GOVERNMENT

Immigration Reforms Could Stem Flow Of Nontitizen Chemical Scientists

• Proportion of non-U.S. citizen scientists is up, but congressional actions could change the face of science in the VS.

Linda Ross Raber, C&EN Washington

Both houses of Congress are set to debate sweeping immigration legislation designed not only to

crack down on illegal immigration, but also to limit legal entry of skilled work­ers into the U.S. This issue is highly charged, and one that deeply affects the U.S. science and engineering communities.

According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), as of 1994, 42% of Ph.D. degrees in chemistry and 59% of Ph.D. degrees in chemical engineering were awarded to non-U.S. citizens, up from 24% and 51%, respectively, in 1985. Many people believe that, in the current labor market, legal immigration has a detrimental effect on employ­ment opportunities for native-born chemical scientists and engineers in the U.S.—particularly those whose careers have been disrupted by corporate downsizing or who are feeling the pangs of unmet expectations.

Others believe that this legal influx of international scientists stimulates the economy and creates jobs—that it al­lows the U.S. to select the cream of the world's students. The dilemma is how to compare the disadvantage of a poor set of job opportunities for American scientists and engineers with the ad­vantages of a larger talent pool that such immigration affords.

The congressional debate, which promises to be quite divisive, is focus­ing on two bills: S. 1394, sponsored by Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) in the Senate, and H.R. 2202, sponsored by Lamar Smith (R-Texas) in the House. Propo-

Noncitizens obtain 47% of science Ph.D.s . . . Number of science and engineering Ph.D.s awarded3

10,000 f 9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000 OLm.'.U.a ', ,t „',',-, ,1, Λ: I i 1 >,',

1985 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 a Excludes Ph.D. awards in psychology and social sciences. Source: National Science Foundation

. · . and receive 46% of chemical science Ph.D.s Number of chemistry and chemical engineering Ph.D.s awarded 1,8001

1985 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

Source: National Science Foundation

nents of the bills are hoping to ride the wave of popular support for curbing il­legal immigration to limit legal entry into the U.S. as well. Polls show the public at large is less concerned about legal immigration.

As it now stands, Simpson's bill is more restrictive than Smith's. Among other things, Simpson's bill reduces the number of visas available for employ­ment-based immigrants from 140,000

to 90,000 annually. This may seem like a big reduction, but only about 93,000 of these slots were used in fiscal 1994. An estimated 86,000 were used in fiscal 1995. The number of scientists and en­gineers admitted annually to the U.S. as permanent residents rose from about 14,000 in 1991 to about 24,000 in 1993. That's a big increase, but it still represents only about 2.5% of total im­migration to the U.S.

Under the Simpson bill, employ­ment-based immigrants would be grant­ed two-year conditional residence, which could become permanent. The bill would also tighten regulations gov­erning nonimmigrant temporary work­ers—those on so-called Hl-B visas, the visas used for entry by most foreign postdocs.

Other major provisions of the bill that could affect the employment of sci­entists and engineers in the U.S. would do the following:

• Prohibit employers from laying off U.S. workers and replacing them with foreign temporary workers unless a 5% salary premium is paid to the for­eign workers.

• Impose a graduated, three-year fee on employers of foreign temporary workers.

• Impose a fee on an employer of a permanent immigrant set at $10,000 or 10% of the immigrant's first-year salary— whichever is greater—with the money to be used to retrain U.S. workers.

• Reduce from six to three years the length of temporary work permits.

Although new limits on legal immi­gration are supported by many mem­bers of Congress and by representatives of the engineering and computer science communities, a lot of people and groups think that clamping down on people who are playing by the rules is just not fair. Limiting legal immigration into the U.S. is opposed by a strong bipartisan coalition that includes some unlikely al­lies: immigration groups and free-trade organizations, religious groups and high-

26 MARCH 11,1996 C&EN

U.S. citizens

Non-U.S. citizens

U.S. citizens

Non-U.S. citizens

technology business interests, and the AFL-CIO and Bill Gates (chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Mi­crosoft), to name a few. The American Chemical Society has not yet taken an of­ficial stand, but the issue is scheduled for discussion by the society's board of di­rectors at the ACS national meeting in New Orleans later this month.

Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich, however, says the proposed legislation doesn't go far enough to limit immigra­tion. "Highly skilled American work­ers are the victims. Today, too many companies are reaping huge profits from exploiting foreign workers and laying off skilled American workers. Essentially, this bill will allow employ­ers to purchase a license to lay off U.S. workers by paying a premium to tem­porary foreign workers."

