The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce
Deborah D. Stine
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Christine M. Matthews
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
June 30, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34539
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

Summary
In the 21st century, global competition and rapid advances in science and technology will
challenge the scientific and technical proficiency of the U.S. workforce. Policymakers often
discuss policy actions that could enhance the nation’s science and technology (S&T) workforce—
deemed by some as essential to both meet U.S. workforce demands as well as to generate the new
ideas that lead to improved and new industries that create jobs.
The America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) addresses concerns regarding the S&T workforce
and STEM education, and the 111th Congress is debating funding for the programs authorized
within it. Policymaker discussions tend to focus on three issues: demographic trends and the
future S&T talent pool, the current S&T workforce and changing workforce needs, and the
influence of foreign S&T students and workers on the U.S. S&T workforce. Many perspectives
exist, however, on the supply and demand of scientists and engineers. Some question the
fundamental premise that any action is necessary at all regarding U.S. competitiveness. They
question whether or not the S&T workforce and STEM education are problems at all.
The first issue of demographic trends and the future S&T talent pool revolves around whether the
quality of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education received by all
Americans at the pre-college level is of sufficient quality that workers are available to satisfy
current and future workforce needs. In response, some policymakers propose taking actions to
increase the number of Americans interested in the S&T workforce. These policies are motivated
by demographic trends that indicate the pool of future workers will be far more diverse than the
current STEM workforce. Proposed policies would take actions to enhance the quality of STEM
education these Americans receive so they are able to consider S&T careers, and to recruit them
into the S&T workforce.
The second issue regarding the current S&T workforce and changing workforce needs tend to
focus on whether or not the number of Americans pursuing post-secondary STEM degrees is
sufficient to meet future workforce needs compared to students in countries considered to be U.S.
competitors. The goal of proposed policies responding to this concern to reinvigorate and retrain
Americans currently trained in science and engineering who voluntarily or involuntarily are no
longer part of the current STEM workforce.
The third issue focuses on whether or not the presence of foreign S&T students and workers is
necessary to meet the nation’s workforce needs and attract the best and brightest to bring their
ideas to the United States, or if the presence of such individuals adversely affects the U.S. S&T
students and workers. Policy discussions focus on immigration policy, primarily increasing the
ability of foreign STEM students currently in U.S. universities to more easily obtain permanent
admission, and increasing the number of temporary worker visas available so more talent from
abroad can be recruited to the United States.
The challenge facing policymakers when making decisions regarding the S&T workforce is that
science, engineering, and economic conditions are constantly changing, both in terms of
workforce needs as well as the skills the STEM workforce needs to be marketable relative to
demand.

Congressional Research Service

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
Status of the U.S. Science and Technology (S&T) Workforce ...................................................... 3
What are the Historical Trends in the U.S. S&T Workforce? .................................................. 3
What is the Status of the Current S&T Workforce? ................................................................ 6
What Is the Projected Future S&T Workforce? ...................................................................... 8
Issues and Options for Congress................................................................................................ 10
Demographic Trends and the Future S&T Talent Pool ......................................................... 10
Current S&T Workforce and Changing Workforce Needs .................................................... 11
Influence of Foreign S&T Students and Workers ................................................................. 12

Figures
Figure 1. Science and Technology Employment: 1950-2000........................................................ 5
Figure 2. Average Annual Growth Rate of S&E Occupations Versus All Workers: 1960-
2000 ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 3. Annual Average Growth Rate of Degree Production and Occupational
Employment, by Science & Engineering (S&E) Field: 1980-2000 ............................................ 6
Figure 4. S&E Doctoral Degrees, by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Citizenship: 1985-2005 ............... 9

Tables
Table 1. Employment and Unemployment Data, Select Occupations, 2007-2009 ......................... 7

