Defense

demand, a situation largely caused by the collapse of the dot.com

bubble, softness in the overall economy in recent years, and a

trend toward off-shore outsourcing of such work. The basic problem that we face lies in understanding the trends and their implications for the future. It is important to gain this understanding

soon because of the long delays involved in building a workforce

with the required skills to replace the scientists and engineers of

the baby-boom generation, who are retiring just as the needs of

national defense and homeland security are increasing.

In some important fields, the United States faces a potential

S&E shortfall, while our foreign competitors are significantly

increasing production of S&Es, and foreign graduate students are

earning a significant percentage of the technical degrees granted

by American universities.1 (table 1.) Especially noteworthy is

increasing home-grown technical capability in Asia, which is exemplified by the rapid growth in the number of students receiving

S&E doctorates from Asian institutions. Moreover, the fact that

other nations are acquiring high-end innovation capabilities by

building up their sophisticated science and technology (S&T)

infrastructures and capabilities signifies growing global competition for scientific and engineering talent. This trend raises a question whether the United States can over the long term rely on an

international S&E labor force to satisfy its needs.2

Overview

Trends in the American science and engineering (S&E) workforce and national research and development (R&D) funding patterns and priorities have troubling implications for the economic

and national security of our nation. Especially worrisome are:

■ A general lack of interest among American-born youth,

especially women and minorities, in pursuing education in the

physical sciences, mathematics, environmental sciences, and

engineering at the undergraduate and graduate levels;

■ A rapidly accelerating accumulation of intellectual capital,

including an educated S&E workforce, in China, India, Japan,

South Korea, and Taiwan;

■ A long-term decline in the overall Federal investment in

R&D as a percentage of gross domestic product, especially among

the physical sciences and engineering; and

■ Reduced Department of Defense funding for research

throughout the 1990s, a trend that has exacerbated the general

decline in the physical sciences and engineering, despite the

importance of these fields to the development of new military

capabilities.

There is no crisis today. Indeed, in several areas, such as

computer science, the number of computer programmers exceeds

The Science and Engineering

Workforce and National Security

by Michael L. Marshall, Timothy Coffey, Fred E. Saalfeld, and Rita R. Colwell

A publication of the

Center for Technology and National Security Policy

National Defense University

APRIL 2004

Number 39

Horizons

April 2004 Defense Horizons 1

Table 1. Foreign Graduate Student Enrollment in the United States by S&E field

Natural Sciences, Including Mathematics and Social and

Total S&E Physical Sciences Computer Sciences Behavioral Sciences Engineering

All Students 411,308 114,127 58,814 136,899 101,468

Foreign Students 109,904 27,442 23,077 17,968 41,417

Percent Foreign 26.7 24.0 39.2 13.1 40.8

Source: National Science Board, Indicators 2002, Appendix Table 2–38
National research and development (R&D) funding patterns

and priorities, particularly the declining DOD investment in the physical sciences and engineering, raise especially important national

security issues. These reductions have exacerbated the general

decline in the physical and mathematical sciences and engineering,

even as defense remains heavily dependent on the application of

these fields.

Cross-disciplinary sciences and enabling technologies are growing. Yet, they too are affected by declining funding for the physical

sciences and engineering that underpin them. As just one indicator,

the U.S. fraction of the world’s physics publications is declining.3

More specifically, data compiled by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) suggest both a small absolute decline in U.S. physics

articles and a noticeable decline in the U.S. world share of physics

papers. (Table 2.) The citation impact of U.S. physics papers has

remained relatively constant, despite the decline in world share.

(Table 3.) There is some concern about how long the relatively high

impact of U.S. publications can continue given the buildup of the foreign science and engineering (S&E) communities overseas. Furthermore, it is known that the Federal research investment is

strongly linked to the U.S. patent portfolio.4 As other nations catch

up, these trends suggest that it will be more difficult for the United

States to remain dominant in science and technology (S&T), which

raises serious questions about our long-term economic and military

dominance in S&T. Failure to address these issues will challenge

America’s leadership in S&T and undermine future economic

strength, social stability, and national security.

Competitiveness and National Security

America has long enjoyed a level of prosperity rivaled by few

other countries in the world. This prosperity is linked closely to

American innovation—the ability to create new goods and services

in response to changing needs and the emergence of new technologies. Indeed, over the last few years, Americans have enjoyed and

benefited from a lifestyle made possible by a flood of new products

largely enabled by technological innovation in the electronics, materials, information, and health fields.

Sustaining this innovation requires an understanding of the

factors that contribute to it. The Council on Competitiveness, a consortium of industry, university, and labor leaders, has developed

quantitative measures of national competitiveness that use the following factors: the number of R&D personnel in the available workforce; total R&D investment; the percentage of R&D funded by private industry; the percentage of R&D performed by the university

sector; spending on higher education; the strength of intellectual

property protection, openness to international competition; and per

capita gross domestic product.5 The World Bank Group has developed a similar set of indicators of competitiveness,6 and the National

Science Foundation (NSF) has compiled voluminous data on the

subject.7 The important point underscored by these indicators is

2 Defense Horizons April 2004

Michael L. Marshall (marshall@utopia.nrl.navy.mil) is an assistant to the

Director of the Applied Research Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University.

He is currently supporting the Office of Naval Research and the Naval

Research Laboratory under an Interagency Personnel Assignment (IPA).

Dr.Timothy Coffey (coffeyt@ndu.edu) holds the Edison Chair of Science

in the Center for Technology and National Security Policy (CTNSP) at the

National Defense University, and is a senior research scientist at the University

of Maryland.

Dr. Fred E. Saalfeld was a CTNSP Distinguished Research Professor at the

time of writing.

Dr. Rita R. Colwell is a Distinguished University Professor at the

University of Maryland at College Park and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg

School of Public Health. At the time of writing she was Director of the

National Science Foundation.

Table 2. Publication of Physics Articles (in thousands) 1988–2001

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

U.S. 18.0 19.0 19.1 20.5 20.1 19.6 20.4 19.7 18.9 18.0 17.9 18.0 16.8 17.3

World 62.2 66.2 67.3 69.6 76.2 73.3 80.8 82.1 84.0 82.8 85.0 87.3 84.3 86.7

U.S. Share (%) 29.0 28.8 28.5 29.5 26.5 26.7 25.3 24.0 22.5 21.8 21.1 20.7 20.0 20.0

Source: Institute for Scientific Information

Table 3. Citation of Physics Articles 1982–2001

1992 1996 2001

World citation of U.S. physics literature 137,922 138,417 120,493

World citation of physics literature 312,889 363,230 390,296

U.S. Share (%) 44 38 30

Average number of citations of U.S. physics articles (published 2 years earlier) 7 7 7

Source: Institute for Scientific Information
that, for America to remain a prosperous and secure country, it

absolutely must maintain its technological leadership in the world. 

