By far and away the three most important countries of the world are
America, Germany and England. These three countries predominate in
scientific research, particularly in 'pure' or leading-edge research.
In terms of Nobel Prizes won for discoveries in Physics, Chemistry
and Physiology between 1901 and 2010, the numbers are 246, 92 and 85
respectively. For comparison purposes with other high-tech countries,
France has won 30, Russia 24 and Japan 15. China -- to which I will
return in a little while -- has won 10.
The importance of pure research is that it inevitably leads on to
developmental research when discoveries (and sometimes the original
discoverers) move out of academic labs and research institutes and
into business corporations. There, new applications are dressed up
in patents and ultimately appear physically as new consumer goods or
new (or improved) production methods. However, because the original
discoveries first appeared as papers in scientific journals and able
to be read by developmental scientists anywhere in the world, the
subsequent distribution of patents between countries is far wider
than that of Nobel Prizes.
Here, the picture is very different. Regarding existing patent
applications (up to 2008), the US, with 400,000, has already been
overtaken by Japan with 500,000, while China is fast catching up with
200,000 already (this year it is already applying for more patents
than America). For comparison, the figures for Germany, France,
England and Russia are 135,000, 48,000, 42,000 and 29,000 respectively.
Does it matter, therefore, that pure scientific research (as measured
by Nobel Prizes) is so unequally distributed? Yes, it does, for two
reasons. The first is that the vast majority of patent applications
are merely tweakings or minor improvements of existing patents.
Almost any country or corporation with sufficient investment and a
modicum of work-a-day scientists can catch up with existing consumer
products or industrial methods and then can add tweaks of their own
for which they can make patent applications. Thus, those countries
which, as a matter of government policy, educate a disproportionate
number of graduate scientists, are able to catch up in whatever goods
or methods that are initially developed in America, Germany or
England. Thus Japan, and more recently China, have been able to get
to the leading edge in all existing industrial sectors without -- at
least so far -- developing any brand new sectors of their own.
The second reason is the obverse of the first in that the most
important patent applications follow directly from major discoveries.
Thus those countries which have the lead in pure research have first
mover advantage in translating major discoveries into brand new
products or methods -- that is, if they want to do so. In England,
for example, where industrial vocations are still considered to be
inferior to retailing, law, banking, football, literature or pompous
ceremonials (which almost daily become more convoluted and
ridiculous) then new, economically-productive ideas increasingly tend
to go abroad for development, mainly to America so far but also, more
recently, to Asia.
Which now leads directly to the title of this piece. It was first
uttered by Ross Perot in 1992 when he was an American presidential
candidate. He used it to describe how Mexico, China and other
countries were "sucking" jobs out of America. Indeed, this was true
(for low-skill jobs mainly) but he avoided mentioning that American
corporations were only too eager to expectorate American jobs
outwardly in order to save on labour costs and enhance their
profits. Like everything to do with economics it is a two-way process.
Nor, I suppose, was Ross Perot ware that a much more important giant
sucking syndrome -- albeit less dramatic -- had been going on for
almost a century. This time to America's benefit. I refer to the
recruitment of the cream of European scientists by American
universities and research foundations. Einstein, fleeing persecution
of Jewish scientists in the 1930s, was the first of quite a number of
brilliant German physicists in that decade to settle in America.
Immediately after the war a further crop of German rocket scientists
migrated. This was followed by a long steady succession of other key
European scientists, mainly English, all through the 1950s right up
to the present day. Also, the cream of Chinese science students and
young research scientists tend to stay in America after their initial
research spell. In the fields of particle physics and evolutionary
biology -- two of the most complex disciplines -- half of the papers
in the top research journals are authored by Chinese researchers who
elect to remain in America.
So far, no "giant sucking sound" has emanated from China. True, China
certainly recruits from America and Europe but mainly, so far, those
with managerial experience in manufacturing and banking in which
China is still in short supply. The most eminent of these has been
John Thornton, who was a past partner in Goldman Sachs. He was
appointed the Dean of the business faculty at Tsinghua University in
Beijing (the number two in China) and was a close confidant of
several top Chinese politicians. However, although China has had a
green card system for about five years now, there has been no great
push in offering positions to the cream of American research
scientists. Chinese born Bruce Lahn, who is arguably the leading
geneticist in the world and runs research teams in both America
(Chicago University) and China (Beijing University), prefers to live
in America. However, now that China is up to scratch in every
technological sector, it may now wish to forge ahead in one or the
other and for this it will need the most creative minds in science.
Perhaps, so far, the Chinese government has not wanted to be too
provocative towards America. After all, there are already too many
differences and difficulties (e.g. currency issues, Chinese
investment in America) for not wishing to fan the flames further.
Economically, both countries need each other -- so far, anyway. But
what would happen if the American economy wound down much more deeply
into recession? Since the credit-crunch of 2007/8 it has
half-collapsed already. The great endowment funds of some of
America's major research universities, such as Yale and Harvard, and
also those of the big research foundations, such as the Howard Hughes
Medical Institute, have already taken a 20-30% knock in their equity
assets. If the expected double dip occurs -- and then remains there
for years while debts are paid off, as many expect -- then funding
for pure research is bound to suffer. The cream of American
scientists might well leap at the opportunity of better facilities,
opportunities and salaries in China.
The possibility of this new giant sucking sound is never -- ever --
mentioned in America to my knowledge. Yet, potentially, it might yet
turn out to be the most serious aspect of the worsening situation in
America. And, if Germany can't extricate itself from the iron bands
of the Eurozone, or if England doesn't succeed with its present
austerity programme, then China might start waving green cards in our
direction also. After all, both countries are still producing
innovative minds in science.
Keith
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2011/06/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
