Larry Summers Issues an SOS

As in "Save Our Sciences":

America must not surrender its lead in life sciences, by Lawrence Summers, Commentary, Financial Times [free here]: The 20th century was shaped by developments in the physical sciences. ...[S]olid state physics ... allowed mankind to take flight and split the atom. Advances in … physics also led to the development of the transistor, the semiconductor and ultimately to the information technology explosion that transformed economic life. The 20th century was an American century in no small part because of American leadership in the application of the physical sciences...

[T]he 21st century will be defined by developments in the life sciences. Lifespans will rise sharply as cures are found for chronic diseases and healthcare will come to be a larger share of the economy than manufacturing. Life science approaches will lead to everything from further agricultural revolutions to profound changes in energy technology and the development of new materials. ...

It is natural to ask whether the US will lead in the life sciences ... as it did in the physical sciences... It is a profoundly important economic question, but one whose implications go far beyond... At present, ... the US is clearly leading in the life sciences. But past performance is no guarantee of future success. ... If America is to maintain its leadership in life sciences..., important steps must be taken.

Most abstract but most important, there needs to be respect for the scientific method and its results. In sharp distinction to … other industrial countries, there is an increasing move away from respecting the scientific method in US schools. Polls demonstrate that up to one-third of high school biology teachers have as much faith in intelligent design as in evolution …[and] that as many as 70 per cent of the American people agree with them. Matters are not helped when the president advocates the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution as a “different school of thought”.

Second, funding has to be a priority. During the past three years, when there has been more possible in the life sciences than there has ever been, when we are on the cusp of achieving important breakthroughs in everything from stem cells to the treatment of cancer, government funding for science research has been cut in real terms. This has been particularly hard on young researchers...

Funding, however, is ... also a matter of … compensation levels… In today’s economy a … graduate of a leading business school earns a substantially higher salary than a ... graduating ... PhD in biology. Several years after graduation the differences are even more pronounced. It should not be a surprise that ... more of our talented young people are not headed towards careers in … the life sciences.

Third, we need to control the role of politics in allocating science dollars, which are currently tossed around like so many political footballs. The fact that diseases that afflict the relatives of key congressional appropriators receive a disproportionate share of research dollars is not a step towards scientific progress. And it is not a step towards a healthier 21st century to allow the views of a vocal minority in effect to cut off funding for embryonic stem cell research – which is likely to lead to revolutions in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and cancer within the next generation.

Finally, we need to support clusters of extraordinary performance. If competition is individualistic, the US is going to have a very difficult time because salary levels … are going to be much lower in other parts of the world. Rather than focus on each individual …, the US needs to focus on fostering clusters of innovation – such as Silicon Valley in information technology, Boston in the life sciences, New York in finance – where each talented individual derives his or her strength from all that is around. Competing with that on price is much more difficult.

These are not issues that can be addressed in a year or even a presidential term. Nor are they issues that will have a large predictable impact over a period of several years. But over the long run, few issues are as important...

Update: In comments, dale says:

Save US superiority in the life sciences. Save US superiority in financial services. Why didn't we act to save US superiority in manufacturing? Why aren't ordinary Americans deserving of such centralized industrial planning projects?

Why would foreign dominance in the more intellectual and ethereal pursuits be worse for the US than the Chinese ascendancy in manufacturing (for example)? We are told by some economists that outsourcing and other aspects of economic globalization are good for Americans. But Summers and others now say we must save certain industries.

I suspect class bias is in play.

Is dale right, or is there some fundamental difference in the two industries that justifies a different level of government response (e.g. a market failure in research that is not present in manufacturing)?

Comments

[dale]

Save US superiority in the life sciences.Save US superiority in financial services. Why didn't we act to save US superiority in manufacturing? Why aren't ordinary Americans deserving of such centralized industrial planning projects?

Why would foreign dominance in the more intellectual and ethereal pursuits be worse for the US than the Chinese acsendancy in manufacturing (for example)? We are told by some economists that outsourcing and other aspects of economic globalization are good for Americans. But Summers and others now say we must save certain industries.

I suspect class bias is in play.

[dryfly]

You want scientists - pay them as well as you pay lawyers, MBAs, and such.

