E-Book Content
EDITORIAL Academic Health I
CREDIT: IMAGES.COM/CORBIS
M
any of the readers of Science work in academic institutions, and it’s likely that most of the others received their scientific training there. Universities also house a large fraction of basic research in the natural sciences. In the United States, recently published media critiques of the “competitiveness” of U.S. science have enhanced national concern about the health of research in the higher education sector. From time to time, therefore, we ought to stick a thermometer into the patient and see how our alma mater is faring. Herewith a handful of diagnoses of several indicators, some of which may be important for other nations as well. In the 1980s, university administrators usually first examined the state of federal research funding. That habit is hard to break, so I turn first to next year’s budget. The House of Representatives did well by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), matching the administration’s request with an increase of 2.6%, although that’s a painful comedown from the 15% annual increases of the past few years. The House’s first look at the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) budget was less salutory, however, proposing a drop of 2%. In the palmy days of big NIH increases, some bioenthusiasts were annoyed when I called editorial attention to the unbalanced nature of the science portfolio. That problem is more serious now, and that’s unfortunate in view of the growing dependence of modern biology on the sister disciplines that are supported mainly by NSF. The visa problem has only become more tangled. Fewer foreign students are applying for graduate or postdoctoral positions in U.S. universities, and that disruption of international exchange hurts science around the world. In a move that surprised many, Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) introduced a bill (S.2715, “The International Student and Schol