The issue of whether we have enough or the right kinds of S&Es

to maintain our current technological leadership is not without controversy. Some, using classic supply and demand models, suggest current market conditions do not support the view that there is a shortage.8 Others argue the data “paint a much more nuanced picture of the

emerging U.S. scientific workforce,” and that “some of the numbers

and trends about enrollments and degrees are at odds with the conventional wisdom, whereas others show a cyclical pattern with both

slumps and spurts.”9 It is clear that the conclusions reached depend upon the question

asked. DOD is dependent on the physical

sciences and engineering, where the data

show declines in both funding and production of S&Es. These particular trends are

masked when one focuses on the aggregate

funding of science but, nevertheless,

should be of serious concern to DOD.

Indeed, the U.S. Commission on National

Security for the 21st century—better

known as the Hart-Rudman Commission,

after its co-chairs, former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman—

drew the link between U.S. national security and the need for a strong

national effort in S&T, underpinned by a well-educated S&E workforce

and stated in stark terms: 

The harsh fact is that the U.S. need for the highest quality

human capital in science, mathematics, and engineering is

not being met... This [situation] is not merely of national

pride or international image. It is an issue of the utmost

importance to national security. In a knowledge-based

future, only an America that remains at the cutting edge of

S&T will sustain its current world leadership . . . Complacency with our current achievement of national wealth and

international power will put all of this at risk.10

The events of September 11, 2001, and the continuing aftermath dramatically underline the need for a powerful national S&T

effort, an imperative reflected by the recent establishment of a

Department of Homeland Security with a directorate for S&T.11 Without doubt, America’s economic progress depends on a continuing

supply of S&Es engaged in and funded across the spectrum, from

long-term basic research to product development and product

improvement. Without an adequate domestic S&E workforce, U.S.

industry will move R&D and production facilities to countries willing

and eager to provide it, with an inevitable loss of jobs in the United

States and a declining ability to compete in the world marketplace.

Economic forces will be ruthless in this regard. There will be no generosity of spirit in this fierce competition.

DOD has staked continuing American military dominance on

technological superiority rather than on maintaining large numbers

of people in the uniformed services capable of overwhelming future

adversaries, a strategy that is working well for now. What is missing,

April 2004 Defense Horizons 3

however, is a clearly stated recognition that our current military

dominance derives from S&T investments made in the 1950s through

the 1970s by DOD and other Federal agencies, such as NSF, the

Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA). For example, work on atomic clocks

enabled the development of the Global Positioning System, while

research in the chemistry of explosives allowed development of the

thermobaric bomb used recently in Afghanistan. Moreover, defense

capability that is just now entering service is based upon the S&T

investments of the 1980s and 1990s. There is some concern, however,

that “the focus of the current DOD S&T

program is primarily on incremental

improvements in current

capabilities... and does not place sufficient emphasis on innovative technology

initiatives leading to entirely new military

capabilities.”12 Robert Frosch, a former

Assistant Secretary of the Navy for R&D

and NASA administrator, has described

the current situation as akin to a farmer

who wishes only to harvest and not to

sow.13 In the long-term, this situation is

simply untenable. As other countries build their indigenous S&E

workforces and accompanying S&T infrastructure, if we do not build

our own, the balance inevitably will shift, thereby eroding or ending

our military advantage.

The Dwindling Pool of American S&Es

As the Council on Competitiveness has noted: “a well-educated

and technically-trained workforce is essential to a nation’s competitiveness in two ways. First, it enables a country to shift more of its

economic activity into higher technology and more productive activities that support higher wages. Second, an educated workforce is

necessary to retain domestic investment and attract multinational

investment.”14 Unfortunately, as the Hart-Rudman Commission

reported, the need for “the highest quality human capital in science,

mathematics, and engineering is not being met.”15

Even as this need goes unmet, current workforce trends portend even greater difficulties ahead. For one thing, given current

degree production levels, retirement behavior, and immigration,

growth of the S&E workforce will slow, and this trend could be exacerbated by lower levels of domestic degree production, immigration,

or declining stay rates of foreign-born students. This comes at a time

when the current workforce is graying; more than half of all S&Edegreed workers are age 40 or older. With the exception of those

working in relatively newer fields, such as computer sciences (in

which 56 percent of degree-holders are younger than age 40), most

S&Es in the workforce are between their late 30s and early 50s, with

the largest cohort being 40–44 years of age.16 Unless there is an

increase in degree production, the average age of S&Es will continue

to rise, even as retirements among this group increase dramatically

over the next 20 years as the baby-boom generation ages.

Given current trends, there may not be enough new graduates

to sustain the growth rate of the S&E workforce, because relatively

few young Americans are pursuing S&E degrees today. In fact, the

DOD is dependent on

the physical sciences

and engineering, where

the data show declines

in both funding and

production of S&Es
percentage of 24-year-old Americans with degrees in the natural

sciences and engineering generally has remained between 4 and 6

percent for several decades, even though more high school graduates are going to college. Many of America’s high-technology competitors in the world are doing better, including the United Kingdom, South Korea, Germany, Singapore, and Japan, which range

from 7 to over 9 percent.17 Furthermore, undergraduate engineering

enrollment in the United States declined by 7 percent between 1983

(the peak year) and 2001.18 A just-released ACT policy report,

“Maintaining a Strong Engineering Workforce,” found a drop in the

percentage of high school seniors planning to study engineering

from 9 percent in 1992 to 6 percent in

2002; a decrease in the percentage of

students interested in engineering

who had taken college preparatory

courses in high school; a drop in the

number of female ACT test takers

considering engineering careers; and

a gap between aspirations of

racial/ethnic minority test takers, as

indicated by expressed interest in

engineering, and their relevant preparation with more than basic

coursework.19

The graduate school picture is bleaker. NSF data show that,

from 1994 to 2001, the number of U.S. citizens and permanent visa

holders enrolling in graduate programs in the natural sciences and

engineering decreased, with the largest declines in mathematics/

statistics (25 percent), engineering (21 percent), physical sciences

(17 percent), and earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences (6 percent).20 The numbers were somewhat more encouraging in the life

