WSJ - US loosing it place among cutting edge science research

U.S. science research may lose place on cutting edge
Friday, August 12, 2005

By Sharon Begley, The Wall Street Journal



News last week that scientists in South Korea had cloned a dog --
something no other researchers had ever managed -- was more
surprising for the what than the who. Dogs are notoriously tough to
clone, so the achievement was unexpected. But the scientists who
pulled it off were exactly the ones the smart money had bet on.
In 2004, they cloned the first human embryo and extracted stem cells
from it; earlier this year they became the first to create new lines
of embryonic stem cells containing the DNA of patients with diseases
or injuries, the first step toward cellular therapies custom
tailored to a patient's genetic profile. The fact that Seoul has become Cloning and Stem Cell Central has ratcheted up a concern that has been growing for years: Is the U.S. losing its decades-long pre-eminence in science? And if so, does it matter? The numbers suggest that the answer to the first question is yes. According to theNational Science Foundation, the U.S. share of
scientific and engineering papers (a measure of how much knowledge
researchers are generating) has been on a steady decline. From
almost 40 percent in 1988, the U.S. share had fallen to 30 percent
by 2001 (the last year for which the count is in), and is likely
even lower now. That reflects, in particular, the rising scientific
output of China, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan. As recently as 1995, the U.S. was the top producer of scientific knowledge, with about 200,000 papers. Since then, Western Europe has
sprinted past, producing almost 230,000 papers in 2001. The U.S. was
stalled at 200,000. Asia graduates more science and engineering
Ph.D.s than the U.S. does; Europe graduates 50 percent more.
Unless you treat science the way the media do Olympics, with country-
by-country medal counts obscuring the inspiring achievements, it's
not obvious why the U.S.'s fall from dominance should cause concern,
at least for patients. Ill Americans benefit from the antipsychotic
drug Risperdal, invented in a lab in Belgium. The extract that
formed the basis for the cholesterol-lowering drug Mevacor emerged
from a lab in Spain. Americans don't need a passport to benefit from
either. That more smart people around the world are making more
discoveries "portends well for the future of all humankind," Alan
Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, argued in an editorial in Science.

"Do we have to trump the entire world?" he asked me
rhetorically. "Probably not. That more papers are coming from
outside the U.S. doesn't upset me nearly as much as the fact that
cutting-edge scientists are leaving because they can't do research
here" as a result of strict limits on human embryonic stem-cell
studies. (It is illegal to use federal money for research like the
Koreans', for example.) "This overlay of values onto research is a
very alarming development." That's the nub of it. It's one thing to lose pre-eminence, it's quite another to lose eminence, and that's where the U.S. is heading.

"Americans are rightfully proud of the research we do, but this is
not the only place really great science is being done these days,"
says Evan Snyder of the Burnham Institute, La Jolla, Calif., a
leader in stem-cell research. "Countries that never had a tradition
of cutting-edge biomedical research now have an entree as a result
of U.S. (stem-cell) policy. Americans are at a disadvantage in not
having the opportunity to develop the technical know-how."
One sign of how besieged he and others feel: Lab space financed with
private or state money for studies that can't be legally done with
federal money is called a "safe haven." Allowing a minority opinion to stifle research is only one symptom of politics undermining science. Some appointees to federal scientific advisory panels have been chosen for their ideology rather than their expertise; staffers with no research credentials alter the scientific (not only the policy) content of reports on climate change. Politicians' attacks on the science of evolution continue, even though "intelligent design" may make a fascinating lesson for a philosophy class, but is not biology.

"This anti-scientism couldn't be more damaging to young people
contemplating devoting their life to research," says neuroscientist
Ira Black, whose own stem-cell institute in New Jersey has been
stalled by political red tape. "The sense of opportunity that was
always predominant in the U.S. now lies elsewhere."
Since scientific innovation has long fueled economic growth, there
is a danger "that the U.S. will no longer be dominant in
innovation," says G. Wayne Clough, president of the Georgia
Institute of Technology and a member of the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology. "A larger number of
international patents are being obtained overseas, R&D facilities
are moving overseas. If we are not innovating here, the economic
benefits will go elsewhere, too." An interesting battle will come when a lab in Singapore or Seoul or Britain uses embryonic stem cells to develop a therapy for diabetes or Parkinson's or heart disease. Its use in the U.S. would require approval by the Food and Drug Administration. Will opponents of stem-cell research demand that the FDA reject it and deprive patients of their only hope?

