Remember the
Hart-Rudman report issued in January 31, 2001, 7 months before 9/11? That is the one that stated unequivocally:
The combination of unconventional weapons proliferation with the persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the U.S. homeland to catastrophic attack. A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century.
advice the
Bush administration promptly pushed to the back burner by turning the problem of terrorism over to
crony riddled FEMA.
Now here is the quiz question: "What, according to the Hart-Rudman report , would pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might imagine.?" Give up? Here is the answer:
In this Commission's view, the inadequacies of our systems of research and education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might imagine.
While we have seen a wholesale reorganization of the federal org chart with the creation of the new
Ministry of Love...er, I mean...
Department of Homeland Security, everyone has apparently overlooked the other, and IMHO more substantive, portions of the Hart-Rudman analysis.
This unsexy but critically important subject was addressed last month by William A. Wulf the president of the National Academies of Engineering in an testimony he gave to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, Immigration, Border Security, and Claims Subcommittee. Scientists and Engineering organizations like the National Academies and the American Physical Society have been pushing for the administration to relax draconian post 9/11 restrictions on visas for visiting scientists.
I am deeply concerned that our policy reactions to 9/11 have tipped that balance in a way that is not in the long term interests of the nation's security.
...several recent policy changes, related to visas, treatment of international visitors, deemed exports, and so on, have had a chilling effect. Enrollment of international students in U.S. colleges and universities has declined. Scientists have chosen to hold conferences in other countries. U.S. businesses have had to shift critical meetings to locations outside this country. In the meantime, foreign companies, universities and governments are marketing themselves as friendlier places to do business or get an education. In the race to attract top international talent, we are losing ground.
Wulf's remarks, however, went far past this narrow area of concern.
U.S. industrial laboratories have greatly reduced their support for long-term basic research; and many U.S. corporations are shifting research and development to overseas locations--not just because foreign labor is cheaper, as is the common and comfortable myth, but because it is of higher quality! U.S. government laboratories are in various states of disarray, and no longer maintain the stature that they did in 1960's. Government support for the physical sciences and engineering at universities has declined in real terms, and is suffering further under present budget pressures - clearly, a strong research capability is not a current federal priority. Enrollment in the physical sciences and engineering, as a percentage of undergraduates, is among the lowest in the industrialized world - the U.S. now graduates just 7% of the world's engineers, for example. Given that our 12th graders score among the lowest in the world in science and mathematics, the ranks of U.S. born scientists and engineers are not likely to expand dramatically anytime soon. Our once strong triad of R&D capabilities is crumbling.
...At the same time, science and technology are growing rapidly in other parts of the world. Over 70% of the papers published in the American Physical Society's world leading journals, The Physical Review and Physical Review Letters, now come from abroad. ... the number of first degrees in science and engineering awarded per year in Asia (most importantly China) is now almost three times greater than in North America.
Wulf's observations eerily mirror the dire analysis of the original Hart-Rudman report which I provide here.
Americans are living off the economic and security benefits of the last three generations' investment in science and education, but we are now consuming capital. Our systems of basic scientific research and education are in serious crisis, while other countries are redoubling their efforts. In the next quarter century, we will likely see ourselves surpassed, and in relative decline, unless we make a conscious national commitment to maintain our edge.
The United States can remain the world's technological leader if it makes the commitment to do so. But the U.S. government has seriously underfunded basic scientific research in recent years.
This is an issue that I believe Democrats must emphasize in the coming election cycles. It is an issue of critical national security and it reveals starkly how the Republican's misguided emphasis on draconian measures and unnecessary wars has weakened our nation to the point that the sources of our strength are ebbing from our shores.
What I would like to see discussed on Daily Kos are the questions, "Can we effectively make the anti-science positions of the administration and the Republican majority into an issue?" Does the breakdown of the underpinning of our security infrastructure have any resonance with the American people? I noted with interest the recent attempt by Rahm Emmanuel to make the Republican's inattention to our technological infrastructure part of the Democratic agenda. It gave me hope. How do we make the case?