The National Association of Manu­facturers Senior Vice President Paul Huard sees it another way. He thinks there is a "shortage of skilled U.S. job applicants, [and] American companies periodically have the need to look be­yond our shores to fill a position."

Edward S. Kostiner, professor of chemistry at the University of Connecti­cut, Storrs, and former chairman of the ACS Committee on Economic and Pro­fessional Affairs, isn't buying that argu­ment—at least not for chemists. "We have an oversupply of chemists. There's no doubt about it. I see too many people who've been in postdoctoral positions for six to eight years. This is the scientif­ic equivalent of the Ph.D. physicist driv­ing a cab. The situation is exacerbated by the [increasing] number of postdoctoral students—which is the result of over­production of Ph.D.s—and that is due to increase in the number of international students."

But some of those most affected by the perceived oversupply of chemists aren't in favor of limiting legal immi­gration. At least that's the position of two chemists contacted by C&EN who are members of the Young Scientists' Network. The network was set up sev­eral years ago to address the concerns of scientists just beginning their ca­reers. One major function is to make sure that everybody knows that there is no shortage of scientists in the U.S.

"The best qualified people should have the right to compete for the best jobs everywhere, regardless of their na­tional origin," says Clayton Randall, a Ph.D. chemist now working as a science

Kostiner: oversupply of PhD.s

writer after completing postdoctoral work. "Having said that, I feel that it is wrong to bring skilled workers into this country to fill shortages that don't exist."

Mary Ellen Scott, in her first academ­ic position as visiting assistant profes­sor of chemistry at Case Western Re­serve University, Cleveland, believes that the anger generated by the issue of immigration should be directed at businesses that are abusing laws already on the books, which she be­lieves are adequate as long as people play fair and work with the spirit of the law in mind. However, she says, "Some companies can look at two identically qualified people and say, because you have a green card I can pay you half what I would pay a na­tive-born worker. That does a disser­vice to both people involved."

"Students and workers on expired vi­sas—about 60% of illegal immigrants— should either find a job and green-card sponsor or go home. Illegal immigrants should be deported," says Randall.

When asked for solutions, Randall says: "I believe that the best way to dis­courage illegal immigration is to sup­port sustainable economic develop­ment, education—especially of wom­en—and population control measures in every country. Most foreign scien­tists with whom I speak would rather live in their home countries, but only if there are good jobs and a good stan­dard of living for them there."

The reforms called for in the legisla­tion may have some unintended results. "Taxing industrial employers who hire

scientists and engineers may increase the costs of research and technology in the U.S., which, in turn, may increase incen­tives for employers to look abroad for their R&D activity, thereby defeating the major purpose of this initiative, which is to preserve job opportunities for Ameri­can workers," warns Alan Fechter, pres­ident of the Commission on Profession­als in Science & Technology.

The commission is a nonprofit, Washington, D.C.-based corporation whose membership includes leading professional societies such as ACS, cor­porations, and individuals concerned with advancing public understanding of professionals in science and technol­ogy, including their roles, education, and employment. It gathers informa­tion on earnings, ethnicity, and citizen­ship of scientists and analyzes career paths and supply-and-demand issues.

Globalization of the R&D enterprise is already a reality. NSF reports that in 1993, the latest year for which data are available, roughly 10% of U.S. compa-nyfunded R&D was spent outside the U.S., up from 6% in 1985.

It is hard to get a clear picture of the effect foreign scientists and engineers have on the employment market in the U.S. The issues are clouded by weak evidence, by strong institutional and individual self-interest, and by unfortu­nate emotions. And defining a human resource policy on the basis of pro­jected employment data is notoriously unreliable.

In the late 1980s, predictions were made of significant shortages of scien­tists and engineers in the 1990s, which led to more permissive immigration policy. "When these predictions turned out to be wrong, and people began to realize that the job market for scientists and engineers was turning sour, the pendulum started to swing in the other direction and more stringent measures were advocated," says Fechter.

In 1990, the employment-based im­migration quota was raised from 54,000 annually to 140,000, mostly as a result of projections from a methodologically flawed NSF study that forecast a severe shortage of scientists and engineers by the early 1990s. These shortages were to be met by increasing the number of temporary workers admitted under the Hl-B program. The shortage did not materialize; instead, unprecedented levels of unemployment were reported in math and the physical sciences.

MARCH 11,1996 C&EN 27

GOVERNMENT

According to data from NSF's 1993 National Survey of College Graduates, foreign-born individuals accounted for nearly 12% of bachelor's degrees, 23% of master's and professional degrees, and 28% of doctoral degrees in science and engineering. In their careers, these people are heavily involved in R&D.