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 13

Congressional Research Service

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

n the 21st century, global competition and rapid advances in science and technology will
challenge the scientific and technical proficiency of the U.S. workforce. This report provides
I an overview of the status of the U.S. science and technology (S&T) workforce, and identifies
some of the issues and options that are currently being discussed in Congress.
Background
The ability of the United States to be competitive in the global economy is viewed by many
experts as a major factor influencing the ability of the United States to maintain its economic
growth and standard of living. Scientific and technological advances can further economic growth
because they contribute to the creation of new goods, services, jobs, and capital, or increase
productivity.1 From a company, employee, and possibly community perspective, competitiveness
may be defined as the ability of a firm to compete for market share against imports from abroad
or to compete with foreign firms in overseas export markets.2 The America COMPETES Act (P.L.
110-69) responds to some of these concerns.3 Congress is discussing additional actions that it may
take in response to concerns about the S&T workforce.
Interest in the competitiveness issue began following World War II and perhaps reached its peak
in the 1970s, when some experts became concerned that Japan, Europe, and newly industrialized
countries were becoming major competitors with the United States. The United States had lost
market share in autos, cameras, stereos, television sets, steel, machine tools, and
microelectronics.4 Now that the nation has entered the 21st century, today’s competitiveness
concerns tend to be focused on issues related to increased economic globalization—that is,
increasing integration of national economies into a worldwide trading system.5 This globalization
has a growing impact, both positive and negative, on the economic futures of American
companies, workers, and families. Increasing integration with the world economy can make the
United States more productive, leading to increases in living standards and real disposable
incomes. However, rising trade with low-wage developing countries increases workers’ concerns
about job loss, lower wages, and benefits as American companies take actions to compete in a
global economy. The information technology revolution has expanded these competitiveness
concerns to U.S. white collar jobs.6

1 Excerpted from CRS Report RL33528, Industrial Competitiveness and Technological Advancement: Debate Over
Government Policy, by Wendy H. Schacht.
2 CRS Report RS22445, Taxes and International Competitiveness, by Donald J. Marples.
3 For more information, see CRS Report RL34396, The America COMPETES Act and the FY2009 Budget, and CRS
Report RL34328, America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected Issues, both by Deborah D. Stine.
4 Bruce L. R. Smith, American Science Policy Since World War II (Washington, DC: Brookings Press, 2000), p. 101-
105. Kent H. Hughes, Building the Next American Century: The Past and Present of American Economic
Competitiveness (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 2005). James Turner, “The Next Innovation Revolution: Laying
the Groundwork for the United States,” innovations, spring 2006, p. 123-144, at http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/
Documents/News%20and%20Publications/Other%20Documents/Turner-Innovations.pdf.
5 CRS Report RL33944, Trade Primer: Qs and As on Trade Concepts, Performance, and Policy, coordinated by
Raymond J. Ahearn.
6 Excerpted from CRS Report RL34091, Globalization, Worker Insecurity, and Policy Approaches, by Raymond J.
Ahearn. See also Richard B. Freeman, “Is a Great Labor Shortage Coming?: Replacement Demand in the Global
Economy,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 12541, September 2006 at http://www.nber.org/
papers/w12541.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

As in the past, concerns about U.S. competitiveness lead to a focus on the S&T workforce (see
Box 1). These include questions about whether the quality of science, technology, engineering
and mathematics (STEM) education received by all Americans at the pre-college level is of
sufficient quality that workers are available to satisfy current and future workforce needs. In
addition, the number of Americans pursuing post-secondary STEM degrees is considered to be
low relative to students in countries considered to be U.S. competitors.7 This workforce is deemed
by some as essential to both meet U.S. workforce demands as well as to generate the new ideas
that lead to improved and new industries, and the jobs that are created as a result.
Box 1. Who Should Be Included in the S&T Workforce?
Determining the S&T workforce is a challenging task. At its core are scientists and engineers, but workforce estimates
can vary based on whether or not the estimate includes those in defined S&E occupations, in related S&E occupations
(e.g., pre-college teachers, managers, technicians), who use S&E knowledge (e.g., patent lawyers, doctors, health
professionals), or who have at least one degree in S&E or an S&E-related fields.a Using these varying definitions, S&T
workforce estimates are developed by the National Science Foundation (NSF)/National Science Board (NSB), the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and the U.S. Census Bureau. Each has different definitions of who should be included
in the S&T workforce and estimates can also vary depending on the data used.
Most estimates focus only on the S&E workforce as opposed to the entire S&T workforce, but S&E estimates vary as
well. NSB indicates that, depending on the definition and perspective used, the size of the S&E workforce varied
between approximately 5.0 million and 21.4 million individuals in 2006—approximately 4-15% of all employed civilians
in the United States (144.4 millionb). For example, one NSF analysis finds that, in 2006, 5.0 million of the 18.9 million
employed scientists and engineers worked in S&E occupations, 5.2 million worked in S&E-related occupations, and 8.7
million worked in non-S&E-related occupations.c
NSB suggests that the most relevant S&E workforce estimate may be 17.0 million, which in 2006 was the number of
individuals who had at least one degree in an S&E field, or 21.4 million, which includes both these individuals plus
those with a degree in an S&E related field such as health or technology—as it reflects the many ways science and
technical knowledge is used in the United States.a
Sources:
a. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Chapter 3 (Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2008) at
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/c03.pdf.
b. U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2008, Table 583 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,
2008) at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/.
c. National Science Foundation, “Unemployment Rate of U.S. Scientists and Engineers Drops to Record Low 2.5% in 2006,” NSF 08-
235, April 2008 at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08305/.
Many perspectives exist on the supply and demand of scientists and engineers. While some
believe that increasing the number of Americans with STEM degrees is essential to providing an
S&T workforce so that the United States is competitive,8 others question whether or not U.S.
competitiveness, the S&T workforce, and STEM education are problems at all.9 These analysts
express doubts as to whether additional scientists and engineers in the United States are needed
given current workforce projections, and why if the demand is so high, salaries for those in

