What Shortage of Scientists and Engineers?

By John Tierney

If the United States really has a critical shortage of scientists and engineers, why didn’t this year’s graduates get showered with lucrative job offers and signing bonuses?

That’s the question that comes to my mind after reading about Barack Obama’s plans to address the “shortage” we keep hearing about from blue-ribbon commissions of scientists and engineers. He wants to pay for the training of 100,000 more engineers and scientists over the next four years, as my colleagues Bill Broad and Cory Dean note in their excellent analysis of the presidential candidates’ plans to encourage technological innovation.

Now, I’m all in favor of American technological innovation, and I’m glad to see Mr. Obama promising to review the export restrictions that have been so damaging to the aerospace industry (and that were promoted by John McCain because of what he called national-security risks). I’m also all in favor of American scientists and engineers, especially the ones in my family. (My father is a chemical engineer; my brother is an electrical engineer.) I’d love to see American corporations and universities frantically competing to offer them the kind of salaries paid to M.B.A.’s and lawyers.

But employers don’t have to throw around that kind of money because there’s no shortage of workers — and they won’t be increasing their offers if the federal government artificially inflates the labor supply with an extra 100,000 graduates. As Daniel S. Greenberg wrote in the Scientist magazine in 2003: “Despite the alarms, no current or impending shortage exists, and never did. Instead, we’re glutted with scientists and engineers in many fields, as numerous job seekers with respectable credentials can attest.”

The only “shortage” is of American-born scientists and engineers. But with so many talented foreigners competing for positions here in schools and laboratories, it’s entirely rational for American students to head into fields where their skills are in more demand — and harder to replace with foreign labor. Mr. Greenberg sums up their options nicely:

Consider the economic fates of two bright college graduates, Jane and Jill, both 22. Jane excels at a top law school, and after graduation three years later, is wooed and hired by a top law firm at the going rate–$125,000 a year, with a year-end bonus of $25,000 to $50,000.

Jill heads down the long trail to a PhD in physics, and after six Spartan years on graduate stipends rising to $20,000 a year, finally gets her degree. Tenure-track jobs appropriate to her rigorous training are scarce, but, more fortunate than her other classmates, she lands a good postdoc appointment–at $35,000 year, without health insurance or professional independence. Three years later, when attorney Jane is raking in $150,000 a year, plus bonuses, Jill is nail-biting over another postdoc appointment, with an unusually ample postdoc recompense of $45,000 per annum. Medicine and business management similarly trump science in earning power.

So why do we keep hearing complaints about a shortage? One recent reason is that it’s been harder for foreign scientists and engineers to get visas since the Sept. 11 attacks. But the quickest and cheapest way to deal with that problem is to increase the number of visas (as Mr. Obama has promised to do).

But even if the visa restrictions are eased, the complaints about a shortage are sure to continue — they’ve been sounded for decades. Why? Well, consider who does some of the loudest complaining: administrators of university science and engineering department that stand to get more funds, and corporate executives hoping to have more future workers trained at taxpayer expense.

The blue-ribbon commissions have kept warning that America’s future is in jeopardy if we don’t train more native-born scientists and engineers, but I don’t see how Americans are worse off by letting some technologies be developed and manufactured by foreigners who can do it more efficiently. Politicians inveigh against the trade deficit in advanced-technology products, but what’s the harm in buying computer disk drives and semiconductor chips produced more cheaply in Asian factories?

And as long as American universities and laboratories keep attracting the world’s best talent, why should we worry about losing our technological edge?

Comments are no longer being accepted.

doug October 17, 2008 · 1:27 pm

Jill, the PhD in physics, should be at a Silicon Valley startup working on new battery technologies. Jane, the lawyer, should be at her local DA’s office prosecuting drug offenses or better yet as a public defender of the drug offenders.

If there really is a shortage, wouldn’t that cause lucrative job offers and signing bonuses?

Christian S. Miller October 17, 2008 · 1:29 pm

John Tierney is exactly correct. We can have more scientists and engineers. We just have to pay them like lawyers or fund managers. I have held this view for 40 years, ever since I started looking for my first engineering job.
Why don’t companies pay higher salaries to engineers? They don’t have to. But we engineers do it to ourselves. We encourage more people to enter the engineering field rather than restrict it. When an engineer is in a position of hiring an engineering consultant, he tends to balk at the rate. Lawyers have no such problem in their brotherhood. Engineers make the highest rate when they testify for lawyers.