When you see 'The Donald' select a savy biochemist or material scientist over a sexy salesman/woman on 'Apprentice'... then you'll know we are getting some where.

[steve]

It's funny to see Summers pound the pulpit for higher science wages. Doesn't the market know best? If you start advocating for industrial policy, where will it end? ;-)

Seriously though, low cost competitors like China have an intrinsic advantage in manufacturing (esp. labor-intensive areas). Nanotechnology and life sciences are examples of the capital (human and otherwise) intensive areas where we have a comparative advantage. The problem, which few commenters dare mention, is that these areas where the US has a comparative advantage (including finance) tend to employ a relatively small number of people, who must be very smart. It's not at all clear that your typical manufacturing worker (or someone who would have grown up to be a manufacturing worker in the good old days) can transition into these industries.

[DaveMeleney]

God forbid that science centers in Shanghai and Singapore begin to extend the healthy life-span even more profoundly than those working in Cambridge or San Diego.

Though waving the flag of economic nationalism may get us to focus on some of the unfortunate things we do that discourage the development of young scientists and new medicines. Is it any wonder that so many brilliant kids are going into finance (which has been profoundly deregulated and seen fabulous bonus schedules) ahead of biological sciences where they might save lots of lives but get paid one-tenth as much?

And it's not just the pay...if you really want to work and live in a vibrantly creative atmosphere... how attractive is pharmaceutical development where it costs 10 years and half a billion dollars to get FDA approval?

How can a researcher's long-shot ideas pencil out with that kind of burden waiting downstream? Do venture capitalists even listen to plans with burdens anything like that? It may seem fanciful to imagine drug researchers populating the offices of VC's but if it will happen, if not here, then in Singapore or Shanghai or further downstream even in Dubai.

[RW]

Social class, valuing ...yes; how about connection, the sense that it is ours? The collective view of science seems increasingly dessicated, as if technologies somehow emerged in the absence of history, human effort and values.

If science is reduced to the production of technologies and these in turn are mere commodities, what difference does it make where and by whom such are produced ...as long as you are able to pay the price.

"Is no one inspired by our present picture of the universe? This value of science remains unsung by singers: you are reduced to hearing not a song or poem, but an evening lecture about it. This is not a scientific age." - Richard Feynman

One could actually say something similar about manual labor ...and other things too.

[ken melvin]

Don't think bio-tech has had a particular problem raising money. Do think China, India et al will win this, and even if they don't win the research competition, what good US winning if intellectual property rights are non enforceable? Could it be that communism-rev.1 is better at throwing tons of talent at a problem; especially given a ten to one population advantage? There's simply no way the US is going to win with the current setup. There's no way we won't continue to loose jobs, PhDs included.

[ninjaplease]

Free trade in its current implementation is driving down wages in life sciences, which of course will lead to less young people going to school for the field here in the USA.

Now replace life sciences with engineering, Microprocessor development, manufacturing, and research.

What's left?

What's left are the only fields where there is no benefit to low cost labor, external salesmen, product managers and financial advisors whose clients are the children of old money.

There is no incentive to enter an economically dying field, but by all means, please tell us how this will make us all better in the long run and is a net positive.

Hopefully, globalization will lead to more people attending offshore colleges whether through online classes, or just travelling there where they can get SOME benefit from globalization without having an 80000 debt at graduation. I say, let academia experience what they prescribe for others--let them retrain for other jobs.

[john c. halasz]

"The mastery of nature, so the imperialists teach, is the purpose of all technology. But who would trust a cane-wielder who proclaimed the mastery of children by adults to be the purpose of education? And likewise technology is not the mastery of nature but of the relation between nature and man."- Walter Benjamin

[dd]

Give graduate science students a piece of the patent action and all will be well; no additional funding necessary. Markets do work; even for graduate students.

[Ninjaplease]

"Give graduate science students a piece of the patent action and all will be well;"

"Give" is not a market function.

[dd]

Market functions are few and far between in a higher education system that has a monopoly over credentialing privileges.

[Ninjaplease]

"in a higher education system that has a monopoly over credentialing privileges."

Tell that to University of Phoenix Online and the hundreds of thousands of colleges.

[dryfly]

And it's not just the pay...if you really want to work and live in a vibrantly creative atmosphere... how attractive is pharmaceutical development where it costs 10 years and half a billion dollars to get FDA approval?