7 CRS Report 98-871, Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Status and Issues, by Christine M.
Matthews. CRS Report RL33434, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education:
Background, Federal Policy, and Legislative Action, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
8 See, for example, Tapping America’s Potential, “Tapping America’s Potential: The Education for Innovation
Initiative,” July 2005 at http://tap2015.org.
9 See, for example, testimony at U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, The Globalization of
R&D and Innovation, Pt. IV: Implications for the Science and Engineering Workforce, hearing, 110th Congress, 1st
sess., November 6, 2007 at http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2032.
Congressional Research Service
2

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

STEM occupations are not higher.10 Other analysts suggest that the quality and number of
scientists and engineers in China and India, the primary nations that are the focus of today’s
competitiveness concerns, are exaggerated.11 Another argument focuses on the possible
unintended side-effects of implementation. For example, will the act result in an oversupply of
scientists and engineers? These critics propose that policy actions focus on improving the
information employers and universities supply to students so they can make better choices, and
enhancing the salary and career paths for existing scientific and technical staff.12
Status of the U.S. Science and Technology (S&T)
Workforce
This section describes the historical, current, and projected future S&T workforce trends in the
United States. There are challenges, however, in reviewing these trends (see Box 2). This is
particularly true in light of current economic conditions. It is important to keep in mind in
reviewing the information in this section is that the most recent data available regarding these
overall trends is from 2006, and that the information provided here is based on long-term trend
analysis and does not take into account the recession that economists indicate began in 2007.13
What are the Historical Trends in the U.S. S&T Workforce?
As shown in Figure 1, the number of workers in S&T occupations—workers in S&E occupations
plus technicians and programmers—grew at a 6.8% average annual rate between 1950-2000,
according to NSB.14 From 1950 to 2000, the number of S&T employees increased from
approximately 0.2 million in 1950 to 5.5 million in 2000. NSB’s analysis found that workforce
demand varied greatly by occupation with major changes, both positive and negative, within
occupations. For example, economic downturns in 1992 (as illustrated in Figure 1) and 2002 led
to decreases in S&E occupation employment in some S&E fields, but not in others.

10 Titus Galama, James Hosek, U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology, (Santa Monica, CA: Rand National
Defense Research Institute, 2008) at http://www.rand.org. B. Lindsay Lowell and Hal Salzman, “Into the Eye of the
Storm: Assessing the Evidence on Science and Engineering Education, Quality, and Workforce Demand” (Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute, October 2007).
11 J. Bhagwati, “The World is Not Flat,” Wall Street Journal, August 4, 2005. Vivek Wadhwa, Gary Gereffi, Ben
Rissing, Ryan Ong, “Seeing through Preconceptions: A Deeper Look at China and India,” Issues in Science and
Technology, Spring 2007 at http://www.issues.org/23.3/wadhwa.html.
12 Michael Teitelbaum, “Is There Really a Shortage of Technical Professionals?,” Research-Technology Management,
pp. 10-13, March 1, 2008.
13 For more discussion of this issue, see CRS Report R40080, Job Loss and Infrastructure Job Creation During the
Recession, by Linda Levine.
14 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Chapter 3 (Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation, 2008) at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/c03.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