HS October 17, 2008 · 1:33 pm

“what’s the harm in buying computer disk drives and semiconductor chips produced more cheaply in Asian factories? ”

One day, China may decide to punish us by not selling us any more chips.

What’s the harm of buying crude oil from other countries? Unlike computer chips, crude oil is a fungible good that can be purchased from numerious suppliers. Yet every politican keeps telling us how important it is to be “energy independent.”

Nick October 17, 2008 · 1:59 pm

As a worker in a high-tech defense contractor who requires US citizenship of all employees, I can tell you we DEFINITELY have a shortage of workers. The ratio of qualified non-US to US citizens when recruiting is at least 10:1 if not higher. Very depressing!

Rahul October 17, 2008 · 1:59 pm

Good article John! But, I think it is not prudent to assume that american universities will continue to attract the best graduate students and faculty from around the world or that foreign phds from american universities will continue to want to stay and do research here. In my opinion, asian and other economies would only have to advance a little more before most of their engineers and scientists would prefer to live and work closer to home. By then, the United States should not lose the culture of science and math education at home; it might prove hard to rebuild quickly….

Tim McDonald October 17, 2008 · 2:04 pm

While there may be a surplus of scientists and engineers seeking tenured jobs, there is a shortage of experienced, skilled scientists and engineers in the private sector. The job offers for new PhDs in industry offer similar compensation to a new JD.

RP October 17, 2008 · 2:57 pm

This post shouldn’t really be about more visas for non-citizen PhDs. It should be about what your admittedly overwrought example illustrates: how little PhDs make in light of the time and effort spent achieving the degree in comparison to other professional postgraduate degrees.

Perhaps one reason so many non-US citizens pursue both their education and career in the US is because, simply, for those US citizens concerned about their personal economy, a PhD does not make short term economic sense. Also, until the same groups home countries offer the political and economic stability of countries like the US, Europe, and increasingly China, the costs associated with research enterprise effectively prevent associated industries from relocating the work and the workers to their “home” country.

All in all, I feel fairly certain that a lot of US citizen PhDs are offended by parts of this post: Your solution to the “problem” is to further dilute the physical science, engineering, math and medical research market by allowing greater access to job seekers with even lower salary demands. Um, no thanks!

I wonder if your opinion would be the same if the Times was able to find increased efficiencies by outsourcing your job to English speakers in other countries.

Duane J. Matthiesen October 17, 2008 · 3:08 pm

The standard lie that is always told by engineering employers, “the US needs more engineers”, really means, “the US needs more cheap engineers.” In a free market, if there is low supply of engineers, engineering pay wouldincrease to attract more persons into engineering. The fact that engineers have been and continue to be low paid proves conclusively here is not an undersupply of engineers. Since foreigners are often willing to accept low wages as an engineer, they help keep engineering pay lower than it should be.

Bob October 17, 2008 · 3:19 pm

When we allowed our industry to move overseas we lost a lot more than just assembly jobs. We lost many jobs starting with the person that sweeps the floor, to assemblers, supervisors, managers, engineers etc. IMHO the worst thing that we lost is the future generation of products. To give an example, the PC motherboards that are made in the Orient for quite some time now, gave rise to companies such as Asus. When the technology to make small notebooks matured, those notebook computers could not possibly be made here, the foundation was missing, it existed with Asus and naturally they brought to the market a nice product. As our national debt, and annual trade deficits keep rising, I hope our leaders wake up to the fact that “free trade” is a bunch of horse manure fed to us by the people that profit from it while they are destroying our country. The American people need to demand from their leaders to put America first instead of the lobbies. Email is free and takes very little time and effort to contact our representatives.

Tom October 17, 2008 · 3:53 pm

In creating lawyers and accountants instead of engineers and scientists, we are gradually dumbing down the American populace. It used to be that the leaders of American business had to be conversent in the technology that their company practiced in order to be qualified to hold the position. American business leaders are now a pretty technically illiterate bunch. All they know are ‘people skills’ and how to talk to Wall street. They are incapable of strategic thinking, as they lack the background to appreciate long-term trends. We do this to ourselves as a society by stressing finance and law over science and technology, telling our kids that a good suit and nice hair are more important than understanding how the universe works, that who you know is more important than what you know.

