|
How does chemistry research in the U.S. stack up against chemistry research in other countries and regions of the world? A recent report from the National Research Council warns that although the U.S. remains the single strongest country in research, that leadership role is less commanding than it used to be as a result of strong competition from Europe and Asia (1).
This is not a new story. I commented in January 2006 on another report from the National Academies, Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, which concluded that “scientific and technical building blocks of our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength” (2). Other than reiterating that we need to improve our infrastructure and funding for chemistry research, what does this new report say that is worthy of our attention?
One thing that struck me is that the panel charged with evaluating chemical research provided separate assessments of eleven (not four or five) areas: analytical chemistry, atmospheric chemistry, biological chemistry, chemical education, inorganic chemistry, macromolecular chemistry, materials chemistry and nanoscience, nuclear and radiochemistry, organic chemistry, physical chemistry, and theory/computation. Though one might quibble about how the borders among these areas were drawn (is atmospheric chemistry part of environmental chemistry and should the more encompassing field be included?), such a large number of areas reflects the breadth and scope of research done by chemists. Would that our courses and textbooks better reflected such diversity—but I’ve said that before.
Also interesting were the methods of evaluation. Not surprisingly, criteria included number of publications, number of citations, citations per paper, and reputation of journals. In 2003 the U.S. had 19% of all publications, down from 23% in 1988. U.S. chemists led in number of citations of their papers, with about 50% of all citations in prominent journals and 28% of total citations. U.S. chemists contributed 50 of the 100 most cited papers and 50% of the most frequently cited chemists are from the U.S. Another means of evaluation was to ask experts from around the world to select speakers they would invite to an international conference in each expert’s field. U.S. chemists ranged from 40% to 70% of all invited speakers to such “virtual congresses”, depending on the area.
Even more striking is the fact that chemical education research was studied along with the ten other areas listed. This is as it should be, but it is gratifying to see chemical education recognized as a significant aspect of the chemistry research enterprise. The report briefly outlines what chemical education research is, suggests that teaching methods be evaluated with reference to learning theories, notes that few universities have more than one chemical education researcher, and observes that little of the NSF’s education funding is specifically directed at chemical education research. U.S. chemists contributed 74% of the highly cited articles in chemistry education between 1995 and 1999 and 68% between 2000 and 2006; 49% of speakers at a “virtual congress” on chemical education were from the U.S. The report concludes that the U.S. is “the leader in chemical education”.
Less encouraging is the report’s conclusion that the number of U.S. citizens receiving Ph.D. degrees in chemistry per year is likely to continue to decrease. It has fallen by about 25% since 1970, despite the fact that the total number of Ph.D.s in chemistry is the same now as it was then. This is something that you and I should be working harder to reverse. We ought to be attracting to chemistry more students in general and more minorities, women, and students with disabilities in particular. Think about how you personally could do more in this area, and then do it!
According to a poll conducted for the Educational Testing Service, 40% of the general public and 61% of opinion leaders think that mathematics, science, and technology skills are the most important factor enabling the U.S. to compete in the global economy (3). In the same survey, 64% of respondents indicated that, unless changes took place in America’s schools, they expected negative effects on the economy within 10 years. Combined with the other two reports cited here, this indicates that we have behind us a groundswell of support for improving chemistry education. Let’s rise to the challenge!
Literature Cited
- Committee on Benchmarking the Research Competitiveness of the United States in Chemistry, National Research Council. The Future of U.S. Chemistry Research: Benchmarks and Challenges; National Academies Press: Washington, 2007 (accessed Apr 2007).
- National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine of The National Academies. Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2005 (accessed Apr 2007).
- Peter B. Hart Research Associates, Inc. and The Winston Group. Keeping Our Edge: Americans Speak on Education and Competitiveness; Educational Testing Service: Princeton, June 2006 (accessed Apr 2007).
|