Box 2. Challenges in Developing Conclusions from S&T Workforce Data
Developing conclusions from S&T employment data can be chal enging as analysis of data from different sources at
different times often presents differing pictures of the workforce. A related factor is that while some data represent
the supply of individuals seeking employment, other data provide information on the demand for those individuals.
An example of demand data is a January 2008 analysis of job openings. This analysis found that major U.S. technology
companies averaged more than 470 U.S.-based job openings for skilled positions, while defense companies averaged
1,265 each.a Supply data just a few months later in May 2008, however, may lead some to a different conclusion. In
this case, BLS indicated that overal unemployment is 5.5%, compared with 4.5% in May 2007.b The degree to which
S&T employment is affected is unknown at this point, and may not be known for 1-2 years, leading to uncertainties in
developing a conclusion regarding the status of the S&T workforce. Even with long-term data, such as that in Figure
1 and Figure 2, field-specific and degree-specific differences can offer a very different picture of the status of the U.S.
S&T workforce. While demand for those in one field can be high, for others it can be low.
When broad industry or company future projection data are presented, it is important to understand the data. For
example, it is important to understand whether projected openings are worldwide or U.S. data, the degree of
specialization involved, and whether or not the projection is based on obtaining a particular government or other
contract. This last point may be particularly important if multiple companies in a given industry are all hoping to be
successful in winning a particular contract as the jobs projected may be duplicative.
BLS conducted an analysis of the accuracy of its occupational projections, and found employment change was
projected correctly for approximately 70% of the occupations evaluated. It found that BLS projections tended to be
conservative with projected employment for the largest number of occupations estimated at the average growth rate,
while in reality most occupations either grew faster or declined. Occupations BLS projected for the most rapid
employment growth had greater increases than BLS expected, and those expected to decline had greater decreases
than expected. BLS concluded that good occupational projections rely on good industry projections.c
Some experts worry that a lack of understanding of the volatility of some S&T occupations, and their dependence on
the economy and government policy actions, can lead policymakers to make “false promises”—encouraging students
to undertake long-term STEM education for jobs that may not be there when they graduate. NSB acknowledges that
predicting the demand for scientists and engineers is difficult. Unanticipated corporate and governments decisions can
influence the S&T workforce positively (e.g., new products or industries are created) or negatively (e.g., R&D
previously conducted in the United States is moved elsewhere).d
a.
National Foundation for American Policy [NFAP], NFAP Policy Brief, March 2008, “Talent Search: Job Openings and the Need
for Skilled Labor in the U.S. Economy,” at http://www.nfap.com/pdf/080311talentsrc.pdf.
b.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, “The Employment Situation: May 2008,” USDL 08-0757, June 6, 2008 at http://www.bls.gov/
news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf.
c.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, “The 1988-2000 Employment Projections: How Accurate Were They?,” Andrew Alpert and Jill
Auyer (authors), Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Spring 2003 at http://www.bls.gov/opub/ooq/2003/spring/art01.pdf.
d.
National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Chapter 3 (Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation,
2008) at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/c03.pdf.

Congressional Research Service
4

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

Figure 1. Science and Technology Employment: 1950-2000
All S&T
6
employees
S&E
5
Engineers
4
illions)
M
Mathematicians
3
/ information
technologists
Technicians
oyees ( 2
pl
m
Physical
E
scientists
1
Social scientists
0
Life scientists
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000

Source: National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Figure 3-1, (Arlington, VA: National
Science Foundation, 2008) at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/c03.pdf.
Note: S&T = science and technology. S&E = scientists and engineers. Data include bachelor’s degrees or higher
in science occupations, some college and above in engineering occupations, and any education level for
technicians and computer programmers.
Figure 2 takes the major influence on the number of workers in S&T occupations, those in S&E
occupations, and compares the average annual growth rate of these workers to that of all
workers.15 As shown here, the average annual growth rate for S&E occupations was consistently
higher than that for all workers from 1960-2000. For all S&E fields, employment has grown
faster than degree production. As shown in Figure 3, while the number of workers in S&E
occupations grew at an average annual rate of 4.2% from 1980-2000, the S&E degree production
grew at a lower rate of 1.5% 16 According to the NSB, the marketplace responded to that
difference between degree and occupation growth by employing individuals in S&E occupations
who did not have S&E degrees and foreign S&E workers.