sciences and computer science, which showed increases of 14 and

18 percent, respectively.21

The reasons why young Americans are rejecting careers in S&E

vary, but, according to a recent study, many of the nation’s best and

brightest are pursuing quicker and often more lucrative payoffs in the

private sector.22 Reasons cited include the prospect of low-paid

apprenticeships in S&E, training that requires a decade or more, and

constricted academic job opportunities after the arduous preparation

for an S&E career. According to the study, training and apprenticeship times in science can exceed 10 years, and compensation for

graduate students and postdoctoral appointees is modest for professionals, who often are in their mid-thirties.23 Probably most important, however, is that “prospects for autonomous research positions in

academe and related research intensive employment opportunities

that most would-be scientists aspire to at the end of their long road

are uncertain and increasingly slim.”24 The study also found science

majors increasingly leaving science after graduation, turning instead

to business and health professions; during this same period, master’s

degrees in business administration increased by nearly one-third,

with evidence that top S&E majors played a part in this growth.25

Recognizing the deterrent of unattractive stipend levels, the NSF has

doubled stipends for its graduate fellowships.

As serious as the overall situation is with regard to attracting

young American citizens to the study of S&E, it is even more so with

respect to women and minorities. The NSF data show that, in 1999,

although women made up 46 percent of the overall American workforce, they constituted only 24 percent of the scientific and engineering workforce.26 Furthermore, in

2000, the percentages of historically

underrepresented groups in scientific

and engineering occupations were

lower than the percentages of those

groups in the total college-educated

workforce: women were 48.6 percent

of the college-degreed workforce, but

only 24.7 percent of the S&E workforce; blacks were 7.4 percent of the

college-degreed workforce, but only 6.9 percent of the S&E workforce; and Hispanics were 4.3 percent of the college-degreed workforce, but only 3.2 percent of the S&E workforce.27 The good news is

that these percentages are more than double the shares of S&E occupations since 1980.

In 1999, women made up more than half of social scientists but

only 23 percent of physical scientists and 10 percent of engineers.28

Within engineering, women are15 percent of chemical and industrial

engineers but only 6 percent of aerospace, electrical, and mechanical engineers.29 In many occupational fields, women scientists have

a lower level of educational attainment than men: in the science

workforce as a whole, 16 percent of women and 20 percent of men

hold PhD degrees.30 These numbers vary considerably by discipline.

In biology, 26 percent of women and 40 percent of men hold doctoral

degrees. In chemistry, 14 percent of women and 27 percent of men

hold doctoral degrees.31 The difference is much less in engineering,

where about 5 percent of women and 6 percent of men have PhDs.32

Data also show that the age distributions of women compared

with men, and of minorities compared with the majority, are also

quite different. For example, women S&Es in the workforce are

younger, on average, than men; 50 percent of women and 36 percent

of men employed as S&Es in 1999 had received their degrees within

the previous 10 years.33 Because women and minorities have entered

S&E fields only recently, women and minority men generally are

younger and have fewer years of experience. This is important

4 Defense Horizons April 2003

Table 4. Foreign Doctorate Earners as Percent of Total Degrees Granted 2001 

Math/Computer Physical Sciences Engineering Total

Temporary 43 36 50 30

Temporary + Permanent 49 41 56 35

Source: NSF/Division of Science Resources Statistics

the study also found science

majors increasingly leaving

science after graduation,

turning instead to business

and health professions
because age and stage in career influence such employment-related

factors as salary, rank, tenure, and work activity.

Foreign Graduate Students and National

Security

While American students are rejecting graduate study in mathematics, engineering, and the physical sciences, the numbers of

international graduate students in these areas has increased in

recent years. As a result, more doctorates are awarded in engineering to international students than to domestic students.

According to NSF data, the number of new U.S. doctorates

earned by students on temporary visas rose from about 4,300 in 1986

to about 8,000 in 1991, a figure around which it has fluctuated for a

decade. Significantly, foreign students, both temporary and permanent visa holders, earn a larger proportion of degrees awarded at the

doctoral level than at any other degree level. (Table 4.)

During the period 1986–99, foreign students earned 120,000

doctoral degrees in S&E fields, with China being the top country of

origin of these foreign students. Almost 24,000 Chinese students

earned S&E doctoral degrees at universities in the United States

during this period.34

Regarding Asian students generally, it can be seen from figure

1 that the number receiving doctorates in S&E from Asian institutions is increasing, far surpassing the total number earned by Asian

students at U.S. universities. According to NSF data, universities in

five Asian countries now produce more engineering doctorates than

American universities, with China and Japan leading the way. The

Chinese emphasis on higher-education in S&E is consistent with an

S&E workforce push by the Peoples Liberation Army, according to a

recently-released Chinese white paper.35 As reported by a defense

newsletter, “China’s military is intent on maintaining fewer troops

with greater capabilities and is pursuing increased ‘mechanization

and [information technology] application’ to bring about ‘leapfrog’

technology development... and is building up its arsenal of science

and technology experts—mirroring efforts in the United States.”36

These trends will have profound, long-term, economic and military

implications for the United States. Data show that many foreign students who graduate from American universities remain in the United

States. Michael Finn of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education has studied the stay rates of these foreign-born students. His

research shows that the stay rate for all foreign-born Ph.D. recipients, observed two years after graduation, increased from 49 percent

in 1989 to 69 percent in 1999, with the highest stay rates in the fields

of computer/electrical engineering, computer science, and the physical sciences, and the lowest in the social sciences.37 Finn’s work

shows that 51 percent of 1994–95 U.S. S&E doctorate recipients with

temporary visas were still in the United States in 1999. About 3,500

foreign students remained from each annual cohort of new S&E doctorates in all fields.38 The question, however, is whether foreign students will continue to remain in the United States, given that countries “that once supplied much of the U.S. foreign S&E workforce,

such as South Korea, now have the ability to provide their own students and graduates with first-world opportunities.”39

