The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce
June 20, 2008
Deborah D. Stine
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Christine M. Matthews
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division



The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce
Summary
In the 21st century, global competition and rapid advances in science and
technology will challenge the scientific and technical proficiency of the U.S.
workforce. The 110th Congress is currently discussing policy actions that could
enhance the nation’s science and technology (S&T) workforce — deemed by some
as essential to both meet U.S. workforce demands as well as to generate the new
ideas that lead to improved and new industries that create jobs.
As in the past, there are those who question whether the quality of science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education received by all
Americans at the pre-college level is of sufficient quality that workers are available
to satisfy current and future workforce needs. In addition, the number of Americans
pursuing post-secondary STEM degrees is considered to be low relative to students
in countries considered to be U.S. competitors. Many perspectives exist, however,
on the supply and demand of scientists and engineers. Some question the
fundamental premise that any action is necessary at all regarding U.S.
competitiveness. They question whether or not the S&T workforce and STEM
education are problems at all.
The 110th Congress passed the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) to
address concerns regarding the S&T workforce and STEM education, and is currently
debating funding for the programs authorized within it. Additional discussions inth
the 110 Congress have focused on three issues: demographic trends and the future
S&T talent pool, the current S&T workforce and changing workforce needs, and the
influence of foreign S&T students and workers on the U.S. S&T workforce.
In response to the issue of demographic trends and the future S&T talent pool,
some policymakers propose taking actions to increase the number of Americans
interested in the S&T workforce. These policies are motivated by demographic
trends that indicate the pool of future workers will be far more diverse than the
current STEM workforce. Proposed policies would take actions to enhance the
quality of STEM education these Americans receive so they are able to consider S&T
careers, and to recruit them into the S&T workforce.
On the issue of the current S&T workforce and changing workforce needs, the
goal of proposed policies is to reinvigorate and retrain Americans currently trained
in science and engineering who voluntarily or involuntarily are no longer part of the
current STEM workforce. The challenge in this situation is that science and
engineering are constantly changing, both in terms of workforce needs as well as the
skills the STEM workforce needs to obtain to be marketable relative to demand.
Another policy before the 110th Congress is increasing the ability of the United
States to draw upon foreign talent to meet the nation’s S&T workforce needs. These
discussions focus on immigration policy, primarily increasing the ability of foreign
STEM students currently in U.S. universities to more easily obtain permanent
admission, and increasing the number of temporary worker visas available so more
talent from abroad can be recruited to the United States.



Contents
Background ......................................................1
Status of the U.S. Science and Technology (S&T) Workforce...............4
What are the Historical Trends in the U.S. S&T Workforce?............6
What is the Status of the Current S&T Workforce?...................8
What Is the Projected Future S&T Workforce?.......................8
Issues and Options for Congress.....................................10
Demographic Trends and the Future S&T Talent Pool................10
Current S&T Workforce and Changing Workforce Needs.............12
Influence of Foreign S&T Students and Workers....................13
Activities in the 110th Congress......................................14
List of Figures
Figure 1. Science and Technology Employment: 1950-2000 ..............6
Figure 2. Average Annual Growth Rate of S&E Occupations Versus All
Workers: 1960-2000...........................................7
Figure 3. Annual Average Growth Rate of Degree Production and
Occupational Employment, by Science & Engineering (S&E) Field:
1980-2000 ...................................................7
Figure 4. S&E Doctoral Degrees, by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Citizenship:

1985-2005 ...................................................9



The U.S. Science and Technology
Workforce
In the 21st century, global competition and rapid advances in science and
technology will challenge the scientific and technical proficiency of the U.S.
workforce. This report provides an overview of the status of the U.S. science and
technology (S&T) workforce, and identifies some of the issues and options that are
currently being discussed in Congress. The report concludes with a summary of
some pertinent activities in the 110th Congress.
Background
The ability of the United States to be competitive in the global economy is
viewed by many experts as a major factor influencing the ability of the United States
to maintain its economic growth and standard of living. Scientific and technological
advances can further economic growth because they contribute to the creation of new1
goods, services, jobs, and capital, or increase productivity. From a company,
employee, and possibly community perspective, competitiveness may be defined as
the ability of a firm to compete for market share against imports from abroad or to
compete with foreign firms in overseas export markets.2 The 110th Congress passed3
the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) to respond to some of these concerns.
Congress is discussing additional actions that it may take in response to concerns
about the S&T workforce.
Interest in the competitiveness issue began following World War II and perhaps
reached its peak in the 1970s, when some experts became concerned that Japan,
Europe, and newly industrialized countries were becoming major competitors with
the United States. The United States had lost market share in autos, cameras, stereos,4
television sets, steel, machine tools, and microelectronics. Now that the nation has