Yup - cut drug development regs & requirements... that's going to push the economic reward pendulum away from going to law school toward going to MIT.

NOT.

I can't think of anything that would make tort attorneys richer that 'speeding up' drug development via regulatory 'reform'. And I'd bet Pfizer agrees.

[Movie Guy]

Mark - "Is dale right, or is there some fundamental difference in the two industries that justifies a different level of government response (e.g. a market failure in research that is not present in manufacturing)?"

Mark, with due respect, why don't we identify the R&D functions by industry that the U.S. transnational corporations are not willing to offshore. If it's not nailed down, there isn't much within the R&D field that can not be subcontracted out (in part) or simply offshored based on corporate "needs".

I am expecting the drug industry to roll more production offshore and I have every expectation that some of the R&D will shift as well, co-locating near major production facilities as have some other R&D operations.

I threw the towel in on chunks of scientific R&D two years ago after sitting through a series of future outlook meetings.

[STS]

One possible reason to try to protect life sciences rather than manufacturing might be we might still be able to afford to win the R&D race while the manufacturing one is already effectively over.

As recently as the early decades of the 20th century, aspiring American scientists routinely went to Europe for their training because that was where the best work was being done. Within 10 or 20 years, we may well see a major trend toward the best American students seeking training abroad in some fields.

I think Summers is realizing much the same thing. His beloved (tho' at times hated as well, I'm sure) Harvard may get a real run for its money in the life sciences from institutions abroad.

At any rate, the American ruling class has been too fat, dumb and happy (think of Detroit management building mega-polluting gas guzzling SUVs while China already has higher emissions standards than we do) to notice the steady erosion of the sources of US leadership in the world. It's high time the doyens of the establishment started sweating a bit.

[Meh]

Partially, as STS notes, it comes down to practicals:

Too much of manufacturing relates to relatively low-skill labour costs. One can address market failures, but when the market is so clearly stacked in one direction, few can resist the flood.

The more depressing question is as someone already noted "just how many people can you employ in life-sciences anyway"?

Can we really run an economy off profitable industries that employ tiny numbers of people (high end software, life science, etc.) and everyone else sells each other insurance, loans and reality TV? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's not the environment most of our economic models were envisioned in. I think there's a need for some thought there.

[Ninjaplease]

"One possible reason to try to protect life sciences rather than manufacturing might be we might still be able to afford to win the R&D race while the manufacturing one is already effectively over."

And the SAME REASONS -- low cost labor offshore, will destroy life sciences. This "race" will be lost for the exact same reasons.

"Too much of manufacturing relates to relatively low-skill labour costs."

Currently we're undergoing Phase 1 of "globalization." Phase 2 is already beginning with India and the Philippians going after higher order work.

The only thing that stops this sort of jobless is a tariff, like it or not, whether it fits into your economic theories or not.

"The more depressing question is as someone already noted "just how many people can you employ in life-sciences anyway"?"

Milton Friedman would tell you, well, since you don't like starving, you'll just "Find another job."

Its amazing to me, the level of support that Democrats give to Free Trade in its current implementation. Keep it up and we'll have another Neo-con feel-good Republican president, who is just as in favor of offshoring as they are--except that they don't advertise it.

[a]

Well, it seems to be historically incorrect to say that the U.S. was better at the physical sciences than Germany before 1940. After that, it wasn't homegrown American scientists so much as imports which gave America its ascendency.

By the way I agree completely with dale's comments.

[anne]

I suppose it's only me, but since I find biotechnology reasearch emphasized at university on university, since I find biotechnology research going on all through Cambridge and about university campuses nationally, since I find the international drug companies the most profitable component of the S&P stock index for the last 25 years, since I find states focusing on biotechnology research, I am not much worried.

Why not have a federal-state revenue sharing program that allows for drastic cuts in tuition or no tuition at public colleges and encourage students to follow inclations to learn as they wish?

[anne]

Heck, why not use revenue sharing to increase capability for public university medical training and to dramatically reduce the cost of medical education, researchers to nurses to doctors.

[Noni Mausa]

"Why would foreign dominance in the more intellectual and ethereal pursuits be worse for the US than the Chinese acsendancy in manufacturing (for example)?"

