmarks 2019: Second Place America? Increasing Challenges to U.S. Scientific Leadership,” a report by the Task Force on American Innovation released in May 2019, the U.S. is rapidly dropping behind other developed countries. “Research intensity, or R&D expenditures relative to total GDP, is one standard metric used to assess a country’s level of innovative activity. As of 1995, the U.S. ranked fourth on this metric with total R&D expenditures at 2.4 percent of GDP, trailing Sweden, Japan, and Israel. As of 2016, the U.S. had slipped to tenth…. Countries that have now surpassed the U.S. over this time period include Korea, Denmark, Taiwan, Austria, Germany, and Finland.”
The report continues. In the U.S., “Foreign-born scientists accounted for almost 41 percent of the master’s degree holders and nearly 37 percent of doctorate holders working in S&E occupations in 2015. Many of these foreign-born individuals are from Asia. In 2013, it was found that foreign-born individuals accounted for 18 percent of the U.S. S&E workforce, with 57 percent of foreign-born scientists and engineers within the United States originating from Asia and 16 percent originating from Europe.” Our educational system is not meeting our need for scientists.
The Institute of International Education’s 2018 Open Door Report reported “a decline in new international student enrollment by a total 6.6 percent in Fall 2017 when compared to the previous year. The exclusion of foreign talent at universities negatively impacts U.S. industry.” The IIE continues: “Survey respondents list visa application process issues or visa delays/denials as the top reason for Fall 2017 drops in new enrollment. The percentage of institutions citing this issue grew from 33.8 percent in Fall 2016 to 68.4 percent in Fall 2017.”
The current U.S. administration’s false accusations that foreign students—especially those from China—are responsible for stealing American prosperity is having an effect. A just-released survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found: “Six in ten Republicans (63%) favor restricting the exchange of scientific research between the United States and China, a move most Democrats oppose (56%) while Independents are divided. A majority of Republicans (57%) also favor limiting the number of Chinese students studying in the United States, which majorities of Democrats (65%) and Independents (60%) oppose.”
Nearly all university research is published in journals, open to the world community.
These recent Nobel Prizes echo Louis Pasteur’s famous pronouncement: “Science knows no country, because knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world.” As the U.S. continues to deepen its isolationism, it is passing the torch of science to an array of other countries.
John Richard Schrock has trained biology teachers for more than 30 years in Kansas. He also has lectured at 27 universities in 20 trips to China. He holds the distinction of “Faculty Emeritus” at Emporia State University.