Aside from the question of whether foreign students remain in

the United States, contributing to our S&T resources, there are

issues associated with admitting large numbers of foreign students

to American universities and allowing many of them to stay on after

graduation. National security implications related to America’s growing reliance on foreign graduate students and workers in the S&E

fields is the most serious of these. For one thing, it may mean a dwindling pool of scientific and engineering talent for DOD and other

security-related departments and agencies of the Federal government, most of which require U.S. citizenship as a prerequisite to

employment. Another issue stems from the large number of foreign

S&E graduate students on American campuses and relates to the

increasing post-9/11 scrutiny of research being conducted in American universities and of students engaged in such research. Issues

surrounding this controversy burst into the open in the spring of

2002, when DOD proposed a new policy aimed at the handling of

unclassified research in both DOD and private-sector laboratories.40

According to Science, under the proposed policy “the first step would

have Pentagon program managers decide if DOD-funded studies at

universities, companies, or military laboratories involve critical

research technologies, or critical program information. If so, the

institutions and researchers conducting the work would have to prepare detailed security plans, label documents as protected, obtain

prior review of publication and travel plans, and decide whether to

place restrictions on any foreign scientists involved in the project.”41

Many of the areas that would be affected by such a policy are precisely the areas in which additional talent is needed.

Issues surrounding national security and foreign students are

discussed in a Congressional Research Service report that examines

impacts of counter terrorism efforts on foreign students in S&T. The

report notes that most educators agree on the need for increased controls on foreign students and the tracking of them and their courses of

April 2004 Defense Horizons 5

Figure 1. Asian Doctoral S&E Degrees

Source: National Science Board, Indicators 2002, Appendix Table 2–41

1999

18000

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000 Number of Degrees Granted

Year

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Asians in Asian Institutions

Asians in U.S. Institutions
study in order to help deter terrorism. However, some say it is possible

that intensified monitoring of foreign students will result in fewer students, especially graduate students, coming to study scientific and

technical subjects in American colleges and universities and ultimately will reduce the supply of scientific and technical personnel

available for employment in the United States.42 Such concerns have

been voiced by numerous academics worried by potential restrictions

on foreign students. M.R.C. Greenwood, chancellor of the University of

California, Santa Cruz, comments that the decision to restrict foreign

students “will make sense only if we can also develop a policy that

secures our supply of scientists and engineers in the future . . . if we

block access to foreign students, who is going to do the research of the

future, and who will be our faculty of the future?”43 Chancellor Greenwood concludes that this is a serious question that will impact directly

on our long-term national economic security.

National R&D Investment

The vitality of America’s R&D enterprise clearly is complicated

by the workforce-related issues mentioned above. However, other significant issues involving U.S. R&D funding patterns and priorities also

challenge America’s ability to sustain the vitality of its R&D enterprise

and, therefore, its security and prosperity. These issues relate to funding sources and levels, and how funding is distributed among scientific

disciplines. These issues have been widely discussed by the NSF, the

National Academies of Science and Engineering, the National Science

and Technology Council (NSTC), the President’s Council of Advisors

on Science and Technology (PCAST), and many others. 

PCAST was established to enable the President to receive

advice from the business and academic communities on technology,

scientific research priorities, mathematics, and science education.

Its members are drawn from industry, education, research institutions, and other non-governmental organizations. The PCAST

recently formed a panel on “Federal Investment in Science and

Technology and Its National Benefits” to examine trends in Federal

funding for R&D to determine their consistency with the nation’s

present and future needs. As part of its effort, the panel commissioned a study by the RAND Corporation to examine Federal support

for R&D over the past 25 years and compare U.S. Federal and private

sector R&D investments to those of our global competitors.44 The

RAND study and other information gathered by the panel were used

to develop final report.45 Its findings and recommendations include

the following: Federal R&D funding relative to GDP continues to

decline; private sector R&D investments are generally of a different

nature than Federal support; and Federal funding for physical sciences and engineering benefits all scientific disciplines.46

With regard to our national investment in R&D, the panel notes

that 20 years ago, Federal funding for R&D exceeded that of private

industry, but today the reverse is true. The panel notes that this is

significant because activities emanating from R&D investments that

produced new growth have never been higher, including increasing

numbers of patents and discovery disclosures. Indeed, there is strong

linkage between federally-funded science and innovation. For example, a 1998 CHI Research study of the linkage of patent citations to

the scientific literature found that, of patents granted to U.S. industry, approximately 73 percent of the science articles cited in the

patent resulted from publicly-funded science.47 The PCAST panel

was not comforted by signs of increased private sector funding of

R&D, noting: “While strong support of R&D by private industry is to

be commended, this source of funding cycles with business patterns

and focuses on short term results by emphasizing development of

existing technology rather than establishing new frontiers. Growing

private investments in research do not replace the need for Federal

support in certain critical areas and for long-term basic research,

where the benefits cannot be measured in short cycles.”48

Lack of long-term, often high-risk, investment in research is

especially problematic for DOD. A recent study by the Naval Research

Advisory Committee, sponsored by the Director of Defense and Engineering for all three services, considered this issue and found that

while “industry will pursue high-profit major weapons systems—[Military] labs are crucial to address high-risk, low-volume S&T like that

that enabled the thermobaric bomb, Predator, robotic countermine

systems, and countless others.”49 Despite such findings, a persistent

perception that military labs are no longer a major force in S&T exacerbates the problem of these labs in attracting S&Es into careers in

DOD. Consider, for example, a statement in a recent Defense Science

Board study that the military labs “are not competitive with leading

industrial and university laboratories in terms of innovation.”50

While total U.S. R&D expenditures as a percentage of GDP have

grown since 1994, this growth is largely due to increased non-Federal

investment for development rather than basic research. At the same

time, the Federal investment in R&D as a percent of GDP has fallen

from a high of 1.92 percent in 1964 to an estimated 0.78 percent in

2002, a decline of almost 60 percent, Figure 2.51 The Council on Competitiveness has also drawn attention to the fall-off of Federal support

for R&D and notes that “the single largest influence on the changing

of U.S. R&D investment has been the disinvestments by the Federal

government from all forms of research and development.”52

Shifting Research Funding Patterns

In its report, “Federal Investment in R&D,” RAND points out

that “unlike many other nations, in which government R&D is funded

predominantly by a single science agency under the goal of advancing

science, the U.S. Federal R&D funding system is mission oriented,

with the exception of NSF, which funds basic research. R&D programs

are funded according to their contributions to national goals and

broad national missions, each of which is the responsibility of a different government agency or agencies.”53 This is a very healthy

approach to meeting the nation’s needs for S&T. A single science

agency would represent a setback for U.S. S&E research and workforce production. It is the complementary funding of NSF, NIH, DOD,

DOE, NASA, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology

that has made America a world leader, economically, socially, and militarily. The funding by NSF, in partnership with its sister S&T agencies, of the basic sciences, especially the physical, mathematical,

environmental, and engineering sciences, has proven critical to the

United States. Some effort has been made by several administrations

to increase the NSF budget. This is badly needed, and progress must

6 Defense Horizons April 2004
Figure 2. Research and Development (R&D) Expenditure as Percentage of GDP 1953–2002

Source: NSF/Division of Science Resources Statistics

be significant in the immediate future. But it also is critical that the

mission agencies be appropriate to national need. 