This sentence illustrates the problem beautifully.

"Intellectual" does not equal "ethereal". Just because an area of study seems utterly unrelated to daily life does not mean it really is so. The more seemingly abstract studies allow science to pursue truths out onto thinner and thinner twigs...and NAIL 'em!

Example: oxygen levels in the air. How exactly would you go about discovering what the levels were like a few million years ago?

"... he wanted to check this because it seems that the normal view that the oxygen has forever been at where it is right now, at 21 percent of the atmosphere, didn't seem reasonable at all, particularly in view of what [Preston] Cloud had done in the way of Precambrian oxygen concentration. So he did these calculations, and then he looked up an isotope geochemist to see if there were some way that they could literally measure the oxygen concentration at various times in the past. They got some samples of amber from the late Cretaceous, essentially Judithian about 75,000,000 years ago from Saskatchewan and looked at the bubbles of gas inside the amber.

There had been a general feeling that amber was too reactive, that this couldn't possibly be air and yet when they took these pieces of amber and crushed them in a vacuum line in screw vice slowly so that they literally could then, as each molecule of gas or blob of gas leaked out of the amber, they would run it through a mass spectrometer and literally measure what the mass distribution was. And you would easily pick the points for nitrogen and the points for oxygen and argon and a few other things, and they found to their very great surprise that they got about 35 percent oxygen in the bubbles, in the amber.

Well, it would be relatively easy so everyone thought, to reduce the amount of oxygen in amber by reaction with the resin of the amber. But how would you increase it? Or where would the oxygen come from? So they published a preliminary paper, and of course, they were jumped on. Everyone said that amber was too reactive, couldn't possibly work. So they did a whole series of analyses. They kept one piece of amber, at 10E-19 torr, which is about the same vacuum as in outer space, for three years, and nothing changed. And they put some more amber in a reactor and made argon 39 and then checked to see what the argon 40/39 ratio might be in the gas that came out of the bubbles and surprise, they got Cretaceous values of the argon 40. So the net result was after a lot of effort, Gary Landis, the geochemist who was then working for the USGS of Denver, came up with a couple of papers in which he refuted all the arguments about this.

In the meantime, it was interesting to have this one datum point that 75,000,000 years ago there was roughly 35 percent oxygen. What we needed was a lot of data points. And so in 1986 or 1987, one of the things that my class did on our annual Bug Creek camping trip was to literally mine coal beds for amber. And we started with the coals, beginning with the Nul coal just 60 feet under Bug Creek Anthills, and worked all the way up to the highest coals in McCone County."

This time, 75,000,000 years ago, the late Cretaceous, featured scads of dinosaurs, and they had 1.66x the amount of oxygen to breathe that we have. No wonder they had the speed to zip around eating lawyers.

more here: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/cain/projects/sloan/01.htm

This is real science, which asks, How can we KNOW? There is nothing ethereal about it. Like an experienced rock climber, each step is tested in several ways until it is established as a solid point for further steps, and is still tested for hundreds of years afterwards as new data comes in.

The popular American view of science as unconnected to reality is actually the opposite of the true situation.

Noni

[save_the_rustbelt]

Don't worry, all those laid off manufacturing workers will soon be splitting genomes and splicing DNA.

Oh, wait....

Do they splice DNA at Wal-Mart or Home Depot?

[ken melvin]

Given the right's aversion to science, future scientists will all be liberals and no republican legislator will ever vote to fund education for liberals.

[me]

I suppose no one remembers this headline :Pfizer to cut 10,000 jobs.

Now why would I spend any money on a degree in life sciences anymore than I would computer science?

Perhaps no one remember the R & D centers being closed in the US and sent offshore. And its not just Pfizer.

"The pharmaceutical company Merck announced on November 28 that it would lay off 7,000 workers over the next three years, closing down 5 of its 31 production plants. The cuts, half of which will be in the US, represent more than 10 percent of the company’s global workforce. The move is only the latest in a series of announcements of layoffs and wage cutting at major American companies.

The 7,000 jobs are unlikely to be the last to be eliminated. Richard Clark, who took over as the company’s CEO earlier this year, said that the cuts are “an important first step in positioning Merck to meet the challenges the company faces now and in the future.” Merck has not yet released all the details on its cost-cutting plan; however, it has announced that plants in New Jersey, Georgia and Pennsylvania, as well as in Japan and Canada, will be scaled back, sold or shut down."