If subsidies to get people to take more math, science, and engineering produce more future leaders who are scientifically literate, then its worth it. We don’t have a shortage of scientific and engineering specialists, but we do have a shortage of leaders, and citizens in general, who understand enough of the world around them to make reasonable and informed decisions. The debates I read on this blog frequently make me cringe at the low level of scientific understanding exhibited by the contributors. How will we ever make reasonable decisions about global warming and the like when so few understand the physics, chemistry, and economics involved.

John B October 17, 2008 · 4:33 pm

It’s the culture of greed!

Wall Street was the visible manifestation of greed but it is embedded in the corporate culture. How many experienced professionals are kicked out of corporations in their early fifties to be replaced by inexperienced chaf. While the ratios of executive pay to professional staff zooms towards 40:1 the middle class gets shafted.

Inflated salaries for MBA’s and Lawyers do nothing to grow the size of the national pie. Only to take their growing slice. The first experiment of an MBA is a complete failure in management and financial performance.

Place science and engineering salaries at a par and many bright young American souls would be following that dream. Students form their decisions by mid high school. Study this weekend or play. It is easier to dumb-out to the easier math than take the harder road. My experience in college was if you couldn’t cut it in engineering you went to the business school.

When we are improving salries for engineers and scientist don’t forget the teachers, especially of math and science. You must plant the seed early to harvest the results.

I like Ike. This year we celebrate the fifty year anniversary of NASA. Howmany life saving and life improving products were the growth of that investment?

The guestion is do we invest for the next quarter, next year or next generation. When the decision is greed the answer is this quarter!

BobW October 17, 2008 · 4:37 pm

We have more than enough accountants and lawyers, too. Like other people, when a lawyer can’t find a job he tends to invent one.

When an engineer invents himself a job he may very well produce something that makes us all better off.

When a lawyer invents himself a job we often rue the day.

GG October 17, 2008 · 4:53 pm

Bob # 9 got it exactly right. Whatever is in the food or air; Americans are more innovative than Asians, with important exceptions, but certainly on average, and we ought to make it attractive for American born science and engineering students to get well paid jobs working in U.S. industry here in the U.S. This can be done by making it financially attractive for American companies to do their R&D here in the U.S. and not overseas.

I was on a panel for National Academy of Engineering and we said that in a report in 1980. It did not happen unfortunately and we are sadly paying the penalty.

Second, we ought to make it more difficult for Asians to get visas and green cards to work in the U.S. so Americans can get the jobs. Third, we ought to give more grants to industry and less to universities and knock the trivial, low quality universities out of the PhD factory business. Most of them do it because it is lucrative to get grants. The professors do it because they get a larger income and tenure by virtue of the grants. University professors who focus on research are not typically the best teachers; foreign born professors are even worse. Most PhDs who come out of these factories are not worth their salt and although they are supposedly trained to do research, they rarely if ever do research again and are terrible at it if they do. They would do better to get a Masters degree and stop at that.

In any case, most of the professionals needed would be better prepared with a Masters, not doing a research thesis because it is not a research degree (required in places like NJIT where I taught for a little bit because they need the coolie labor to work on the grants; they can’t get enough PhD students.) Instead the Masters students should do design projects and get taught how to work effectively in industry. The only thing NJIT has in common with MIT is the IT in their names. There are many other similar schools. They should get out of the research business.

Doing research is usually satisfying in contrast to being a lawyer, which profession can be very tough and demanding; the law is not always a nice, clean profession. Moreover, hockey players get paid less on average than baseball players. It is the nature of the industry. So don’t blame the lawyers. However, a good PhD learns how industry works and can leave to start his/her own company. One can get richer than the richest lawyers.

Finally, we need to set up tax and trade barriers to bring manufacturing back home. That will provide plenty of jobs, the competition will increase compensation, and the students will flock to the professions that offer jobs.

I got my PhD in physics from MIT 51 years ago, it has been a ball, and I am still working even though I have no need to.