A case in point is defense R&D. Historically, the largest share of

Federal R&D funding has come from DOD, which, until recently,

exceeded all other Federal R&D spending combined. Two major

trends have affected this since the mid-1980s: the dramatic increase

in spending during the Reagan-era defense build-up and the significant decline in spending following the end of the Cold War. According to NSF data, from FY 1980 to its peak in FY 1987, defense R&D

nearly doubled in real terms.54 Funding began to fall before the end

of the Cold War, and the slide accelerated in the early 1990s. After

bottoming in FY 1996, defense R&D has seen increases in the past

several years.55

It should be understood, however, that most defense R&D is

directed toward the development, testing, and evaluation of specific

weapon or warfare systems (budget categories 6.4 through 6.7). Only

a small fraction of the total is directed toward S&T (budget categories 6.1 through 6.3), and this is primarily focused on meeting

future defense requirements and training the next generation of

American S&Es in such fields as mathematics, computer sciences,

and engineering. In fact, according to NSF data, the DOD S&T budget

supports 12.8 percent of all Federal basic (6.1) and applied research

(6.2), and is a key source of funding for several S&E disciplines.56

Importantly, DOD provides funds for 35 percent of all Federal

research in the computer sciences, nearly 40 percent of all engineering research, and significant shares of research in oceanography and

mathematics.57 The National Research Council has studied trends in

Federal spending on scientific and engineering research and found a

decline in DOD funding of key S&E fields (See figure 3). 58

Changing funding priorities of Federal agencies have led to significant shifts in the balance of funding among the various fields of

S&E. A 1999 study of research trends commissioned by the National

Academies’ Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy

(STEP) found that several agencies spent less on research in 1997

than they had in 1993. (DOD was down 28 percent).59 Importantly,

these agency reductions disproportionately affected most fields in the

physical sciences (physics, chemistry, and geology), engineering

(chemical, civil, electrical, and mechanical), environmental (geology,

geophysics, oceanography, atmospheric sciences, ecological sciences),

and mathematics, because these fields received most of their support

from the agencies with reduced funding. The study found that Federal

funding decreased by 20 percent or more between 1993 and 1997 in

four fields: mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics,

and geological sciences.60 The study found growth in such areas as

computer sciences, medical sciences, metallurgy, and materials engineering. In particular, it noted that most recent increases came in

research fields supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH),

largely because Congress doubled that agency’s budget from FY 1999

to FY 2003.

In 2001, the STEP Board published a follow-up to its 1999 study

of Federal research funding trends. It found that funding for the life

sciences had increased to 46 percent of Federal funding for research

in 1999, compared to 40 percent in 1993, while funding for the physical sciences and engineering decreased from 37 percent of the

research portfolio in 1993 to 31 percent in 1999.61 More specifically, it

found Federal funding in 1999 was still below 1993 levels for seven

fields of research.62 Five of these fields—physics, geological sciences,

and chemical, electrical, and mechanical engineering—were down

April 2004 Defense Horizons 7

1953 1959 1965 1971 1977 1983 1989 1995 2001

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

Year Research and Development as Percent of GDP Total US R&D

Total Federal R&D

 Industry-Funded R&D
20 percent or more from 1993. The STEP Board concluded that a substantial shift had occurred in Federal funding, with significant

declines in the physical sciences and certain fields of engineering,

and substantial increases in the medically-related life sciences.

Graduate Education and Research Outputs

How have shifting priorities in national research funding

affected graduate education and research outputs in S&E? For one

thing, the total number of graduate students enrolled in S&E

declined from its 1993 high of 435,703 to 429,492 in 2001, largely as

a result of a fall-off in part-time enrollment.63 Full-time enrollment

fell from about 294,000 in 1993 to about 279,000 in 1998, then

rebounded to about 304,000 by 2001. During the period 1993–2001,

the number of U.S. citizens and permanent residents enrolled in

S&E fell from 330,037 to 296,194. Over this same period, students

with temporary visas increased from 105,666 to 133,298. Overall,

there were fewer graduate students in the physical sciences in 2001

than in 1993—14 percent fewer in physics and 8 percent fewer in

chemistry, while the mathematical sciences had 15 percent fewer

graduate students and the earth, atmospheric and ocean sciences

(atmospheric sciences, geosciences, and oceanography) had 13 percent fewer graduate students. Not surprisingly, the number of graduate students in health fields increased dramatically—by 40 percent—between 1993 and 2000, spurred by the burgeoning NIH

research investment.64 Overall, the number of S&E graduate students receiving Federal support declined by 2 percent between these

same years, while the number of graduate students in health fields

receiving Federal support increased by 15 percent.65

The PCAST also examined the issue of how funding patterns

have affected U.S. research outputs of S&Es and found that, “the

number of scientific and technical articles published by U.S. authors

peaked in 1992 and then decreased steadily throughout the 1990s,

and was down 10 percent by 1999.”66 However, it should be said that

there seems to be no simple correlation between funds and publications output by field; observed trends may reflect changes in publishing dynamics and the international S&T scene.

