DYNAMICS OF SCIENTIFIC PERSONNEL IN THE USA

L. I. Safonova

The role of science in the life of modern society is steadily increasing. To an ever greater extent it determines the possibilities for the further growth of social production and for increasing its efficiency, and it is becoming an important factor in the economic competition between the world socialist system and the capitalist system.

In this connection, the economic problems of science itself—or, as it is now commonly called, the economics of science—are acquiring increasing importance. The subject of its research includes the following problems: determining the efficiency and productivity of scientific labor; planning and financing scientific research; developing the material base of science; the mechanism linking science with production and introducing the results of scientific research into practice; cost accounting in the sphere of science and material incentives for scientific workers; reproduction of personnel for science, etc.

Economic studies of this kind are also being conducted in the developed capitalist countries. Naturally, for Soviet economists the study of their experience and the conduct of a comparative analysis of activity in the sphere of scientific research are of definite interest.

The needs of internal development, the sharpening of inter-imperialist contradictions and competitive struggle, as well as the successes of world socialism and the growth of its economic potential, are prompting bourgeois states and monopolies to accelerate scientific and technical progress in every way.

Evidence of the growing attention to scientific-research activity is the increase in funds allocated for these purposes. In the United States of America, during the period from 1953 to 1964, funds allocated for research—including theoretical research—and development increased from 5,160 million dollars to 18,780 million dollars, of which 14,133 million dollars were allocated by the federal government.

For the general direction and coordination of work in the USA on the development of science, special bodies have been created. These include the Scientific Advisory Committee, the Federal Council for Science and Technology, and the Office of Science and Technology, headed by the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. The duties of these bodies include submitting recommendations to the President on strengthening the country’s scientific and technical potential.

Important research in the field of the economics of scientific and technical progress is carried out by the National Science Foundation, which was

was established under a special law of 1950 with the aim of promoting the progress of science. Its main tasks are reduced to the development and implementation of such a national policy as would promote the development of theoretical research and scientific education.

The National Science Foundation has been assigned the function of a central reference bureau on matters concerning scientific and technical personnel; for this purpose a special Division of Scientific Personnel and Training has been created.

The publications of the National Science Foundation provide interesting and extensive material on American scientists and engineers.

In addition to data on numbers (by field of science, branch of industry, and type of use), one can find in them detailed information on the age structure of scientists, on work experience, on employment, on scientists with degrees, on wages and sources of financing, on women scientists, on scientists’ knowledge of foreign languages (not only how many and which languages, but also the degree of command of them: whether they can read, speak, translate, prepare and deliver a lecture), and so on. Naturally, having detailed statistics on scientific personnel makes it much easier to carry out analysis and to identify the problems confronting American science in the area of training and providing it with the necessary personnel.

Under the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, ever more people have become involved in the sphere of scientific research activity. Thus, on the eve of the Second World War, 44,300 scientists and engineers were employed in industrial research laboratories in the United States. During the war years their number, in connection with the intensification of research of a military character, rose to 133,000 and, finally, in 1962 more than 300,000 engineers and scientists were already employed in industrial research and development.

The relative share of engineers and scientific workers in the total number employed in the national economy of the USA is also growing. In 1950 it amounted to 1.11%, by 1960 it had risen to 1.64%, and in 1970, according to a projection by the National Science Foundation, it will reach 2.36%.

But even now it can be said that the growth in the absolute number of people of science is outstripping, and will continue to outstrip, the rate of growth in the technical equipment of research labor. In the USA, for example, in 1964 the cost of experimental equipment in use had increased almost 8-fold compared with 1947, while the number of scientific workers had grown over the same period 4-fold¹.

All this indicates that the newest scientific and research problems cannot be solved by a simple increase in the number of scientific and technical personnel; moreover, expansion of the number of researchers has definite limits.

Despite the significant successes achieved in American science, especially in industrial research and development, in recent years statesmen and public figures and scientists in the USA have increasingly expressed serious concern over the sharp lag of the USA in the training of scientific and technical personnel, all the more because this lag becomes especially evident in comparison with the outstanding successes achieved in this area by the Soviet Union.

Thus, while in 1950 fewer engineers were graduating in our country than in the United States, in 1960 we surpassed them in this indicator by almost 3 times, and in 1966 by more than 4 times².