15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
5

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

Figure 2. Average Annual Growth Rate of S&E Occupations Versus All Workers:
1960-2000

Source: National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Figure 3-2 (Arlington, VA: National
Science Foundation, 2008) at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/c03.pdf.

Figure 3. Annual Average Growth Rate of Degree Production and Occupational
Employment, by Science & Engineering (S&E) Field: 1980-2000

Source: National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Figure 3-3 (Arlington, VA: National
Science Foundation, 2008) at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/c03.pdf.
What is the Status of the Current S&T Workforce?
NSF’s most current workforce data analysis focuses on the 18.9 million employed scientists and
engineers (out of a population of 22.6 million scientists and engineers) in the United States in
2006.17 The NSF data indicate that the overall unemployment rate for scientists and engineers at

17 National Science Foundation, “Unemployment Rate of U.S. Scientists and Engineers Drops to Record Low 2.5% in
2006,” NSF 08-235, April 2008 at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08305/. Note that this analysis uses the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

all degree levels in the United States dropped from 3.2% in 2003 to 2.5% in 2006, with those
holding doctorate and professional degree at the lowest unemployment rate of 1.6%. The majority
of scientists and engineers, according to these NSF data, work in the business/industry sector
(69.4%), followed by educational institutions (18.8%) and government (11.8%). According to the
National Science Board, “S&E occupations have generally recovered from unusually high
unemployment in the most recent recession.”18
BLS provides more recent as to the number of individuals in science and engineering occupations
employed and unemployed.
Table 1. Employment and Unemployment Data, Select Occupations, 2007-2009
Employed Persons, by Occupation
Unemployed Rate, by

(in thousands)
Occupation (%)
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Average
Average
May
Average
Average
Occupation
2007
2008
2009
2007
2008
Computer and mathematical
3,441 3,676 3,498 2.1% 2.6%
occupations
Architecture and engineering
2,932 2,931 2,809 1.6% 3.1%
occupations
Life, physical, and social science
1,382 1,307 1,298 2.0% 2.4%
occupations
Source: Congressional Research Service based on BLS data from Current Population Survey, Table 9,
“Employed persons by occupation, sex, and age,” at http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat9.pdf; Table A-19, “ Employed
persons by occupation, sex, and age,” at http://www.bls.gov/web/cpseea19.pdf; and Table 25, “Unemployed
persons by occupation and sex,” at http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat25.pdf.
Notes: Household data. Employed persons data for May 2009 has not been seasonal y adjusted. Updated
population controls are introduced annual y with the release of January data.
In terms of demographics, the U.S. 2006 S&E workforce included 54.8% men and 45.2%
women.19 Looking at this same population, an analysis of race/ethnicity finds that 77.0% of this
workforce was white, 10.0% Asian, 5.6% black, 5.3% Hispanic (any race), with American
Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and multiple race each at 1% or less. These NSF data
indicate that 84.5% of the U.S. 2006 S&E workforce were native U.S. citizens, 10.5% naturalized
U.S. citizens, 3.7% non-U.S. citizen permanent residents, and 1.3% non-U.S. citizen temporary
residents.

(...continued)
2003 and 2006 Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT) so it will differ slightly from some of the
data presented in the previous section. Scientists and engineers refers to all persons who have ever received a
bachelor’s degree or higher in an S&E or S&E-related field, plus persons holding a non-S&E bachelor’s or higher
degree who were employed in an S&E or S&E-related occupation in 2003.
18 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation,
2008) at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/c03.pdf.
19 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
7

