Where will they work?

Although ACS President E. Ann Nalley raises many notable points, I find her assertions about the supposed scarcity of technical talent in the U.S. and the alleged link between science spending and economic benefit to the nation to be rather questionable (C&EN, Jan. 2, page 2).

If science is indeed so crucial to the nation, why has the job outlook for scientists been moribund for so long? In spite of what some commentators might believe, people in many areas of science face highly uncertain prospects. If one doubts this, then pick up the Nov. 7, 2005, issue of C&EN, which announced on the cover that the "Upturn in Jobs Remains Elusive." More good news awaits in the opening paragraph: "For the fifth consecutive year, the job market remains depressed." Those who value the objective analysis of facts might conclude that the supply of scientists has already exceeded the demand for scientists, at least in certain fields.

Yet according to the National Academy of Sciences report that Nalley cites, we need to "develop, recruit, and retain" even more scientists and engineers from "both the U.S. and abroad." Why? Before our country spends large amounts of money correcting a talent supply problem that does not seem to exist in much of science, policymakers should take a critical look at the real employment prospects for those with technical degrees, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Although there may be a few bright spots in some fields, I suspect that the overall data remain rather bleak. It would be worthwhile to consider the obvious possibility that students are simply making highly rational economic choices about their future prospects in many of the technical fields, particularly in light of the demanding coursework needed to obtain the requisite degrees.

If the political classes truly want to maintain the U.S.'s competitive position in the new global economy, they better think more about reviving the nation's decaying manufacturing and industrial sectors than about training more people for science jobs that largely do not exist. If manufacturing revives, our trade deficit and economic position will improve correspondingly, and Adam Smith and his invisible hand will create all the scientists and engineers necessary to fill the new jobs.

Wm. Charles L. Jamison
Warrenton, Va.

Diane Grob Schmidt's comment describes the decline of U.S. industry together with the reduced interest in science in our schools and asks what we can do (C&EN, Dec. 5, 2005, page 65). The answer provided is to lobby our elected officials on the contribution scientists make to the economy and to increase science funding for research and education. If such efforts graduated more scientists and engineers, where would they work?

Much more important is to provide a climate in which chemical companies do not move their next investments overseas. This will at least provide jobs, and the demand for professionals will stimulate increased graduates in the fields in demand. Unfortunately, such a change is much harder than increasing the number of graduates because it will require an overhaul of the regulatory environment in which chemical companies are forced to operate.

Until the U.S. becomes an attractive place to manufacture chemicals and create new chemical businesses, I fear we must expect a continued decline in jobs and consequent reduction in science graduates.

Malcolm L. Watts
Kennett Square, Pa.