1 Excerpted from CRS Report RL33528, Industrial Competitiveness and Technological
Advancement: Debate Over Government Policy, by Wendy H. Schacht.
2 CRS Report RS22445, Taxes and International Competitiveness, by Donald J. Marples.
3 For more information, see CRS Report RL34396, The America COMPETES Act and the
FY2009 Budget, and CRS Report RL34328, America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding,
and Selected Issues, both by Deborah D. Stine.
4 Bruce L. R. Smith, American Science Policy Since World War II (Washington, DC:
(continued...)

entered the 21st century, today’s competitiveness concerns tend to be focused on
issues related to increased economic globalization — that is, increasing integration
of national economies into a worldwide trading system.5 This globalization has a
growing impact, both positive and negative, on the economic futures of American
companies, workers, and families. Increasing integration with the world economy can
make the United States more productive, leading to increases in living standards and
real disposable incomes. However, rising trade with low-wage developing countries
increases workers’ concerns about job loss, lower wages, and benefits as American
companies take actions to compete in a global economy. The information technology
revolution has expanded these competitiveness concerns to U.S. white collar jobs.6
As in the past, concerns about U.S. competitiveness lead to a focus on the S&T
workforce (see Box 1). These include questions about whether the quality of science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education received by all
Americans at the pre-college level is of sufficient quality that workers are available
to satisfy current and future workforce needs. In addition, the number of Americans
pursuing post-secondary STEM degrees is considered to be low relative to students
in countries considered to be U.S. competitors.7 This workforce is deemed by some
as essential to both meet U.S. workforce demands as well as to generate the new
ideas that lead to improved and new industries, and the jobs that are created as a
result.


4 (...continued)
Brookings Press, 2000), p. 101-105. Kent H. Hughes, Building the Next American Century:
The Past and Present of American Economic Competitiveness (Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins Press, 2005). James Turner, “The Next Innovation Revolution: Laying the
Groundwork for the United States,” innovations, spring 2006, p. 123-144, at
[http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/News%20and%20Publications/
Other%20Documents/T urner-Innovations.pdf].
5 CRS Report RL33944, Trade Primer: Qs and As on Trade Concepts, Performance, and
Policy, coordinated by Raymond J. Ahearn.
6 Excerpted from CRS Report RL34091, Globalization, Worker Insecurity, and Policy
Approaches, by Raymond J. Ahearn. See also Richard B. Freeman, “Is a Great Labor
Shortage Coming?: Replacement Demand in the Global Economy,” National Bureau of
Economic Research, Working Paper 12541, September 2006 at [http://www.nber.org/
papers/w12541.pdf].
7 CRS Report 98-871, Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Status and Issues,
by Christine M. Matthews. CRS Report RL33434, Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education: Background, Federal Policy, and Legislative Action, by
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.

Box 1. Who Should Be Included in the S&T Workforce?
Determining the S&T workforce is a challenging task. At its core are scientists and
engineers, but workforce estimates can vary based on whether or not the estimate
includes those in defined S&E occupations, in related S&E occupations (e.g., pre-college
teachers, managers, technicians), who use S&E knowledge (e.g., patent lawyers, doctors,a
health professionals), or who have at least one degree in S&E or an S&E-related fields.
Using these varying definitions, S&T workforce estimates are developed by the National
Science Foundation (NSF)/National Science Board (NSB), the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS), and the U.S. Census Bureau. Each has different definitions of who should be
included in the S&T workforce and estimates can also vary depending on the data used.
Most estimates focus only on the S&E workforce as opposed to the entire S&T
workforce, but S&E estimates vary as well. NSB indicates that, depending on the
definition and perspective used, the size of the S&E workforce varied between
approximately 5.0 million and 21.4 million individuals in 2006 — approximately 4-15%b
of all employed civilians in the United States (144.4 million). For example, one NSF
analysis finds that, in 2006, 5.0 million of the 18.9 million employed scientists and
engineers worked in S&E occupations, 5.2 million worked in S&E-related occupations,c
and 8.7 million worked in non-S&E-related occupations.
NSB suggests that the most relevant S&E workforce estimate may be 17.0 million,
which in 2006 was the number of individuals who had at least one degree in an S&E
field, or 21.4 million, which includes both these individuals plus those with a degree in
an S&E related field such as health or technology — as it reflects the many ways sciencea
and technical knowledge is used in the United States.
Sources:
a. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Chapter 3
(Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2008) at [http://www.nsf.gov/
statistics/seind08/pdf/c03.pdf].
b. U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2008, Table 583
(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2008) at
[ h t t p : / / www.c e n s u s . go v/ c o mp e ndi a / s t a t a b / ] .
c. National Science Foundation, “Unemployment Rate of U.S. Scientists and Engineers
Drops to Record Low 2.5% in 2006,” NSF 08-235, April 2008 at
[http://www.nsf.gov/ statistics/infbrief/nsf08305/].
Many perspectives exist on the supply and demand of scientists and engineers.
While some believe that increasing the number of Americans with STEM degrees is
essential to providing an S&T workforce so that the United States is competitive,8
others question whether or not U.S. competitiveness, the S&T workforce, and STEM
education are problems at all.9 These analysts express doubts as to whether