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

What Is the Projected Future S&T Workforce?
In terms of future demand, BLS projects professional and related occupations employment will
provide more jobs (5.0 million) than any other group between 2006 and 2016, an increase of
nearly 17%.20 Of the eight subgroups within this occupation category, BLS projects that health
care practitioners and technicians will add the most new jobs (1.4 million; 19.8% growth rate)
and computer and mathematical occupations will grow the most quickly (0.8 million jobs; 24.8%
growth rate). BLS expects other occupational groups related to science and engineering to grow
as well, including architecture and engineering (0.3 million jobs; 10.4% growth rate), and life,
physical, and social sciences (0.2 million jobs; 14.4% growth rate). Of the 30 fastest growing
occupations, with a growth rate of 27% compared to the 10% average for all the occupations,
many are science and technology-related.21
One question is whether or not the United States is educating enough Americans with sufficient
STEM education today to meet this projected future demand. Science and engineering
occupations have been primarily the domain of white males. As discussed earlier, 77% of the
2006 S&E workforce is white. Within this population, 56% are male.22 As illustrated in Figure 4,
however, these demographics are changing. The number of U.S. citizen white males receiving
doctoral degrees declined from 1985-2005, while the number of U.S. citizen white females and
minorities increased. These demographic groups are looked upon by some as a possible source of
increasing the U.S. S&T talent pool.

20 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections, Employment Outlook:
2006—16: Occupational Employment Projections to 2016, November 2007, at http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/11/
art5full.pdf.
21 Ibid.
22 National Science Foundation, “Unemployment Rate of U.S. Scientists and Engineers Drops to Record Low 2.5% in
2006,” NSF 08-235, April 2008.
Congressional Research Service
8

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

Figure 4. S&E Doctoral Degrees, by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Citizenship:
1985-2005

Source: National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Figure 2-23 (Arlington, VA: National
Science Foundation, 2008) at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/c03.pdf.

NSB found that blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans/Alaskan Natives as a whole comprise
more than 25% of the population and earn, as a whole, 16.2% of the bachelor degrees, 10.7% of
the masters degrees, and 5.4% of the doctorate degrees in science and engineering.23 In 2005,
women were awarded approximately 50.5% of the S&E undergraduate degrees, an increase from
46.5% in 1995,24 and 39.5% of the S&E doctorate degrees, an increase from 32.8% in 1995.25
Disaggregated data reveal that these awards were concentrated in selected disciplines. In 2005,
while women earned 55.0% of the social and behavioral sciences doctorates, women were
awarded a lower percentage of the doctorates in other fields—22.5% in engineering, 26.7% in the
physical sciences, and 19.8% in computer sciences.26

23 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Volume 2, Appendix Tables 2-27, 2-29, and 2-31
(Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2008) at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/volume2.pdf.
24 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Volume 2, Appendix Table 2-27.
25 Ibid., Appendix Table 2-31.
26 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
9

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

Issues and Options for Congress
Discussions among policymakers tend to focus on three issues: demographic trends and the future
S&T talent pool, the current S&T workforce and changing workforce needs, and the influence of
foreign S&T students and workers on the U.S. S&T workforce.27 Each of these issues is discussed
in more depth below.
Demographic Trends and the Future S&T Talent Pool
Few in the science and engineering community argue about the effect of national demographics
on the future science and engineering workforce. With the beginning of the 21st century, a larger
proportion of the U.S. population will be composed of minorities—blacks, Hispanics, and Native
Americans, with the fastest growing minority group being Hispanics. For example, the population
of Hispanic or Latino origin is projected to steadily increase as a percentage of the total U.S.
population through 2050, rising from 12.6% in 2000 to 24.4% in 2050.28 As a result, many are
looking toward these groups, currently underrepresented in the S&T workforce, as a source of
future U.S. S&T talent.
As a group, minorities traditionally have been underrepresented in the science and engineering
disciplines compared to their fraction of the total population.29 Generally, minorities take fewer
high-level science and mathematics courses in high school; earn fewer undergraduate and
graduate degrees in science and engineering; and are less likely to be employed in science and
engineering positions than white males.30 While minorities have increased their share of degrees
awarded in the sciences, poor preparation in science and mathematics is said to be a major factor
limiting the appeal of science and engineering to even larger numbers of these groups. A large
number of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans lack access to many of the more rigorous
college preparatory courses.31 In addition to recruitment, retention of minorities in the science and
engineering educational pipeline, once recruited, also is of concern. The attrition rates for blacks,
Hispanics, and Native Americans are higher than for whites or Asians.