LS October 17, 2008 · 5:22 pm

As a current Ph.D student in organic chemistry at a highly ranked U.S. university, I can tell you that the job market is flooded. While chemistry jobs in the industrial sector (at pharmaceutical and chemical companies) pay very highly, academic salaries are low. When pharmaceutical companies only hire 2-3 people a year each, the postdoctoral market is flooded with people continuing their job search, making it even harder to secure funding. Meanwhile, in a time of government cutbacks to scientific funding, principle investigators at academic institutions struggle to support their labs and hire postdocs. By the time I am considered “employable” as a Ph.D–hopefully 5 years of graduate school and a 2 year postdoc–I will be 29 years old, just in time to begin a grueling tenure pursuit at a college. Since I am a woman, my husband (also a grad student) and I must wait until my 30’s to have children, since it is impossible to be pregnant and work in a chemistry lab.
I decided to pursue chemistry because I enjoy it, not because it pays well. Would I recommend graduate school in the sciences to anyone else? No. There are far more positions open for Master’s candidates, since companies know that they can cap the salaries lower and provide any additional training. Do I think it’s important to have American-trained and -based scientists? Yes, unless we want to lose the edge to U.S. innovation that has fueled our economy until now.

A3k October 17, 2008 · 5:26 pm

“One day, China may decide to punish us by not selling us any more chips.”

And when China does that, we’ll buy from the South Koreans. Or the Israelis. Or someone else. Or we’ll build our own plants again.

Rebuilding an industry is easier than building it the first time since the knowlege already exists the second time around.

Enrique October 17, 2008 · 8:13 pm

I have been the science guy/engineer in the semiconductor capital equipment for years. There is a definitely shortage of qualified people and believe me the starting pay quoted by Mr. Tierney is from reality. A hired EE or CSEE out of 4 year college should expect ~60K/year. If you have a PHd (PHd Physics people can do really well), starting pay will of be order $100K+, of course if you want to teach you should expect low pay. Or if your a Phd and lab work is based on observation of worm sex or some such, you will probably have a hard time finding work. If you can, create the intellectual property there really isnt a limit to what you could earn $200k to $300K or more shouldnt be a problem in the right field .

Tierney is right. There are plenty guys who can design a bracket, write a program with guidance etc. What there arent a lot of, are people who can sit down and create something that doesnt already exist. New technolgies etc. Imaginative, technologically oriented engineers or scientists who see connections and create novel technologies are very, very few, everywhere. These are people that America needs. The one in a thousand engineer. To find him you need to educate thousands. Its a shame if they end up as IP attorneys filing nothing but patent lawsuits or bankrupting America on Wall street.

Be warned though. Currrently, US Industry outsources huge amounts of manufacturing overseas, the trend is also that significant amount of design work is also being outsourced. A necessary consequence is that American Companies are training armies of engineers in Asia.Today they are manufacturing engineers, but since they are smart ambitious folk, they will be designers in 10 to 20 years creating the novel technologies that America traditionally breaks ground with. I expect that within 10 years I will relocate to SE Asia just to be able to keep doing what I currently do. My first job there will probably be to teach SE Asians to do what I do.

David Chowes, New York City October 18, 2008 · 1:53 am

This time a quite simple answer: cheaper labor.

geoffv October 18, 2008 · 2:26 am

Yep, the US will probably loose its edge.

People in this country just do not have very much interest in anything other than money. This is why they pay themselves much more than they produce and hence we have growing unemployment and inflation.

Any while you are all enjoying, your $100,000+ per-year salaries, your abundant consumer goods, your large consumer debt and you 60-hour work week, this US-born-and-raised scientist is going to Europe or Canada to kick back and live the good life where science is appreciated. I plan to make a living wage, receive good health care, interact with normal people who understand basic science at a least a high-school level, and not work so much that I can’t even fit in time to exercise (//www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/fashion/thursdaystyles/16fitness.html?ref=health). By the way, getting up at 5 in the morning after working 12+ hours the previous day is for someone else; like someone silly enough to go to law school.

The other big problem with science in this country is that it has way too much of a business or engineering mentality. The de facto standard has become that postdoc positions are almost entirely results driven. That is, postdocs are not allowed to be creative and pursue their interests in an independent manner. It is mostly about deliverables. It’s no wonder that young professors have a hard time building their careers; they were supposed to have started building their niche as a postdoc. In more progressive countries, governments are willing to pay scientists livable wages to work on projects that are of the scientist’s choosing; even at a postdoc level. What a concept, trust the smart person with the PhD. Oh yea, I forgot, that’s “elitist”.