8 See, for example, Tapping America’s Potential, “Tapping America’s Potential: The
Education for Innovation Initiative,” July 2005 at [http://tap2015.org].
9 See, for example, testimony at U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and
Technology, The Globalization of R&D and Innovation, Pt. IV: Implications for the Sciencethst
and Engineering Workforce, hearing, 110 Congress, 1 sess., November 6, 2007 at
[http://science.house.gov/ publications/hearings _markups_details.aspx?News ID=2032].

additional scientists and engineers in the United States are needed given current
workforce projections, and why if the demand is so high, salaries for those in STEM
occupations are not higher.10 Other analysts suggest that the quality and number of
scientists and engineers in China and India, the primary nations that are the focus of
today’s competitiveness concerns, are exaggerated.11 Another argument focuses on
the possible unintended side-effects of implementation. For example, will the act
result in an oversupply of scientists and engineers? These critics propose that policy
actions focus on improving the information employers and universities supply to
students so they can make better choices, and enhancing the salary and career paths
for existing scientific and technical staff.12
Status of the U.S. Science and Technology (S&T)
Workforce
This section describes the historical, current, and projected future S&T
workforce trends in the United States. There are challenges, however, in reviewing
these trends (see Box 2).


10 Titus Galama, James Hosek, U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology, (Santa
Monica, CA: Rand National Defense Research Institute, 2008) at [http://www.rand.org].
B. Lindsay Lowell and Hal Salzman, “Into the Eye of the Storm: Assessing the Evidence on
Science and Engineering Education, Quality, and Workforce Demand” (Washington, DC:
The Urban Institute, October 2007).
11 J. Bhagwati, “The World is Not Flat,” Wall Street Journal, August 4, 2005. Vivek
Wadhwa, Gary Gereffi, Ben Rissing, Ryan Ong, “Seeing through Preconceptions: A Deeper
Look at China and India,” Issues in Science and Technology, Spring 2007 at
[ ht t p: / / www.i ssues.or g/ 23.3/ wadhwa.ht ml ] .
12 Michael Teitelbaum, “Is There Really a Shortage of Technical Professionals?,”Research-
Technology Management, pp. 10-13, March 1, 2008.

Box 2. Challenges in Developing Conclusions from S&T Workforce Data
Developing conclusions from S&T employment data can be challenging as analysis
of data from different sources at different times often presents differing pictures of the
workforce. A related factor is that while some data represent the supply of individuals
seeking employment, other data provide information on the demand for those individuals.
An example of demand data is a January 2008 analysis of job openings. This
analysis found that major U.S. technology companies averaged more than 470 U.S.-baseda
job openings for skilled positions, while defense companies averaged 1,265 each.
Supply data just a few months later in May 2008, however, may lead some to a different
conclusion. In this case, BLS indicated that overall unemployment is 5.5%, comparedb
with 4.5% in May 2007. The degree to which S&T employment is affected is unknown
at this point, and may not be known for 1-2 years, leading to uncertainties in developing
a conclusion regarding the status of the S&T workforce. Even with long-term data, such
as that in Figure 1 and Figure 2, field-specific and degree-specific differences can offer
a very different picture of the status of the U.S. S&T workforce. While demand for those
in one field can be high, for others it can be low.
When broad industry or company future projection data are presented, it is
important to understand the data. For example, it is important to understand whether
projected openings are worldwide or U.S. data, the degree of specialization involved, and
whether or not the projection is based on obtaining a particular government or other
contract. This last point may be particularly important if multiple companies in a given
industry are all hoping to be successful in winning a particular contract as the jobs
projected may be duplicative.
BLS conducted an analysis of the accuracy of its occupational projections, and
found employment change was projected correctly for approximately 70% of the
occupations evaluated. It found that BLS projections tended to be conservative with
projected employment for the largest number of occupations estimated at the average
growth rate, while in reality most occupations either grew faster or declined.
Occupations BLS projected for the most rapid employment growth had greater increases
than BLS expected, and those expected to decline had greater decreases than expected.c
BLS concluded that good occupational projections rely on good industry projections.
Some experts worry that a lack of understanding of the volatility of some S&T
occupations, and their dependence on the economy and government policy actions, can
lead policymakers to make “false promises” — encouraging students to undertake long-
term STEM education for jobs that may not be there when they graduate. NSB
acknowledges that predicting the demand for scientists and engineers is difficult.
Unanticipated corporate and governments decisions can influence the S&T workforce
positively (e.g., new products or industries are created) or negatively (e.g., R&Dd
previously conducted in the United States is moved elsewhere).
a. National Foundation for American Policy [NFAP], NFAP Policy Brief, March 2008, “Talent
Search: Job Openings and the Need for Skilled Labor in the U.S. Economy,” at
[ h t t p : / / www. n f a p . c o m / p d f / 080311talentsrc.pdf].
b. Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Employment Situation: May 2008,” USDL 08-0757, June 6,
2008 at [http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf].
c. Bureau of Labor Statistics,The 1988-2000 Employment Projections: How Accurate Were
They?,” Andrew Alpert and Jill Auyer (authors), Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Spring
2003 at [http://www.bls.gov/opub/ooq/2003/spring/art01.pdf].
d. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Chapter 3 (Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation, 2008) at [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/c03.pdf].



