|
ddn readers explain the ‘brain drain’
March 2011
SHARING OPTIONS:
Last month, after President Barack Obama in his State of the
Union address touched on some of the challenges facing professional education
and training in the United States, I posed these questions to readers: Why do
students from foreign countries choose to advance their education on American
soil, only to take their expertise and training abroad later? What can America
do to keep those we educate here, where they can contribute meaningfully to our
economy and innovation?
Judging from the many thoughtful reader responses I
received, which also requested that I withhold names to protect reputations and
prevent employer retaliation, the column struck a nerve. The topic of the
“brain drain” seems to be a complex and controversial one, but many of our
readers were kind enough to share their experiences and observations—as long as
I kept them anonymous.
Interestingly, most readers who responded were as critical
of the government’s role in the phenomenon as the president was of our
educational system.
“It would help if the government reduced some of the
negative influences it has on science,” M.N. writes. “It funds a lot of good
fundamental research, but then it creates a business environment that is too
negative to start businesses and keep them in the U.S. I hope President Obama
works on both aspects in the coming years—science funding, but also a better
business climate. He has not sent good signals in the first couple of years.”
“A.G.,” who works for a research lab and pharma technology
developer, is equally critical of the government’s contribution to the brain
drain. Every level of government, she argues, “burdens businesses with laws
designed to ‘protect’ everyone but the business itself. Who would want to start
up a business when you have to deal with healthcare reform, labor laws,
environmental regulation, etc.? The foreign students can return to their native
countries and find jobs in American companies relocated there to more freely
run their operation.”
But A.G. sees a larger, more worrisome problem: “Young
people graduating from high school have little ambition or motivation for their
future,” she writes. “Most of the students in high school today have no real
interest in a career and often live at home—far beyond what earlier generations
did. They don’t move out, become educated or learn a trade and live
independently. This is probably due primarily to our politicians preaching
about entitlements, so people have no motivation to be self-sufficient, like
extending unemployment for 99 weeks. Why work when the government can take care
of you?”
“R.P.” is one of the students about which I inquired. She came
to the United States for her post-doctorate degree, she writes, “for one single
reason: to be able to get a research position back home ASAP.” But then R.P.
fell in love with an American, and the couple thought the United States “would
offer more possibilities for a two-body problem.”
“Wrong assumption,” R.P. writes. “Now we are considering
other countries, as it does not make any sense to try to stay in a country
where research seems to be falling to pieces.” She cites “pharma companies
laying off thousands of researchers” as well as “research funding decreasing
and becoming more and more conservative—excellent idea: We’ll fund you after
the idea is done, which we will call preliminary data.”
Another reader, “B.D,” opines that foreign graduate students
are under tremendous pressure to “take their degree and leave.”
“The pressures that push foreign students to leave are
rising salaries and opportunities overseas, decreasing/stagnant salaries and
opportunities in the United States and increased difficulty in getting a visa
to remain here,” he writes.
But B.D. doesn’t buy into the argument that the cause of
“brain drain” is not a lack of educational talent or opportunities. He
attributes the phenomenon to current business practices in the pharma and
biotech industries.
“Many companies are saying that they can’t hire ‘qualified’
workers in the United States, but they are simultaneously laying off
significant portions of their U.S.-based staff,” B.D. writes. “That should
raise a red flag to their qualified worker argument. I believe they are using
it as a justification to investors, customers and U.S. labor authorities to
hire additional workers overseas. Positions are rarely moved directly overseas.
Jobs cut at one site (usually in the U.S.) are added in another (usually
overseas). Educational trends follow job opportunities and salaries, not the
other way around.”
Finally, “A.B.,” who works for a top 10 pharma, isn’t quite
as cynical about the brain drain. In fact, in his view, “the best outcome from
a global perspective for foreign students is that they return to their
communities and use what they have learned in the United States to promote
economic development, respect for democracy and human rights.
“The U.S. would eventually reap the rewards of a more stable
global political environment and better trading partners,” A.B. argues.
For more reader feedback, and to weigh in with feedback of
your own, visit our blog at www.drugdiscoverynews.com/blog, where we will
continue this interesting discussion. Back |
|
||
|
Home |
FAQs |
Search |
Submit News Release |
Site Map |
About Us |
Advertising |
Resources |
Contact Us |
Terms & Conditions |
Privacy Policy
|