27 For more information, see CRS Report 97-746, Foreign Science and Engineering Presence in U.S. Institutions and
the Labor Force, by Christine M. Matthews, and CRS Report RL30498, Immigration: Legislative Issues on
Nonimmigrant Professional Specialty (H-1B) Workers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
28 Excerpt from CRS Report RL32701, The Changing Demographic Profile of the United States, by Laura B. Shrestha.
29 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Volume 1, pp. 2-20 - 2-21 (Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation, 2008); National Center for Education Statistics, Status and Trends in the Education of
Racial and Ethnic Minorities, September 2007, at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/minoritytrends/.
30 Jeffrey L. White, James W. Altschuld, and Yi-Fang Lee, “Persistence of Interest in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics: A Minority Retention Study,” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and
Engineering, v. 12, 2006, pp. 47-64; Raymond B. Landis, California State University, Los Angeles, “Retention by
Design - Achieving Excellence in Minority Engineering Education,” October 2005, at http://www.nacme.org/pdf/
RetentionByDesign.pdf; National Science Foundation, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science
and Engineering, Arlington, VA, May 2008 Update, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf/may2008updates.pdf.
31 See for example, Brian K. Bridges, “Bottlenecks and Bulges: The Minority Academic Pipeline,” Presentation at the
2nd Annual Conference on Understanding Interventions that Encourage Minorities to Pursue Research Careers,
American Council on Education, May 2008; and The College Board, 4th Annual Advanced Placement Report to the
Nation, February 13, 2008 at http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/ap-report-to-the-nation-2008.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

In the case of women, while enrollment in rigorous course work and advanced placement classes
in high school has increased for women, there is substantial attrition along the S&E educational
pathway. According to a National Academy of Sciences study, “fewer high school girls intend to
major in science and engineering fields, more alter their intentions to major in science and
engineering between high school and college, [and] fewer women science and engineering
graduates continue on to graduate school.”32 As a result, some believe that programs are needed to
strengthen the course taking and persistence of women all along the educational pipeline, as there
is substantial attrition of both men and women at all stages of science and engineering
education.33 And although women receive about half of S&E bachelor’s and Ph.D. degrees in
2005, they are underrepresented in engineering, computer science, and physics with 25% or less
graduate school enrollments in 2005.34 Another goal of some, therefore, is to increase the
representation of women in these fields.
Current S&T Workforce and Changing Workforce Needs
Three issues discussed in relation to the current S&T workforce are the implications of a
constantly changing employment market, an aging workforce, and multinational and U.S. firm
employment outside the United States. As science and engineering fields evolve, so do the skills
needed by the S&T workforce. Some policies are in place and others are recommended to
encourage support of workers to pursue and employers to provide continuing education to help
the S&T workforce to maintain its employment, and for employers to have a technically-able
workforce available in high need areas. Some U.S. workers believe that if corporations were
willing to train the S&T workforce whose skills are out-of-date with the new skills these
corporations need, the corporations would not need to seek foreign workers—either by bringing
them into the United States or employing them abroad.
Another issue is the aging workforce—a key issue for government, university, and industry. Many
employers worry that an insufficient number of American S&T students are in the pipeline to
replace those who retire. This issue is often cited when U.S. citizenship is required for
employment, particularly in the defense, national security, and similar fields.35 On the other hand,
the overall S&T workforce may be sufficient if degree production, retirement patterns, or
immigration do not change—though the workforce will be older and the growth rate in such
positions may slow significantly. Some worry, however, that this older workforce may not be as
creative, and may reduce the opportunities for junior researchers to become independent.36 Some
policies being discussed in this area include recruiting and supporting more Americans to pursue

32 The National Academies, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and
Engineering, Washington, 2007, pp. 51 at http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11741.
33 Mary E. Virnoche, “Expanding Girls’ Horizons: Strengthening Persistence in the Early Math and Science Education
Pipeline,” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, v. 14, 2008, pp 29-44; The National
Academies, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering,
Washington, DC, 2007, pp. 59-60 at http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11741; Cornelia Dean, “Women in
Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches,” The New York Times, December 19, 2006; Amanda Ripley, “Who Says A
Woman Can’t be Einstein?” Time, March 7, 2005, pp. 51-59.
34 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Volume 1, Chapter 2 (Arlington, VA: National
Science Foundation, 2008)
35 See, for example, Congress Daily, “DHS Official Warns U.S. Workforce Faces Skills ‘Crisis’,” June 16, 2008.
36 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, Chapter 3 (Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation, 2008).
Congressional Research Service
11