What are the Historical Trends in the U.S. S&T Workforce?
As shown in Figure 1, the number of workers in S&T occupations — workers
in S&E occupations plus technicians and programmers — grew at a 6.8% average
annual rate between 1950-2000, according to NSB.13 From 1950 to 2000, the number
of S&T employees increased from approximately 0.2 million in 1950 to 5.5 million
in 2000. NSB’s analysis found that workforce demand varied greatly by occupation
with major changes, both positive and negative, within occupations. For example,
economic downturns in 1992 (as illustrated in Figure 1) and 2002 led to decreases
in S&E occupation employment in some S&E fields, but not in others.
Figure 1. Science and Technology Employment: 1950-2000


6
All S&T
Occupa ti ons
5
)
S&E Occupations4ns
illio
m

3ees (


En gi ne e rs2ploy
Mathematicians & Em
Information Tech.
Te chn i ci a n s1
Physical scientistsSocial scientists
Life scientists0
19 50 1960 1970 19 80 1990 2 000
Source: National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Figure 3-1, (Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation, 2008) at [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/c03.pdf].
Note: S&T = science and technology. S&E = scientists and engineers. Data include bachelor’s
degrees or higher in science occupations, some college and above in engineering occupations, and any
education level for technicians and computer programmers.
Figure 2 takes the major influence on the number of workers in S&T
occupations, those in S&E occupations, and compares the average annual growth rate14
of these workers to that of all workers. As shown here, the average annual growth
rate for S&E occupations was consistently higher than that for all workers from

1960-2000.


13 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Chapter 3 (Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation, 2008) at [http://www.nsf.gov/
statistics/seind08/pdf/c03.pdf].
14 Ibid.

Figure 2. Average Annual Growth Rate of S&E
Occupations Versus All Workers: 1960-2000
Source: National Science Board, Science and Engineering
Indicators 2008, Figure 3-2 (Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation, 2008) at [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/
c03.pdf].
For all S&E fields, employment has grown faster than degree production. As
shown in Figure 3, while the number of workers in S&E occupations grew at an
average annual rate of 4.2% from 1980-2000, the S&E degree production grew at a
lower rate of 1.5% 15 According to the NSB, the marketplace responded to that
difference between degree and occupation growth by employing individuals in S&E
occupations who did not have S&E degrees and foreign S&E workers.
Figure 3. Annual Average Growth Rate of Degree Production and
Occupational Employment, by Science & Engineering (S&E) Field:

1980-2000


Source: National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Figure 3-3 (Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation, 2008) at [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/c03.pdf].
15 Ibid.

What is the Status of the Current S&T Workforce?
NSF’s most current workforce data analysis focuses on the 18.9 million
employed scientists and engineers (out of a population of 22.6 million scientists and
engineers) in the United States in 2006.16 The NSF data indicate that the overall
unemployment rate for scientists and engineers at all degree levels in the United
States dropped from 3.2% in 2003 to 2.5% in 2006, with those holding doctorate and
professional degree at the lowest unemployment rate of 1.6%. The majority of
scientists and engineers, according to these NSF data, work in the business/industry
sector (69.4%), followed by educational institutions (18.8%) and government
(11.8%).
In terms of demographics, the U.S. 2006 S&E workforce included 54.8% men
and 45.2% women.17 Looking at this same population, an analysis of race/ethnicity
finds that 77.0% of this workforce was white, 10.0% Asian, 5.6% black, 5.3%
Hispanic (any race), with American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and
multiple race each at 1% or less. These NSF data indicate that 84.5% of the U.S.