For all of you wondering what gave the US its edge… It is summed up nicely by the famous quote

“Science is the highest personification of the nation because that nation will remain the first which carries the furthest the works of thought and intelligence.”

-Louis Pasteur

You see, were sunk!

fjd October 18, 2008 · 2:46 am

I think we need to maintain a clear distinction between undergraduate training in S/M/E and subsequent employment. How many History majors go on to work as professional historians? It is commonly argued that a liberal arts education teaches the student to think critically, and that such training will be useful in a wide variety of fields later on. I contend that a S/M/E education achieves that objective, as well; and, moreover, the type of thinking skills the student learns in S/M/E courses nicely complement those she learns in liberal arts courses. Wouldn’t it be nice if our future leaders in business, law, education, government, etc., had a working and intuitive understanding of math and science? It is worth remembering that our Renaissance forebears grouped quite a lot of fields — ethics, physics, math, art — all together in the catch-all discipline of philosophy, the love of wisdom.

Kaye October 18, 2008 · 3:06 am

The situation for Ph.D.s in the biological sciences is very dire. There is an enormous glut of Ph.D.s, whoa re therefore stuck in “terminal” post-docs, since there are not enough tenure-track faculty positions or industry positions to go around. I completely agree with LS above.

This brings us to the question of why universities graduate so many Ph.Ds. The only conclusion one can reach is that Professors (Prinicipal Investigators) use these greaduate students as dirt-cheap labor to carry out their experiments. The Ph.D. degree is a nice side-effect to keep the minions slaving away. However, at the end of it, the only reward is a measly $30K a year post-doc with no benefits.

I agree that science funding should not be restricted to allow the US to continue to be at the forefront of scienctific innovation. However, there should be some sort of restriction placed upon the number of doctoral degrees awarded on a national basis each year. I agree with one of the posters that most jobs in industry require not much more than a Masters’ degree. How about awarding incentives to Universities to do just that? Graduate far more Masters’ candidates and far less doctoral candidates so that there is some semblance of balance between supply and demand?

Dan Wylie-Sears October 18, 2008 · 3:32 am

Yes, technically there is not a “shortage” of engineers and scientists, in the sense of economics jargon. That would mean that at the current price the quantity demanded exceeds the quantity supplied, i.e. the price is too low and there’s upward pressure on it. But there is *scarcity*.

Companies can set up their R&D anywhere in the world. Venture capitalists can fund technological start-ups anywhere in the world. There’s relatively little demand here for the personnel those firms would hire, because this isn’t a good place for those investments to be made, because we don’t have the personnel.

Try getting a job as a biology researcher in Kalamazoo, Michigan (the former headquarters of Upjohn before it merged with Pharmacia, and the area where I grew up), and try the same job search in Boston, Massachusetts (where I now live because it’s where my wife could get one of those research jobs). Then apply the reasoning of this column, and you’ll conclude that Kalamazoo shouldn’t waste time teaching its students any biology, and just resign itself to a future where the only major employer is WalMart — just as you recommend for the US as a whole.

concerned but amused. October 18, 2008 · 2:37 pm

It is true that one could let others innovate and develop new technologies, and then buy from them. This seems to underestimate the economic benefits conferred to the country through the _process_ itself: a climate which encourages and rewards intellectual exploration is likelier to have solid “brick and mortar” firms. Some of the industrial giants of the previous century were based in the US precisely because of this intellectual climate -Lockheed, IBM and Google are American, employ thousands, and generate billions of dollars in revenue because they were created in an environment which prized scientific endeavour.

Let’s take the example in the article to its natural conclusion: say India trained and paid its scientists and engineers really well, and the hub of innovation moved there. Say the US decided to remain a net consumer, rather than producer, of new technologies. Where do we think Jill would go, and where would she prefer to set up the next new IBM? And exactly how many law-firms does the US need?

I say this as an Indian who got her graduate training in Math in the US, who was enamoured of the US as a beacon for intellectuals and scientists around the world, and who now is saddened by how far the US seems to have slipped. I think it’s tragic that like-minded people no longer regard the US as a destination.

Big Science, as was practiced in America, was inspirational. Penny-pinching, short-term, constipated-thinking and micro-managed science is not.