Regardless, this downward trend in U.S.-authored scientific and

technical articles is evident in most fields of S&E, with the greatest

decrease occurring in engineering and technology articles (down 26

percent between 1992 and 1999).67 Other declines over this same

period included mathematics, physics, chemistry, and oceanography.68

A closer look at the U.S. portfolio of technical publications is, however,

instructive; it is dominated by publications in medically related life

sciences (55 percent). Only about a quarter (24 percent) are dedicated to the physical sciences, and only eight percent to engineering,

technology, and mathematics.69

The decline in the number of U.S.-authored scientific and technical articles in the physical sciences and engineering appears to have

been partially offset by their impact measured by the number of times

a paper is cited by other S&Es in their research. Citations provide an

indication of the perceived influence of a nation’s scientific outputs to

other countries’ scientific and technical work. In this regard, data

show that U.S. literature is the most widely cited in the world,

although its share fell in the last decade from 52 percent in 1990 to 45

percent in 1999, a decline similar in magnitude to that of the fall in the

U.S. share of scientific literature.70 Over the past two decades, the U.S.

share of cited scientific research on average has been 35 percent

greater than the U.S. share of scientific literature.71

Clearly, America is still highly productive in terms of total scientific output as measured by numbers of journal articles. But, what

8 Defense Horizons April 2004

Figure 3. DOD Research Funding by Fields, FY 1993 vs. FY 1999

Source: National Research Council, Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education.

1993

1999

35

30

25

15

10

20

Physics Chemistry Electrical

Engineering

Mechanical

Engineering

Materials

Engineering

Oceanography Computer

Sciences

Aeronautical

Engineering

Biology Medical

Sciences

Other

Fields Percent of Total Research

Research Field
about other forms of output, such as patents? This subject, too, was

studied for PCAST by RAND, which found that the number of U.S.

patents increased by about 70 percent between 1990 and 1999,

increasing rapidly in the late 1990s to a record high of 153,487 in

1999.72 About 55 percent of the U.S. patents granted in 1999 were

issued to U.S. inventors.73 Interestingly, the number of patents

issued to academic institutions increased from 462 in 1982 to 3,151

in 1998.74 The rapid rise in the number of scientific articles cited in

patents is largely due to huge increases in the number of citations

to articles in fields of biomedical research and clinical medicine; in

2000, citations to these two fields accounted for approximately 75

percent of all citations.75

Over the last 25 years, there have been major changes in disciplinary areas supported by R&D, including large shifts in funding

patterns among such S&E disciplines as the physical and life sciences. PCAST summarizes this as follows: “As a base point: in FY

1970, support for the three major areas of research, namely physical

and environmental sciences, medically related life sciences and

engineering was equally balanced. Today, the medically related life

sciences receive 48 percent of Federal R&D funding compared to

the physical sciences’ 11 percent and engineering’s 15 percent.

Even if physical sciences, environmental sciences, math and computer sciences are combined, their total share is 18 percent.”76

According to the PCAST, the lack of funding in these disciplines, other than those that are medically related, is a cause of concern for a number of reasons. First, this has given rise to a situation

in which both full-time masters and doctoral students in most areas

of the physical sciences, mathematics, environmental, non-medically-related sciences, and engineering are decreasing. Over this

same period, the numbers in the medically-related life sciences

increased. Second, facilities and infrastructure in general for S&E

are becoming less than adequate for meeting the challenges of

today’s research problems. Third, it is widely understood and

acknowledged that the interdependencies of the various disciplines

require that all advance together.77 In other words, progress in such

areas as the medically-related life sciences depends on continued

progress in more fundamental areas, such as physics, chemistry,

mathematics, and engineering. As an illustration of this latter point,

PCAST points out that, at IBM, over 95 percent of the Ph.D.s who

compose its nanotechnology research staff have degrees in the physical sciences and electrical engineering, areas in which graduate

training is largely dependent upon support by the Federal government.78 The increasing vitality and exciting discovery-initiating

areas of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research and education cannot be sustained without investment in the non-medicallyrelated basic sciences. Nanotechnology is only one example. The

interdisciplinary research involving biological, information, nanoand cognitive (neuro-) sciences is moving rapidly. To sustain the

extraordinary advances being made in these interdisciplinary areas,

new collaborations in the fundamental, non-medically-related S&E

disciplines must be nurtured now, not in some distant future.

The imbalance between disciplines grew during the 1990s, as

funding in physics, chemistry, math, and some engineering fields

declined in real terms, while investment in the life sciences grew

substantially. The increasing complexity of advanced technology,

which integrates multiple disciplines and technologies, depends on

concurrent advances across many fields. The imbalance in America’s

scientific portfolio runs a serious risk of adversely affecting the

capacity for innovation in a range of key sectors and impeding the

ability to fulfill other critical national missions.79

In its discussion, the Council on Competitiveness suggests three

national challenges that face the country: improved health care;

energy and environmental quality; and national defense.80 In each of

these areas of national challenge, the Council claims there are both a

number of “contributing sciences,” as well as a number of “enabling

technologies,” providing another perspective on the inter-disciplinarity of S&T as it is being done in today’s world. Therefore, if we are to

make headway in meeting national challenges in defense, the economy, and social stability, we must also do so in the contributing sciences and enabling technologies that underpin them, most of which

are included among the fields that are, today, funded at considerably

lower levels than in the past. So, again, we see that the physical, environmental, and non-medically-related sciences, engineering, and

mathematics are pillars on which progress toward meeting national

challenges stand.

The national challenge of defense (including homeland

defense) is a major concern. The Council cites a number of contributing sciences and enabling technologies on which national

defense depends. Contributing sciences include computer sciences,

electromagnetic theory, materials sciences, physics, quantum

mechanics, robotics, and transport physics. Enabling technologies

include electronics, computing, the social sciences, human-interface

technology, manufacturing technology, materials technology, nuclear

technology, optical technology, and plasma technology.81 Because of

shifting national funding patterns, many of these areas are being

reduced in absolute funding levels, with a potential negative impact

on our ability to meet future national security needs.

Besides investment and workforce issues, many other trends

challenge American technical leadership, including an increase in

the number of other nations that are acquiring high-end innovation

capabilities by focusing their investments in R&D and technical

talent. In addition, America’s “first-mover” advantage in information technology (IT), which played a major role in the U.S. economic expansion of the 1990s, is being eroded as other countries

invest in IT infrastructure and increase their use of computers, the

Internet, and other forms of telecommunications.82 However, it is

not just a matter of other countries building up their R&D capabilities; it is the development of very broad technical infrastructures

that matters most. The roles that trade and industry play in the

genesis of trade-partner/trade-competition relationships around

the world, and the inevitable transfer of technology and skills , also

are important factors.