2006 S&E workforce were native U.S. citizens, 10.5% naturalized U.S. citizens,


3.7% non-U.S. citizen permanent residents, and 1.3% non-U.S. citizen temporary
residents.
What Is the Projected Future S&T Workforce?
In terms of future demand, BLS projects professional and related occupations
employment will provide more jobs (5.0 million) than any other group between 2006
and 2016, an increase of nearly 17%.18 Of the eight subgroups within this occupation
category, BLS projects that health care practitioners and technicians will add the
most new jobs (1.4 million; 19.8% growth rate) and computer and mathematical
occupations will grow the most quickly (0.8 million jobs; 24.8% growth rate). BLS
expects other occupational groups related to science and engineering to grow as well,
including architecture and engineering (0.3 million jobs; 10.4% growth rate), and life,
physical, and social sciences (0.2 million jobs; 14.4% growth rate). Of the 30 fastest


16 National Science Foundation, “Unemployment Rate of U.S. Scientists and Engineers
Drops to Record Low 2.5% in 2006,” NSF 08-235, April 2008 at [http://www.nsf.gov/
statistics/infbrief/nsf08305/]. Note that this analysis uses the 2003 and 2006 Scientists and
Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT) so it will differ slightly from some of the data
presented in the previous section. Scientists and engineers refers to all persons who have
ever received a bachelor’s degree or higher in an S&E or S&E-related field, plus persons
holding a non-S&E bachelor’s or higher degree who were employed in an S&E or
S&E-related occupation in 2003.
17 Ibid.
18 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections,
Employment Outlook: 2006 — 16: Occupational Employment Projections to 2016,
November 2007, at [http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/11/art5full.pdf].

growing occupations, with a growth rate of 27% compared to the 10% average for
all the occupations, many are science and technology-related.19
One question is whether or not the United States is educating enough Americans
with sufficient STEM education today to meet this projected future demand. Science
and engineering occupations have been primarily the domain of white males. As
discussed earlier, 77% of the 2006 S&E workforce is white. Within this population,
56% are male.20 As illustrated in Figure 4, however, these demographics are
changing. The number of U.S. citizen white males receiving doctoral degrees
declined from 1985-2005, while the number of U.S. citizen white females and
minorities increased. These demographic groups are looked upon by some as a
possible source of increasing the U.S. S&T talent pool.
Figure 4. S&E Doctoral Degrees, by Sex,
Race/Ethnicity, and Citizenship:

1985-2005


Source: National Science Board, Science and Engineering
Indicators 2008, Figure 2-23 (Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation, 2008) at [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/
c03.pdf].
NSB found that blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans/Alaskan Natives as
a whole comprise more than 25% of the population and earn, as a whole, 16.2% of
the bachelor degrees, 10.7% of the masters degrees, and 5.4% of the doctorate
19 Ibid.
20 National Science Foundation, “Unemployment Rate of U.S. Scientists and Engineers
Drops to Record Low 2.5% in 2006,” NSF 08-235, April 2008.

degrees in science and engineering.21 In 2005, women were awarded approximately
50.5% of the S&E undergraduate degrees, an increase from 46.5% in 1995,22 and

39.5% of the S&E doctorate degrees, an increase from 32.8% in 1995.23


Disaggregated data reveal that these awards were concentrated in selected disciplines.
In 2005, while women earned 55.0% of the social and behavioral sciences doctorates,
women were awarded a lower percentage of the doctorates in other fields — 22.5%
in engineering, 26.7% in the physical sciences, and 19.8% in computer sciences.24
Issues and Options for Congress
Discussions among policymakers in the 110th Congress have focused on three
issues: demographic trends and the future S&T talent pool, the current S&T
workforce and changing workforce needs, and the influence of foreign S&T students25
and workers on the U.S. S&T workforce. Each of these issues is discussed in more
depth below.
Demographic Trends and the Future S&T Talent Pool
Few in the science and engineering community argue about the effect of
national demographics on the future science and engineering workforce. With thest
beginning of the 21 century, a larger proportion of the U.S. population will be
composed of minorities — blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, with the fastest
growing minority group being Hispanics. For example, the population of Hispanic
or Latino origin is projected to steadily increase as a percentage of the total U.S.26
population through 2050, rising from 12.6% in 2000 to 24.4% in 2050. As a result,
many are looking toward these groups, currently underrepresented in the S&T
workforce, as a source of future U.S. S&T talent.
As a group, minorities traditionally have been underrepresented in the science
and engineering disciplines compared to their fraction of the total population.27