For all science and engineering fields, 58% of foreign-born doctorates are engaged in R&D, as compared with 45% of native-born doctorate holders. This difference is driven by foreign-born doctorates from U.S. schools, 62% of whom are engaged in R&D.

According to a National Academy of Sciences Committee on Science, Engi­neering & Public Policy report, "Reshaping the Graduate Educa­tion of Scientists and Engineers," nearly all the growth in the num­ber of Ph.D. graduates since 1985 has come from foreign students on temporary student visas. Only a small part of the growth has been from U.S. citizens and per­manent residents.

After receiving their degrees, a substantial proportion of U.S.-trained foreign scientists stay in the U.S. At the American Associ­ation for the Advancement of Science meeting in Baltimore last month, Michael G. Finn of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science & Education presented the re­sults of a study showing that 41 to 42% of the foreign students on temporary visas and 48 to 49% of those with permanent resi­dent visas who earned Ph.D. degrees in science or engineering during the 1980s were working in the U.S. in 1992.

The market incentives for foreign-born scientists are clear. A Ph.D. degree from a U.S. university carries prestige abroad. The pay of graduate research and teaching assistants and the modest prospective earnings after graduation are acceptable by the standards of the home country, even more so when en­riched by the likelihood of a future green card and access to the U.S. job market.

And it looks like native-born stu­dents appear to be retreating from get­ting Ph.D. degrees in the physical sci­ences and engineering. For U.S. stu­dents, a medical or law degree can produce earlier gratification and life­time earnings frequently higher than a Ph.D., if the actual and opportunity

costs of the added years of study are taken into consideration.

It is also widely held that universities have allowed the value of graduate as-sistantships to fall below reasonable expectations of potential U.S. graduate students. Unlike physicians or lawyers, U.S. science and engineering pro­fessionals have been passive about pushing for higher compensation, sta­tus, and professional control, says Fechter.

"The major contributing factor to the surplus of scientists is the publish-or-perish structure of academia," says Randall. "Scientists need large armies of grad students and postdocs to do the

Fechter: two wrongs don't make a right

work to write the papers to get the grants to feed the armies, and so on in a vicious circle. Eventually, these peo­ple leave the group and become clones of their advisers, exponentially generat­ing more armies of underemployed scientists."

"However," says Fechter, "we should not attempt to remedy past policy mis­takes with yet further mistakes by for­mulating an overrestrictive immigra­tion policy. Two wrongs don't make a right. Instead, we will probably have to examine current institutional prac­tices on the campuses. That means looking at how we compensate and how we employ people on research projects."

Current institutional practices that link research and the training of re­search scholars may have to go," he says. "Such production may now need

to be less intertwined, advises Fechter. "We can't assume by meeting our needs for personnel on research projects we will be meeting our future needs for research scholars. We have to be thinking differently about how we bring people into research projects on the campuses, given this kind of world.

"What I'm talking about is giving people real jobs at reasonable wages as either technicians or some other kind of permanent staff person to serve as staff for research projects, rather than em­ploying research assistants or postdocs, who after they finish that stage of em­ployment have nowhere left to go.

However, such rearrangements | of employment policy could sig-^ nificantly raise the cost of doing S academic research and could, à thus, significantly reduce the | amount of academic research °· that we can do in this country,"

Fechter says. New restrictions on legal im­

migration may not be in the cards, at least not at full strength. Late last month, flanked by sup­porters, surrounded by reporters, and against a backdrop of Ameri­can flags, Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.) called a press confer­ence announcing his intent to in­troduce a motion during the Judi­ciary Committee's markup of the Simpson bill that would split the bill into two separate pieces of legislation.

"America is a nation of immi­grants. Virtually every citizen in my state of Michigan is a descendant of im­migrants. We should continue to wel­come those who want to come to this country, play by the rules, and make a positive contribution to American soci­ety," said Abraham. "The last thing we should be doing is blurring the clear distinction between legal and illegal immigration. Let's go after the real problem: illegal immigration. In our ef­forts to stop the flow of illegal immi­gration, however, we must not aban­don America's historic commitment to legal immigration." But Abraham's ef­fort was blocked by Simpson.

It is widely believed that splitting ei­ther bill into two bills—one addressing legal immigration reductions and one controlling illegal immigration—would result in legal immigration reform be­ing abandoned, at least for now. •

28 MARCH 11,1996 C&EN