[save_the_rustbelt]

me:

Yes, but the overseas companies using our intellectual property to make cheap generics will make huge profits.

Good for consumers in the short run, bad in the long run.

[baileyman]

Is this pining for national tech supremacy any different from losing my beloved Colts to Indianapolis? What did I lose?

[billy]

I think Summers is realizing much the same thing. His beloved (tho' at times hated as well, I'm sure) Harvard may get a real run for its money in the life sciences from institutions abroad.

That would be excellent. Too long these guys had enjoyed protection while their brethren were subject brutally to the same via Walmart.

There is no incentive to enter an economically dying field, but by all means, please tell us how this will make us all better in the long run and is a net positive

That begs the question - "no incentive" for whom? There is enough incentive for lots of smart people from India and China and so on.

It was one of the arguments put forth during the Civil war that the white man's constitution was not suitable for working in the sweltering cotton fields, and the negro was made for that. Hence it was perfect that the white man managed, and the negro worked. Yeah, right.

We have a right to have these well-paid jobs. If competition - where the best win - makes it that we wont get these cushy jobs anymore, that's not right. We must fix it so that we get these well-paid jobs.

The amount of wilfull delusion here, the total disregard for logic when it comes to self-interest, is unbelievable. Competition is for others! Indeed.

I say, competition for everybody. May the best man win. If that means a few fiefdoms are going to fall, well and good.

[anne]

"Now why would I spend any money on a degree in life sciences anymore than I would computer science?"

Well, among many others reasons, being a physician will assure endless career flexibility and endless economic well-being, and even endless intellectual challenge, and even a sense for at least some of helping others. But, I know, soon there will be no more physicians. Duh.

[anne]

Let me see, let me see, 25 years the international drug companies have been easily the most profitable sector of companies in the S&P stock index, but oh my gosh, oh my golly, beware of all those generics companies, say, where? Suggesting that Pfizer might have handled a merger poorly, and be trying to make up for it, is of course no possible reason for the problems the company is having.... Say what? No; the problem with Pfizer is not in India or Thailand. Say what?

[anne]

There is a running line, I take with any student who mentions medical school, which is, every doctor or medical student student you tell will in turn tell you the decision could not be more foolish, medicine is an impossible career. Rubbish. Pay no attention, and go to medical school and do just about anything you wish for the rest of your comfortable productive life.

Heck, there are hundreds of American students who are going to medical school in Cuba, free of tuition, with the permission of Congress, just to be, say, doctors. Duh.

[fiskhus jim]

Is Larry finally realizing that all his previous efforts to convince us of the wonders of "market efficiency" boil down to a mere opening of the gates to the Trojan Horse of anti-intellectualism?

[William Smith]

Scientific advantage keeps us ahead of others in non-economic areas. Without a strong science field, we will be at the mercy of others for industrial advances (Chinese factories use techniques and equipment created by US engineers) and for intellectual advances (like new medical procedures). But more importantly are two concerns:
First, scientific research is a backbone in our nation's university system, which is the best in the world. Researchers head to universities not to teach as much as take advantage of large-scale funding, tenure, modern equipment, etc. These researchers in turn, help educate tomorrow's leaders in a variety of fields. Take away the researchers from universities and our nation's affordable higher education system would decline greatly.
Secondly, especially for neo-cons, science is the means by which we protect ourselves. Out-sourcing research would mean that major developments in biology (biological weapons), chemisty (chemical weapons), physics (weapon systems) and electronics (spy satellites and guidance systems) would go to countries willing to pay more.
And the two are linked. By having such a strong system for higher education and research, we attract top talent from all over the world to come here. BY attracting that talent, our government has a stronger pool of scientists from which to draw. And our government's demand for scientists only reinforces the higher education system.

says...

Anne - one should not become a physician because they want "many career options" but unfortunately too many do.

How about becoming a doctor because you like working with and helping people?

What we need is a variety of careers and industries to utilize all talent and aptitude. FOr example, don't like kids - don't become a teacher. Don't like blood, don't become a doctor. Don't want to sit in front of a computer, don't go into programming. The negative likes and dislikes are just as important in helping people choose careers as arrogant elitists like "Anne"

Please let me avoid a doctor who became one only because her parents were dcotors.