21 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Volume 2, Appendix
Tables 2-27, 2-29, and 2-31 (Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2008) at
[http://www.nsf.gov/ statistics/seind08/pdf/volume2.pdf].
22 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Volume 2, Appendix
Table 2-27.
23 Ibid., Appendix Table 2-31.
24 Ibid.
25 For more information, see CRS Report 97-746, Foreign Science and Engineering
Presence in U.S. Institutions and the Laborforce, by Christine M. Matthews, and CRS
Report RL30498, Immigration: Legislative Issues on Nonimmigrant Professional Specialty
(H-1B) Workers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
26 Excerpt from CRS Report RL32701, The Changing Demographic Profile of the United
States, by Laura B. Shrestha.
27 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Volume 1, pp. 2-20 -
(continued...)

Generally, minorities take fewer high-level science and mathematics courses in high
school; earn fewer undergraduate and graduate degrees in science and engineering;
and are less likely to be employed in science and engineering positions than white
males.28 While minorities have increased their share of degrees awarded in the
sciences, poor preparation in science and mathematics is said to be a major factor
limiting the appeal of science and engineering to even larger numbers of these
groups. A large number of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans lack access to
many of the more rigorous college preparatory courses.29 In addition to recruitment,
retention of minorities in the science and engineering educational pipeline, once
recruited, also is of concern. The attrition rates for blacks, Hispanics, and Native
Americans are higher than for whites or Asians.
In the case of women, while enrollment in rigorous course work and advanced
placement classes in high school has increased for women, there is substantial
attrition along the S&E educational pathway. According to a National Academy of
Sciences study, “fewer high school girls intend to major in science and engineering
fields, more alter their intentions to major in science and engineering between high
school and college, [and] fewer women science and engineering graduates continue
on to graduate school.”30 As a result, some believe that programs are needed to
strengthen the course taking and persistence of women all along the educational
pipeline, as there is substantial attrition of both men and women at all stages of
science and engineering education.31 And although women receive about half of


27 (...continued)
2-21 (Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2008); National Center for Education
Statistics, Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Minorities, September

2007, at [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/minoritytrends/].


28 Jeffrey L. White, James W. Altschuld, and Yi-Fang Lee, “Persistence of Interest in
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: A Minority Retention Study,” Journal
of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, v. 12, 2006, pp. 47-64; Raymond B.
Landis, California State University, Los Angeles, “Retention by Design - Achieving
Excellence in Minority Engineering Education,” October 2005, at [http://www.nacme.org/
pdf/RetentionByDesign.pdf]; National Science Foundation, Women, Minorities, and Persons
with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, Arlington, VA, May 2008 Update,
[http://www.nsf.gov/ statistics/wmpd/pdf/may2008updates.pdf].
29 See for example, Brian K. Bridges, “Bottlenecks and Bulges: The Minority Academic
Pipeline,” Presentation at the 2nd Annual Conference on Understanding Interventions that
Encourage Minorities to Pursue Research Careers, American Council on Education, Mayth

2008; and The College Board, 4 Annual Advanced Placement Report to the Nation,


February 13, 2008 at [http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/
ap-r eport-to-t he-nation-2008.pdf].
30 The National Academies, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women
in Academic Science and Engineering, Washington, 2007, pp. 51 at
[http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11741].
31 Mary E. Virnoche, “Expanding Girls’ Horizons: Strengthening Persistence in the Early
Math and Science Education Pipeline,” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and
Engineering, v. 14, 2008, pp 29-44; The National Academies, Beyond Bias and Barriers:
Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, Washington, DC,
(continued...)

S&E bachelor’s and Ph.D. degrees in 2005, they are underrepresented in engineering,
computer science, and physics with 25% or less graduate school enrollments in
2005.32 Another goal of some, therefore, is to increase the representation of women
in these fields.
Current S&T Workforce and Changing Workforce Needs
Three issues discussed in relation to the current S&T workforce are the
implications of a constantly changing employment market, an aging workforce, and
multinational and U.S. firm employment outside the United States. As science and
engineering fields evolve, so do the skills needed by the S&T workforce. Some
policies are in place and others are recommended to encourage support of workers
to pursue and employers to provide continuing education to help the S&T workforce
to maintain its employment, and for employers to have a technically-able workforce
available in high need areas. Some U.S. workers believe that if corporations were
willing to train the S&T workforce whose skills are out-of-date with the new skills
these corporations need, the corporations would not need to seek foreign workers —
either by bringing them into the United States or employing them abroad.
Another issue is the aging workforce — a key issue for government, university,
and industry. Many employers worry that an insufficient number of American S&T
students are in the pipeline to replace those who retire. This issue is often cited when
U.S. citizenship is required for employment, particularly in the defense, national
security, and similar fields.33 On the other hand, the overall S&T workforce may be
sufficient if degree production, retirement patterns, or immigration do not change —
though the workforce will be older and the growth rate in such positions may slow
significantly. Some worry, however, that this older workforce may not be as creative,
and may reduce the opportunities for junior researchers to become independent.34
Some policies being discussed in this area include recruiting and supporting more
Americans to pursue S&T workforce careers, and increasing the number of federally
sponsored early-career grants focused on younger researchers.35