In this regard, the offshore accumulation of intellectual capital

and industrial capability, particularly in the area of microelectronics,

may have an adverse impact on the ability of DOD to maintain its technological lead over adversaries.83 There also are worrying trends with

regard to American elementary and secondary achievement in mathematics and science. The NSF has compiled data showing that, internationally, the relative performance of U.S. students becomes increasingly weaker at higher grade levels.84

April 2004 Defense Horizons 9
What Must be Done? 

An adequate supply of S&E graduates at all levels cannot be

assured by focusing only on students in college and high school—by

that time the battle is lost. Appropriate education must begin in the

formative years. The excitement and intellectual satisfaction gained

from pursuing careers in S&E must be maintained, emphasized, and

conveyed to youngsters beginning at preschool ages and reinforced

throughout their elementary and secondary education. 

The large pool of S&Es expected to retire over the next decade

or so represents a valuable resource of scientific and technical

knowledge. Many will remain technically active and involved, and

many have a strong interest in contributing to the education of young

people in S&E. The use of modern IT should contribute significantly

to their ability to continue contributing in their fields and to help

educate a new generation of S&Es.

Special efforts must be made to reach women and minorities,

because the demographics clearly point to their importance in the

future work force. The country also must retain more foreign S&Es

preferably encouraging them to become citizens. Without this

human capital, the country surely will become less competitive. This

must, of course, be accomplished in a way that is consistent with

security concerns. The reality is, however, that the United States

cannot afford to discourage the temporary residency or immigration

of foreign S&Es. 

It is clear and irrefutable that federally-funded research from

many sources has been a significant factor in U.S. patent productivity and economic strength. The Federal government must step up to

its responsibility to fund a balanced portfolio of long-term research

across agencies. Particular attention should be paid to restoring the

balance in federally funded research in the physical sciences and

engineering relative to the health sciences.

Seminal discoveries and breakthroughs in S&T do not occur at

18-month intervals. Developments that occur at such intervals are

rarely, if ever, transformational discoveries, but rather exploitation

of past investments in S&T. The Federal government must manage

its S&T accordingly, because it has a special responsibility for ensuring that long-term, fundamental R&D is undertaken, not only for sustaining and obtaining new capability, but also to convince young people that one can make a viable career in the pursuit of S&E. The

Federal government should enunciate a clear policy of sustaining

long-term research as an inducement to young people to enter

careers in S&E. Equally important, the Federal government must

clearly acknowledge its role in funding high-risk S&T not likely to be

undertaken by industry; a purely market-driven approach will not

generate the knowledge needed to sustain the American economy

and U.S. military superiority in the long term.

There are no easy solutions to the problems that threaten America’s global leadership position in S&T, but one point is clear: solutions

must be found. As the Hart-Rudman report stated, it is not merely

national pride or international image at stake, but our future security

and stability as a nation. While these problems pose a challenge to our

economic security and social stability, and national security, the challenge to national security is imminent. While industry and academia

can continue to rely on foreign workers and students for some time, it

is different for the national security agencies and fundamental

research funding agencies upon which the national security agencies

depend. Solutions to the problems outlined here must be aggressively

sought. To do otherwise will risk our country’s economic future and

security.

Notes1 Throughout this paper, S&E refers to the scientists and engineers who conduct research and development, and S&T (science and technology) applies broadly to

their output and the infrastructure in which they work. 2 See, for example, Kathleen Walsh, “Foreign High-Tech R&D in China: Risks,

Rewards, and Implications for U.S.-China Relations,” The Henry L. Stimson Center,

2003, accessed at <http://www.stimson.org/?SN=TI200110174>. 3 APS News, vol. 9, no. 8 (August/September 2000) p. 5, accessed at <http://www.

aps.org/apsnews/aug00.html>; “U.S. Falls in Physical Science Output,” Science Watch,

September/October 1999, accessed at <http://www.sciencewatch.com/sept-oct99/

sw_sept-oct99_page1.htm>. 4 Francis Narin, “Patents and Publicly Funded Research,” in Assessing the Value

of Research in the Chemical Sciences, Chemical Sciences Roundtable, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, National Research Council, 1998, 61, accessed at <http://

www.nap.edu/books/0309061393/html/61.html>. 5 Michael E. Porter and Scott Stern, “The New Challenges to America’s Prosperity: Findings from the Innovation Index,” Council on Competitiveness, 1999, 5,

accessed at <http://www.compete.org/pdf/innovation.pdf>. 6 World Bank Group, “Competitiveness Indicators,” accessed at <http://

wbln0018.worldbank.org/psd/compete.nsf>. 7 National Science Board, “Science & Engineering Indicators-2002,”

(NSB–02–1), accessed at <http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02>. 8 William P. Butz et al., “Is There a Shortage of Scientists and Engineer? How

Would We Know?” RAND Science and Technology Issue Paper, November 12, 2002, 4,

accessed at <http://www.rand.org/publications/IP/IP241/IP241.pdf>. 9 Jeffrey Mervis, “Down for the Count?” Science vol. 300 (May 16, 2003), 1070. 10 U.S. Commission on National Security, “Phase III Report: Road Map for

National Security: Imperative for Change,” February 15, 2001, 30, accessed at

<http://www.nssg.gov/PhaseIIIFR.pdf>. 11 Science and Technology in Congress, December 2002, accessed

at<http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/stc/stc02/02-12/dhs.htm>. 12 Defense Science Board, “Letter Report on the Adequacy of the DOD Science&

Technology (S&T) Program,” June 1, 2000, 4, accessed at <http://www.acq.osd.mil/

dsb/letter.pdf>. 13 Robert A. Frosch, “The Customer for R&D Is Always Wrong!” ResearchTechnology Management vol. 39, no. 6 (November/December 1996), 22. 14 Michael E. Porter and Debra van Opstal, “U.S. Competitiveness 2001:

Strengths, Vulnerabilities and Long-Term Priorities,” Council onCompetitiveness, January 2001, 28, accessed at<http://www.compete.org/pdf/competitiveness2001.pdf>. 15 U.S. Commission on National Security, 30.

16 National Science Board, 3–3. 17 Porter and van Opstal, 28.

18 Engineering Workforce Commission of the American Association of Engineering

Societies, “Engineering and Technology Enrollments: Fall 2001,” accessed at <http://

eapo.tamu.edu/pdf/engr-r.pdf>. 19 Richard J. North, Ty Cruce, and Matt T. Harmston, “Maintaining a Strong Engineering Workforce,” ACT Policy Report, May 5, 2003, accessed at<http://www.

act.org/research/policy/pdf/engineer.pdf>. 20 National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, “Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering: Fall 2001” accessed at

http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf03320/start.htm.