Jay B October 18, 2008 · 6:11 pm

The real question is, does the US want to encourage the education of workers who produce tangible things, or workers who produce paperwork and red tape? What we should be doing is encouraging manufacturing, development and pure and applied research in this country. If done right this will generate the market for new Engineers and Scientists, and salaries will follow. We will turn into a third world country if we continue to push our best and brightest into non value added jobs like Lawyers.
It is remarkable that we so easily forget how the US pioneered the Computer, Software, biotech and material science fields, and how these fields were major economic drivers (and continue to be). Why on Earth would we throw that away because other countries are willing to work harder and cheaper? Can’t we rise to the challenge?

Chet Rock October 18, 2008 · 10:21 pm

“If the United States really has a critical shortage of scientists and engineers, why didn’t this year’s graduates get showered with lucrative job offers and signing bonuses?”

No, welcome to the global world, you are lucky to have a job, just like everyone else in the rest of the world. Bonuses are for crooks in invesment banks, or should I say, used to be. The era of entitlement is over (little by little), the world is flat. Competition is good, global competition is better! If you were born in the US, you are well ahead of the game (you have clean water, heating, food, etc.). If you lose it to a guy/gale coming from the other end of the world (China, India, Russia, etc.), you need to think about it! How did they beat you?

Free ride is over.

Isolation is not an answer here. We spend tons more money than the rest of the world in this county: the US governments research spending is over $250,000,000,000. So, money is not an issue, either! Research is heavily subsitized in the US. The question is how come high quality of life and more money does not make us more competitive. This applies to military, too. Where are politicians to explain this to us, the taxpayers? If an engineer fails like President Bush has failed, imagine what would happen to him/her.

I think the problem is that we are an over-marketed, over-managed, overly legalistic country: Too many duplications in government, managements, sales/marketing…. 50 states, each state, town, villege has its government, energy policy, economic development policy, transportation policy, etc. These are all global problems/issues, a state is totaly hopeless in such a game, but they keep trying just because the salaries are paid. We really need to get serious about this.

Simply too many useless rules/laws, as a result, too many middle men/women (lawyers, managers, politicians, etc) .

Consider how many people get commissions when you buy a house in this country. And they still cannot ensure your title is really good- you have to buy insurance for that. It is a high-way robbery in a legal manner.

Engineers/technical people in this country are too marginalized. I think this is because smart people don’t want to get involvement with politics, office politics, etc. They want to go home and play their video games, bikes, cars, and other toys. So daring idiots are calling the shots, some get killed, but most have nothing to lose.

We don’t need more GOOD engineers and scientists because of the job market. We need more of these people if we want to survive in this new world. Forget bonuses/fat checks, etc, think about survival.

Patricia October 19, 2008 · 1:30 am

“And as long as American universities and laboratories keep attracting the world’s best talent, why should we worry about losing our technological edge?.”

Why are you so sure that we’re going to keep attracting the world’s best talent?

By the way, America’s global standing in physics has come about through horrific tragedies, not higher salaries.

The horrors of Nazism and Fascism sent talented European physicists like Fermi and Einstein to America, along with countless others who were less famous, like my husband’s Hungarian Jewish father who was a photographic chemist who helped develop Polaroid film.

After Nazism was defeated, a steady stream of brilliant foreigners flowed to our shores, escaping from the authoritarian regimes of Stalin, Mao, Khrushchev and Brezhnev. That stream turned to a flood under Gorbachev and Yeltsin and post-Tian An Men China.

This is not going to continue forever. The talented foreigners who have come to dominate American physics won’t have to come here if, for example, Putin offers up some of that Russian oil wealth to keep them in Russia, or the Chinese government makes the society a little more open for them in China, or Israel becomes more peaceful. etc.

Did you see the news about Putin fitting his dog with a GPS collar? Only it’s not GPS. — Russia is developing its own system. I can’t read Putin’s mind, but I bet Putin doesn’t like it that the best physicists in Russia end up working in America. I’ll bet he’s already planned for that to change.

And we’re not just talking technology here. We’re talking ideas. We’re talking about intellectual vitality. The fundamental substrate upon which all technological innovation grows.

I don’t want this country to become an intellectual backwater if something happens to dry up our ready supply of giant foreign brains.

This could happen. This is not a groundless fear. We could turn into the kind of country scientists leave instead of enter, and that would be a very bad depressing thing for the scientists who get left behind.

So we need a backup plan. We need a Plan B for American science, in case the brain drain ever backs up and flows the other way.