31 (...continued)

2007, pp. 59-60 at [http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11741]; Cornelia Dean,


“Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches,” The New York Times, December

19, 2006; Amanda Ripley, “Who Says A Woman Can’t be Einstein?” Time, March 7, 2005,


pp. 51-59.
32 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Volume 1, Chapter

2 (Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2008)


33 See, for example, Congress Daily, “DHS Official Warns U.S. Workforce Faces Skills
‘Crisis’,” June 16, 2008.
34 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Chapter 3 (Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation, 2008).
35 See, for example, testimony at U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, The Broken Pipeline: Losing Opportunities in the Life Sciences,thnd
hearing, 110 Cong., 2 sess., March 11, 2008 at [http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/

2008_03_11/2008_03_11.html]. Also, American Academy of Arts and Sciences,


(continued...)

Influence of Foreign S&T Students and Workers
The increased presence of foreign students36 in graduate science and engineering
programs has been and continues to be of concern to some in the scientific
community.37 Enrollment of U.S. citizens in graduate science and engineering
programs has not kept pace with that of foreign students in those programs.
According to NSF, while the first-time, full-time science and engineering graduate
enrollment of foreign students in science and engineering fields increased by 16%
from 2005 to 2006, U.S. citizen and permanent resident enrollment increased by
slightly more than1%.38 In addition to the number of foreign students in graduate
science and engineering programs, a significant number of non-U.S. citizens with
S&E Ph.D. degrees are employed by universities and industry.
There are divergent views in the U.S. scientific and academic community about
the effects of a significant foreign presence in graduate science and engineering
programs.39 Some argue that U.S. universities benefit from a large foreign citizen
enrollment by helping to meet the needs of the university and, for those students who
remain in the United States, the nation’s economy.40 Others argue that the influx of
foreign national scientists and engineers has resulted in depressed job opportunities,
lowered wages, and declining working conditions for American scientists and
engineers.
While many businesses, especially high-tech companies, have downsized, the
federal government annually issued thousands of H-1B41 visas to foreign workers.


35 (...continued)
“Advancing Research in Science and Engineering: Investing in Early-Career Scientists and
High-Risk, High-Reward Research,” 2008 at [http://www.amacad.org/ariseFolder/].
36 For more information, see CRS Report RL31146, Foreign Students in the United States:
Policies and Legislation, by Chad Haddal.
37 Cynthia Scanlon, “The H-1B Visa Debate,” Area Development Site and Facility Planning
Online, Oct/Nov 2006 at [http://www.areadevelopment.com/laborEducation/oct06/
h1bvisa.shtml].
38 National Science Foundation, First-Time, Full-Time Graduate Student Enrollment in
Science and Engineering Increases in 2006, Especially Among Foreign Students, NSF08-
302, InfoBrief, December 2007, at [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08302/]; and
Eugene McCormack, “Number of Foreign Students Bounces Back to Near-Record High,”
The Chronicle of Higher Education, v. 54, November 16, 2007, p. A1.
39 See for example, The National Academies, Policy Implications of International Graduate
Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States, Washington, DC, 2005, pp. 17-65
at [http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11289]; Norman Matloff, Center for
Immigration Studies, “Crying Educational Doom-and-Gloom,” May 2, 2008, at
[http://frontpagemag.com/ ].
40 See, for example, Vivek Wadha, AnnaLee Saxenien, Ben Rissing, Gary Gereffi, “Skilled
Immigration and Economic Growth,” Applied Research in Economic Development, 5:1(6-

14), May 2008 at [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1141190].