Just before the Great Influenza. Hopefully, not a parallel there.

wait the allready put one in the oval office.

they use them to prevent tissue congestion when reattaching severed tissue, like John Wayne Bobbitt's whacked thingie.

I am so bad, I need a spanking.

Either they support the Chimperor or science. They can't have it both ways.
Maybe they have to dance with the one that brung 'em.

We were predicting this years ago. I had two friends in the biotech field who got job offers and left the country straight out of college. I had another friend who went to Europe to work in nuclear Physics.

I think for us the die is cast. The question is whether it will be a slow decline or a swift one.

I accidently left out the author and wsj on it. I copied and pasted above the article just fyi.

in control. They do not believe in science or logic for that matter.

If George Bush were around when edison invented the light bulb he would have sided with the candle stick lobby."

When the Journal took a nosedive to the right back in the reign of King Kong Ronnie Raygun, idiocy took over the monied elite of America, and it has trickled down to the masses, the media, and the schools. Not to mention that there aren't any jobs when the budding scientist gets out of school, and there are so many laws against using science (and more every day) that it's not surprising at all the the US is losing its competitive edge and all credibility in science, law, economics, and democracy.

QED

field of research?

And the fact that corporations are now funding "Science" strongly limits what research is done as well.

He is against any program that promotes science. He's shot down funds for environmental research; cloning; stem cell, etc.

I heard he is for a research program showing us how to ergonomically flip burgers.

After all, the fags can't marry, and we are gonna get the Christian bible and prayer back in the schools real soon now, y'hear??:sarcasm:

there is no longer any social stigma on being dumb or uneducated in the US. it is actually a "know-nothing" attitude that is revered on the right, be it the likes of limbaugh or the right wing religious fanatics who can not accept scientific principles as the best tools to understand the world.

the busheviks demand that government scientists edit out from their research findings the objective facts and conclusions that undermine the political opinions and stances of the right and businesses in general.

how can anyone take seriously american culture when only one third of americans believe in evolution and demand that intelligent design be taught along side of evolution, or when the US government denies global warming is a fact?

we no longer look to science and technology as the best avenue to ensure US economic health. instead, financial wizards on wall street swap columns on a ledger sheet and viola, profits!

George Bush and his gang of thieves are the avatars of this disgraceful culture of "who you know is more important than what you know."

it is a culture seen before in history and it contributed to the downfall of many civilizations and nations.

we in america are fooling ourselves if we think that "american" culture led to US pre-eminence in science after WWII. it was a result of a massive influx of european scientists who fled the nazis and soviets along with that war's destruction of the european infrastructure required to train effectively large numbers of scientists. now that those specters no longer walk astride europe those people are staying in Europe. now that china and india and japan have the modern infrastructure to support wide-spread scientific endeavors, those nations scientists are also staying put.

I taught grad courses in chemistry back in the '80's. by far the best students came from india and china and europe. the americans were, on the most part lazy and complained about the amount of work i demanded from them, and i told them over 20 years ago that if they did not work hard, to look around at the indians and chinese in the class, because someday they would be working for them.

when the federal govenment contributes less than 10% to public school systems, and a public school system's funds are at the mercy of local anti-tax advocate groups, no wonder we are slipping.

i haver posted this before: the nation with the best scientists rule the world.

what's left? . . . 20 years from now, the only jobs will be at MacDonald's, A&P, and the local carwash . . .

Oh you forgot wall mart.

The Administration . . .

was a monumental effort to catalogue all of those industries and scientific disciplines essential to the U.S. economy and national security. The long report was divided into life sciences, energy, the environment, the chemical sciences, computer science, and several others I can't recall. It detailed the progress that had been made in every scientific and technological area critical to the United States and offered comparisons to the efforts of other nations in the same areas. It also offered suggestions and warnings regarding areas in which the U.S. had to devote additional funding and effort in order to remain competitive. It's a shame that the Bush Administration has not seen fit to continue this important all-encompassing self-assessment.