[dale]

William, you use the phrase "we will be at the mercy of others". I sense that carries some political urgency that transcends the notion of economic efficiency. Couldn't the same sentiments be held in regards to manufacturing as a whole?

Other peoples are just as capable as Americans when it comes to science and technology and finance. just as they are in the manufacturing of consumer goods. If we can offshore scientific work, etc. and receive the benefits as consumers, why shouldn't we do so?

If we are to really take into consideration the implications of being at the mercy of others it seems to me that should include all the important aspects of our economy. And the interests of all classes of Americans.

[anne]

"How about becoming a doctor because you like working with and helping people?"

Actually, there are all sorts of students who go to medical school, some with the intent of doing research rather than working with patients, others who will work in fields from journalism to investment banking. Interestingly, in interviews research interests are stressed, but, there are all sorts of reasons to go to medical school and all sorts of ways to help others.

[anne]

Ah, am I more arrogant than elitist or more elitist than arrogant. Ya' think?

[dale]

just the right balance of elitism and arogance anne :)

[me]

"Well, among many others reasons, being a physician will assure endless career flexibility and endless economic well-being, and even endless intellectual challenge, and even a sense for at least some of helping others."

What are there 650,000 physicians? Wide open filed, especially when all the health insurance companies are reporting stagnant or declining new members. There isn't any way to pay more than 16% of GDP on healthcare. Sorry anne, we disagree on this one.

The UK sold their companies to foreign owners and kept the jobs. In the US we have kept the ownership and sent out jobs overseas. Yes all the R&D center in China and India are a problem because that will continue to drive wages down worldwide.

No one every answers when I ask what the US has a comparative advantage in.

[anne]

ME:

"The UK sold their companies to foreign owners and kept the jobs. In the US we have kept the ownership and sent out jobs overseas."

Clever; I am thinking.

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=5990&u=287%7C1%7C...

Cooper's Hawk at Sunset
New York City--Central Park, The Ramble.

Thanks, Dale.

[Ninjaplease]

"Why not have a federal-state revenue sharing program that allows for drastic cuts in tuition or no tuition at public colleges and encourage students to follow inclations to learn as they wish?"

Professors should face the same open market that they've prescribed for the rest of us---I say, open up the bids to universities worldwide and let the lowest cost to develop win!

Competition for everyone!

I look forward to the day when the cosmopolitans must work 2 part time information jobs, you know, the ones offered at walmart, to make ends meet.

[Ninjaplease]

"We have a right to have these well-paid jobs. If competition - where the best win - makes it that we wont get these cushy jobs anymore, that's not right. We must fix it so that we get these well-paid jobs.

The amount of wilfull delusion here, the total disregard for logic when it comes to self-interest, is unbelievable. Competition is for others! Indeed.

I say, competition for everybody. May the best man win. If that means a few fiefdoms are going to fall, well and good."

Oh, by all means, I fully support offshoring transporting your job, or wiping out your "guaranteed benefit" pension to make that company "more competitive."

[Movie Guy]

save_the_rustbelt - "Don't worry, all those laid off manufacturing workers will soon be splitting genomes and splicing DNA.

Oh, wait....

Do they splice DNA at Wal-Mart or Home Depot?"

Pretty good, rust. :)

[Ninjaplease]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6194333.stm

"As a nurse in Britain he earns about £24,000 (US $47,000) a year; doing a similar job in one of the top hospitals in Manila, the Philippines capital, he would be earning just £1,800 ($3,500)."

Sounds like a business opportunity to setup a health-vacation resort in Manila, if the flight was $3500, you'd still have enough money to pay 9 nurses to tend to 1 patient and STILL MAKE A $10,000 profit!

Can't wait until insurance companies start making these trips mandatory!

We'll see how limitless those domestic doctor's wages are!

[neil laifook]

ninjaplease
what about that island south of florida where they educate doctors by the dozens and care well for
older patients.
perhaps in the not to distant future el jefe will
invite older paying guest to join him

[Ninjaplease]

"ninjaplease
what about that island south of florida where they educate doctors by the dozens and care well for
older patients.
perhaps in the not to distant future el jefe will
invite older paying guest to join him"

I'd have to say--which one, many of the small independent islands have programs which currently enroll some Americans for medical professions. Their medical schools are supposedly easier than our domestic ones are, they're in an area where most people would go for a vacation, and they're significantly cheaper in terms of tuition.