41 The H-1B temporary visa allows nonimmigrants to work legally in a specialty occupation,
(continued...)

There are those in the S&T community who contend that an over-reliance on H-1B
visa workers to fill high-tech positions has weakened opportunities for the U.S.
workforce.42 There are those U.S. workers who also argue that a number of the
available positions are being filled by “less-expensive foreign labor.”43 Those critical
of the influx of immigrant scientists have advocated placing restrictions on the hiring
of foreign skilled employees in addition to enforcing the existing laws designed to
protect workers. Those in support of the H-1B program maintain that there is no
“clear evidence” that foreign workers displace U.S. workers in comparable positions
and that it is necessary to hire foreign workers to fill needed positions, even during
periods of slow economic growth.44
Activities in the 110th Congress
In response to the issues outlined above, policy discussions during the 110th
Congress have focused on three possible actions: (1) increasing the talent pool,
particularly by diversifying the S&T workforce; (2) supporting the current S&T
workforce; and (3) reforming immigration policy.
Congress has authorized some actions, particularly in STEM education, to
address the first of these issues, in the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69).45 It
is currently debating funding for the programs authorized in the act. For example,
the act addresses the need to expand the participation of underrepresented groups in
the S&T workforce, by authorizing programs to enhance the quality of pre-college


41 (...continued)
such as scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and medical doctors, in the United
States for a period up to six years (generally in three-year increments). For expanded
discussion of the H-1B visa see CRS Report RL30498, Immigration: Legislative Issues on
Nonimmigrant Professional Speciality (H-1B) Workers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem; CRS Report

97-746, Foreign Science and Engineering Presence in U.S. Institutions and the Laborforce,


by Christine M. Matthews, and CRS Report RL31973, Programs Funded by the H-1B Visa
Education and Training Free, and Labor Market Conditions for Information Technology
(IT) Workers, by Linda Devine and Blake Alan Naughton.
42 See for example, Ephraim Schwartz, “H-1B: Patriotic or Treasonous?,” InfoWorld, v. 27,
May 6, 2005, at [http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/05/06/19NNh1b_1.html].
43 Carrie Johnson, “Hiring of Foreign Workers Frustrates Native Job-Seekers,” Washington
Post, February 27, 2002, p. E01.
44 See for example, John Clark, Nadine Jeserich, and Graham Toft, Hudson Institute, Can
Foreign Talent Fill Gaps in the U.S. Labor Force? The Contributions of Recent Literature,
September 2004; Chris Baker, “Visa Restrictions Will Harm U.S. Technology, Gates Says;
Microsoft Chief Calls For End to Caps On Workers,” The Washington Times, April 29,

2005, p. C13; and Ed Frauenheim, “Brain Drain in Tech’s Future?,” CNET Nets.com,


August 6, 2004.
45 CRS Report RL34396, The America COMPETES Act and the FY2009 Budget, by Deborah
D. Stine. CRS Report 98-871, Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Status
and Issues, by Christine M. Matthews. CRS Report RL33434, Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: Background, Federal Policy, and
Legislative Action, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.

teachers in high-need schools. Other bills before the 110th Congress to address this
issue include the Higher Education Reauthorization46 bills (H.R. 4137, S. 1642),
which propose to create new or enhance existing STEM degree programs; the STEM
Promotion Act of 2007 (H.R. 4151), which proposes to fund advertising to encourage
young Americans to enter S&T careers; and the Enhancing Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Education Act of 2008 (H.R. 6104, S. 3047), which
seeks to enhance STEM education initiatives coordination. The House also
established a Diversity and Innovation Caucus.47
Congressional policymakers are also discussing actions related to recruiting and
retaining the current science and technology workforce. The Workforce Investment
Improvement Act of 2007 (H.R. 3747) focuses on state Workforce Innovation in
Regional Economic Development (WIRED) plans to promote the creation of
high-skill and high-wage opportunities on a regional level. The America
COMPETES Act authorizes programs for early-career researchers. Other bills focus
on providing the education and training needed to meet the nation’s future S&T
workforce needs. For example, Title X of the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), entitled Green Jobs, authorizes an energy efficiency and
renewable energy worker training program. The 10,000 Trained by 2010 Act (H.R.
1467) would authorize competitive grants to establish, improve, and recruit students
to health care information degree programs. The federal S&T workforce is also the
focus of congressional discussion. The Intelligence Authorization Act for FY2007
(S. 372) would require 15-year projections and assessments of the federal S&E
workforce needs of the intelligence community, and mechanisms to recruit such a
workforce.
Also before the 110th Congress is the issue of the reliance of the United States
on a foreign S&T workforce including immigration reform.48 One bill (H.R. 6039)
would enhance the ability of foreign students who have earned a master’s or higher
STEM degree from a U.S. university to obtain permanent residence status.


46 See CRS Report RL34283, Higher Education Act Reauthorization in the 110th Congress:
A Comparison of Major Proposals, coordinated by Blake Alan Naughton.
47 For more information, see [http://wwwc.house.gov/reyes/news_detail.asp?id=1218].
48 For more information, see CRS Report RL30498, Immigration: Legislative Issues on
Nonimmigrant Professional Specialty (H-1B) Workers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.