A particularly unfavorable factor for American science, under conditions of an ever-increasing demand for scientists and engineers, is the fact that during this same period (from 1950 to 1966) there was also a reduction in the absolute annual number of engineers graduating—from 61 thousand to 43 thousand—whereas the need for them amounts to 75 thousand.

Under conditions of a shortage of scientific and technical personnel, the greatest demand is for scientific workers holding the degree of Doctor of Science. In the United States, in 1950–1954 the doctoral degree was awarded annually to 7,737 scientific workers; in 1955–59, to 8,887; and in 1960–1962, to 10,675 scientific workers³. However, even such growth does not meet the need for doctors.

It must be said that the present situation with the reproduction of scientific personnel in the United States is not a temporary, passing phenomenon, as many bourgeois researchers of science try to present it. On the contrary, it is one of the chief signs of a deep and prolonged decline in American science.

The root causes of the United States’ lag in the training and provision of scientific personnel lie in the system of public education and in America’s social order.

The main obstacle is the lack of funds for obtaining higher education among many young Americans. Approximately 40% of those who successfully complete school are unable, for this reason, to enter institutions of higher education⁴.

Further, the following specific reasons can be singled out as hindering the expansion of the training of scientific personnel in the United States:

1. An acute shortage of teachers of the exact sciences, especially physics, in secondary schools, colleges, and universities.

2. The school education system, with its low level of instruction in the exact sciences and its “freedom for idlers,” which deprives students of the elementary knowledge necessary for admission to higher technical educational institutions.

3. A shortage of well-equipped classrooms and teaching laboratories.

4. Low interest in science in general and in mathematics in particular.

In this connection, the results of a survey conducted among students of one American university concerning their attitude toward the possibility of becoming scientists are of great interest. Approximately half of the students, as a reason creating an obstacle to becoming scientists, pointed to poor school preparation; one third referred to low wages; the rest answered that people of science, as a rule, do not possess high moral qualities, and therefore becoming one of them is a very dubious honor.

Great difficulties in training the necessary number of scientific personnel in capitalist countries are also created by the very weak attraction of women to science. In such countries as England, France, the FRG, Japan, and others, the proportion of women among scientific personnel is no more than 5–7%. In connection with this factor, Professor D. Price wrote: “Half of the losses of human resources in science occur as a result of the small participation of women”⁵.

The position of women in American science is no exception among other capitalist countries. Thus, in 1956 in the United States women constituted less than 1% of engineers and about 5% of scientists. In recent

in these years this percentage increased somewhat, but only very insignificantly. In 1962, out of the total number of scientists (214,940), there were 14,578 women, that is, 7%.

In 1964 there were 17,104 women scientists, which amounted to 8% of the total. At present, women engaged in scientific activity work mainly in such fields of science as chemistry, psychology, biology, and mathematics. In 1964, 75% of all women scientists were employed in these four fields (according to data from the National Science Foundation).

The well-known bourgeois economist, Princeton University (USA) professor F. Machlup, considering the problem of the shortage of scientific personnel in the USA, wrote: “One way to double the percentage of students studying physics and mathematics would be to abandon discrimination against women. We are completely neglecting our ‘female labor-force resources’; prejudice against women in mathematics and other sciences is purely traditional and is not justified by any reasonable arguments. Abandoning this prejudice could significantly help solve the problem before us”⁶. But the matter, of course, is not only tradition, to which the American professor refers; the deeper causes lie in the very socio-economic structure of bourgeois society.

Of interest is the fact that the percentage of the unemployed among women scientists is much higher than among scientists in general. Thus, in 1964, out of the total number of scientists (223,854), 9,617 were unemployed, that is, approximately 4%, while among women—2,308 out of 17,104, that is, 13%.