But honestly, Cuba has only one comparative advantage: A cigar, rum & sugar brand name.

Cuba is still too rich when compared to the Philipines, or to Thailand.

I'm telling you guys, the market will actually solve the medicare crisis on its own when insurance companies finally realize that they can send patients offshore for most surgeries or cancer treatments at a fraction of the cost.

Medical care is expensive now, because it hasn't been exposed to worldwide competition--that'll change once your primary care physician begins to be forced to reference doctors in far away lands.

Legal advice SHOULD be next, but who knows...

these are the professions that NEED to experience globalization in its current implementation for ANYTHING to change regarding domestic workers. Because they have money for lobbying and the rest of us don't (unions will be a footnote in history.)

[anne]

Why not have a federal-state revenue sharing program that allows for drastic cuts in tuition or no tuition at public colleges and encourage students to follow inclinations to learn as they wish?

"I look forward to the day when the cosmopolitans must work 2 part time information jobs, you know, the ones offered at Wal-Mart, to make ends meet."

Duh, I prefer education, duh. Who, just who are the "cosmopolitans? Anyone educated? Duh. Guess what? Education works. Duh.

[anne]

So, then, make sure college tuitions keep becoming more expensive, make sure the kiddies do not go on to become really well educated. No doctors of no kind, no lawyers, no teachers never. No cosmopolitans (can we even save the magazine?) but lots of dumb as clam boobs. Get it? Got it.

[Movie Guy]

"Larry Summers Issues an SOS" for university research funding and very little else.

He entertains no discussion of trade policy that is driving some of the R&D offshore, following the sources of production.

Why should American citizens fund federally-sponsored university research at current or higher levels for fields that see no gain in domestic employment within the industries concerned? Why, indeed, from a taxpayer's perspective.

Larry talks about government hiring of such research graduates. Yet, the federal government is presently increasing the number of security waivers for foreign scientists and technicians in a few fields. IT is one of those fields.

Providing no connection between current trade policy and federally-sponsored university research funding is an error in Summers' presentation. But he knows that.

Sure, U.S. citizens via Congress will keep funding our university research, but the question remains as to how many graduates from such programs will end up working in the USA or for U.S. corporations which increase, not decrease, domestic employment and domestic-based R&D.

I have to wonder how much longer this con game can go on. Apparently, quite a while as long U.S. citizens are uninformed on the disconnects between U.S. trade policy and citizen-funded R&D early stage research and researcher development.

[anne]

So that the point is clear, I could not be more in support of increased support of the biological sciences. I support all science education, and we need lots more of it for the knowledge gained will be valuable beyond limit as such let alone directly economically valuable. Than again, I would like far more support for college-university education in general and have not the slightest doubt about the gains in satisfaction and economic well-being that will entail.

A dramatic lowering of tuitions at state college-universities through federal-state revenue sharing would have profound effect, and as for assisting American workers couple that with federal-state-employer-employee health care assistance and the gains are multiplied.

[Ninjaplease]

"A dramatic lowering of tuitions at state college-universities through federal-state revenue sharing would have profound effect,"

Forget that, Import more professors on L1-A visas and let global competition set the price for tuition!!

The market knows best!

[Jake Summers]

I agree with what ninjaplease said...

Now I will say, if you want people to go into a field the answer is very simple, "Show them the MONEY!".

And I agree with many other comments. My computer degree is garbage. I say import as many foreigners to teach classes and remove all tunure. You don't deserve a life time job when the rest of society plays by totally cut throat rules. It is high time the academics play by the same rules as the rest of us live with and put their skin on the line like the rest of us suffer daily. Can't wait to see teachers who are "Contractors" like most of this generation post 2001.

We deserve this mess by trusting a bunch of rich multinational thugs. Maybe we can fix it, but things are really FUBAR in the US. It's not a problem with one group, it's all of American society that has to take a wage cut because of globalization. After all it's hard to compete with people who can live on about a dollar a day in wages, isn't it?