10 Defense Horizons April 2004

The authors gratefully acknowledge the critical

reading of this manuscript by Lynda Carlson, Rolf

Lehming, John Jankowski, and the staff of the NSF Division of Science Resources Statistics, and Professor

Eugene F. Brown of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University for thoughtful advice.
21 See <http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf03320/sectb.htm>, table 8.

22 William Zumeta and Joyce S. Raveling, “Attracting the Best and Brightest,”

Issues in Science and Technology, Winter 2002, accessed at <http://www.evansuw.

org/FAC/Zumeta/pdf/attracting_the_best.pdf>. 23 Ibid., 36.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid., 38.

26 National Science Board, 3–12. 27 Ibid., 3–13. 28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid., 3–12. 34 National Science Board, 2–30. 35 Information Office of the State Council, “China’s National Defense in 2002,”

accessed at <http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/features/ndpaper2002/ndf.html>. 36 InsideDefense.com, “China’s Latest Defense White Paper Spotlights S&T

Workforce Push,” December 13, 2002, 3. 37 Michael G. Finn, “Stay Rates of Foreign Recipients from U.S. Universities,”

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, December 2001, 1, accessed at

<http://www.orau.gov/orise/pubs/stayrate01.pdf>. 38 National Science Board, 3–30. 39 Shirley Ann Jackson, “Envisioning A 21st Century Science and Engineering

Workforce for the United States.” Report to the Government-University-Industry

Research Roundtable of the National Academies, 2003, 9, accessed at

<http://www.nap.edu/books/0309088569/html/index.html>. 40 Ron Southwick, “Pentagon Considers Tighter Controls on Academic

Research,” Chronicle of Higher Education, April 24, 2002; “Defense Department Proposes New Restrictions on Research Data,” Inside the Pentagon, May 2, 2002; Mary

Leonard, “Pentagon Drops Attempt to Keep Research Quiet,” Boston Globe, May 9,

2002, A3; and Don J. DeYoung, “Proposed Security Controls on Defense Research,”

April 2, 2002, accessed at <http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/deyoung/html>. 41 David Malakoff, “Pentagon Proposal Worries Researchers,” Science, May 3,

2002, 826. 42 Genevieve J. Knezo, “Possible Impacts of Major Counter Terrorism Security

Actions on Research, Development, and Higher Education,” Congressional Research

Service Report for Congress, April 8, 2002. 43 M.R.C. Greenwood, “Risky Business: Research Universities in the Post-September 11 Era,” supplement to the American Association for the Advancement of Science S&T Policy Yearbook 2003, 15, accessed at <http://www.aaas.org/spp/yearbook/2003/stvwch1.pdf>. 44 Elisa Eiseman, Kei Koizumni, and Donna Fossum, “Federal Investment in

R&D,” RAND Science and Technology Policy Institute, MR–1639.0–OSTP, September

2002, accessed at <http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1639.0/MR1639.0.pdf>. 45 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, “Assessing the U.S.

R&D Investment: Findings and Proposed Actions,” October 16, 2002, 4, accessed at

<http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/FINAL%20R&D%20REPORT%20WITH%20LETTERS.pdf> 46 G. Wayne Clough, Washington, DC, to John H. Marburger III and E. Floyd

Kvamme, Washington, DC, October 16, 2002, transmitting the panel’s final report,

“Assessing the U.S. R&D Investment: Findings and Proposed Actions,” accessed at

<http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/FINAL%20R&D%20REPORT%20WITH%20LETTERS.pdf> 47 Narin, 61.

48 Clough.

49 Naval Research Advisory Committee, “Science & Technology Community in

Crisis,” May 2002, G–5, accessed at <http://nrac.onr.navy.mil/webspace/reports/S-nT_crisis.pdf>. 50 Defense Science Board, “Task Force on 21st Century Defense Technology

Strategies,” vol. II, March 2000, cited in “Report of the Defense Science Board on Efficient Utilization of Defense Laboratories, October 2000, 16. 51 National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, “Slowing R&D Growth Expected in 2002,” December 2002, accessed at

<http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/infbrief/nsf03307/start.htm>. 52 Porter and Stern, 43.

53 Eiseman, Koizumni, and Fossum, 1.

54 National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics,“Federal

R&D Funding by Budget Function: Fiscal Years 2001–2003,” NSF02–330, 2002, table 4. 55 Ibid.

56 National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, “Federal Funds for Research and Development, Fiscal Years 2000, 2001, and 2003,” NSF

02–321, 2002, Table C–14, accessed at <http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf02321/

htmstart.htm>. 57 Ibid. Tables C–20–C–26. 58 Stephen A. Merrill, ed., Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate

Education (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001), table 4–1. 59 Stephen A. Merrill, ed., Securing America’s Industrial Strength (Washington,

DC: National Academy Press, 2001), table A–4. 60 Ibid., 60.

61 Merrill, 2.

62 Ibid.

63 National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, “Graduate Enrollment Increases in Science and Engineering Fields, Especially in Engineering and Computer Sciences,” April 2003, accessed at <http://www.nsf.gov/

sbe/srs/infbrief/nsf03315/start.htm>. 64 Eiseman, Koizumni, and Fossum, 35.

65 Ibid., 36.

66 National Science Board, 5–39. 67 Ibid.

68 Ibid.

69 Ibid., 5–43. 70 National Science Board, 5–50. 71 Ibid.

72 Ibid., 6–20 and appendix, table 6–12. 73 Ibid.

74 Ibid., 5–55. 75 Ibid., 5–53. 76 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 4. 77 Ibid., 5.

78 Ibid., 7.

79 Porter and van Opstal, 41.

80 Ibid.

81 Ibid.

82 Ibid., vi.

83 “DOD Technology Advisory Group Says Military Capability Is in Doubt Due to

Loss of Electronics Industry,” Manufacturing & Technology News, May 16, 2003. 84 National Science Board, 1–3.

April 2004 Defense Horizons 11

Defense Horizons is published by the Center for Technology and National Security Policy through the

Publication Directorate of the Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University.

Defense Horizons and other National Defense University publications are available online at

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/press/nduphp.html.

The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are those of the

contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense or any other

department or agency of the Federal Government.

Center for Technology and National Security Policy

Hans Binnendijk

Director