In recent years in the United States there has been a quite clearly manifested tendency for leading specialists to “flee” from institutions of higher education into industry. Naturally, the higher level of pay for scientists and engineers in industrial laboratories places universities at a disadvantage in the competitive struggle to attract scientific workers. The problem of providing teaching personnel is becoming more acute. If before the war approximately 95% of all mathematicians, 75% of all physicists, and 45% of all chemists who received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy went into teaching work, then now the percentage of mathematicians going into institutes has fallen to 56%, physicists—to 27%, and chemists—to 16%. Of the total number of those who received doctoral degrees in the physical and technical sciences, in 1956–1957 only 27% engaged in teaching, and in 1957–58 only 25%, whereas in order to provide institutions of higher education with teaching personnel it is necessary that at least 58% of scientists and engineers receiving a degree go into teaching work⁷. Only a few American scholars say that such a situation may exhaust the teaching personnel and in the future harm all scientific-research activity. Here is what one group of experts writes on this subject in its report to the president: “The most critical bottleneck in the expansion and improvement of education in the United States is the ever-increasing shortage of highly qualified teachers. If a sufficient influx of the most capable personnel into educational institutions is not ensured

the country's shortage of highly qualified specialists will be felt ever more sharply in every sphere of activity. Although it is uncertain, the United States is pursuing precisely the opposite course. The need for highly qualified personnel is growing everywhere, but colleges and universities are in the least advantageous position in the competitive struggle to attract professional personnel.

“Our country, like an imprudent peasant, is eating the seed corn needed for the future harvest. The matter may end in catastrophe”⁸.

One of the characteristic methods of resolving the problem of the acute shortage of scientific personnel in the United States is the importation of already trained and established scientists from other capitalist countries. This process began essentially during the Second World War, when many outstanding scientists fleeing Nazi persecution arrived in the United States from Europe. After the war this process continued and intensified, though for different reasons. From 1949 to 1964, 84,919 engineers and scientists came to the United States. Their inflow grows annually. In 1963–64 alone this figure amounted to 15,523 persons. Of those who arrived in 1964, about 29% were doctors of science and approximately 11% were leading engineers with degrees⁹.

Naturally, this method inflicts enormous damage on the scientific and technical development of other capitalist countries, but for the United States it is economically exceptionally advantageous, since it frees the country from the large expenditures necessary for training scientific personnel.

J. Bernal gives an interesting and correct explanation of all these phenomena. Here is what he writes: “It is absurd for a scientist to remain in unfavorable conditions in order to ensure the prosperity of British capitalists more than American ones, or to do more for Britain than for America in armaments, considering that the capitalists work together in various combinations and the military forces are united in NATO. Until a scientist feels that he is truly working for the people, his patriotic devotion is secondary, if not theoretically then practically”¹⁰.

From all this one may conclude that at present in the United States the main emphasis is placed on industrial research and development, which is applied in character. As is known, these account for 92% of all research and development, and only 8 percent for theoretical research, which is carried out mainly by universities and colleges.

Industrial laboratories are best provided with material resources, scientists, and engineering and technical personnel. All this, naturally, ensures the rapid development and introduction of advanced technology and techniques. Thus, industrial science is growing. But this progress also has a reverse side. Generous appropriations for applied research and development draw many actual and potential scientists away from theoretical research. And where the foundations of science are concerned, the United States often has to make use of borrowed ideas.

In addition, universities and colleges—the suppliers of future engineers, researchers, and scientists—have found themselves in an extremely difficult

…in a difficult position, they are experiencing an acute shortage of qualified teaching personnel. Moreover, if one takes into account that teaching activity, as a rule, is combined with theoretical research, this further complicates the problem. For many reasons, the possibilities for training scientific personnel are far from being fully utilized. Hence the shortage of scientific personnel, which has begun to be felt at all levels of American science.

1. R. S., Economics of Industry, 1964, abstract 11E4. ↩

2. Brief Statistical Handbook: The USSR in Figures in 1966. Statistika, 1967, p. 50. ↩

3. R. S. “Economics of Industry,” 1965, abstract 6E3. ↩

4. Collection Scientific and Cultural Institutions, USA. Moscow, 1961. ↩

5. G. M. Dobrov, The Science of Science. Introduction to General Science Studies. “Naukova dumka,” Kiev, 1966, p. 133. ↩

6. F. Machlup, The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the USA. Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1966, p. 240. ↩

7. F. Machlup, The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the USA. Moscow, 1966, p. 238. ↩

8. F. Machlup, The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. Moscow, 1966, p. 242. ↩

9. “Foreign Scientists in the USA.” World Economy and International Relations, no. 2, 1967, p. 117. ↩

10. G. M. Dobrov, Science of Science. Introduction to General Science Studies, p. 128. ↩