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

S&T workforce careers, and increasing the number of federally sponsored early-career grants
focused on younger researchers.37
Influence of Foreign S&T Students and Workers
The increased presence of foreign students38 in graduate science and engineering programs has
been and continues to be of concern to some in the scientific community.39 Enrollment of U.S.
citizens in graduate science and engineering programs has not kept pace with that of foreign
students in those programs. According to NSF, while the first-time, full-time science and
engineering graduate enrollment of foreign students in science and engineering fields increased
by 16% from 2005 to 2006, U.S. citizen and permanent resident enrollment increased by slightly
more than1%.40 In addition to the number of foreign students in graduate science and engineering
programs, a significant number of non-U.S. citizens with S&E Ph.D. degrees are employed by
universities and industry.
There are divergent views in the U.S. scientific and academic community about the effects of a
significant foreign presence in graduate science and engineering programs.41 Some argue that
U.S. universities benefit from a large foreign citizen enrollment by helping to meet the needs of
the university and, for those students who remain in the United States, the nation’s economy.42
Others argue that the influx of foreign national scientists and engineers has resulted in depressed
job opportunities, lowered wages, and declining working conditions for American scientists and
engineers.
There are also divergent views regarding immigration and the S&T workforce.43 While many
businesses, especially high-tech companies, have downsized, the federal government annually
issued thousands of H-1B44 visas to foreign workers. There are those in the S&T community who

37 See, for example, testimony at U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, The
Broken Pipeline: Losing Opportunities in the Life Sciences, hearing, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., March 11, 2008 at
http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2008_03_11/2008_03_11.html. Also, American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
“Advancing Research in Science and Engineering: Investing in Early-Career Scientists and High-Risk, High-Reward
Research,” 2008 at http://www.amacad.org/ariseFolder/.
38 For more information, see CRS Report RL31146, Foreign Students in the United States: Policies and Legislation, by
Chad C. Haddal.
39 Cynthia Scanlon, “The H-1B Visa Debate,” Area Development Site and Facility Planning Online, Oct/Nov 2006 at
http://www.areadevelopment.com/laborEducation/oct06/h1bvisa.shtml.
40 National Science Foundation, First-Time, Full-Time Graduate Student Enrollment in Science and Engineering
Increases in 2006, Especially Among Foreign Students, NSF08-302, InfoBrief, December 2007, at http://www.nsf.gov/
statistics/infbrief/nsf08302/; and Eugene McCormack, “Number of Foreign Students Bounces Back to Near-Record
High,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, v. 54, November 16, 2007, p. A1.
41 See for example, The National Academies, Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral
Scholars in the United States, Washington, DC, 2005, pp. 17-65 at http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11289;
Norman Matloff, Center for Immigration Studies, “Crying Educational Doom-and-Gloom,” May 2, 2008, at
http://frontpagemag.com/.
42 See, for example, Vivek Wadha, AnnaLee Saxenien, Ben Rissing, Gary Gereffi, “Skilled Immigration and Economic
Growth,” Applied Research in Economic Development, 5:1(6-14), May 2008 at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=1141190.
43 For a fuller discussion of the academic literature on these issues, see CRS Report 95-408, Immigration: The Effects
on Low-Skilled and High-Skilled Native-Born Workers, by Linda Levine.
44 The H-1B temporary visa allows nonimmigrants to work legally in a specialty occupation, such as scientists,
engineers, computer programmers, and medical doctors, in the United States for a period up to six years (generally in
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12

The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce

contend that an over-reliance on H-1B visa workers to fill high-tech positions has weakened
opportunities for the U.S. workforce.45 There are those U.S. workers who also argue that a
number of the available positions are being filled by “less-expensive foreign labor.”46 Those
critical of the influx of immigrant scientists have advocated placing restrictions on the hiring of
foreign skilled employees in addition to enforcing the existing laws designed to protect workers.
Those in support of the H-1B program maintain that there is no “clear evidence” that foreign
workers displace U.S. workers in comparable positions and that it is necessary to hire foreign
workers to fill needed positions, even during periods of slow economic growth.47

Author Contact Information

Deborah D. Stine
Christine M. Matthews
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
dstine@crs.loc.gov, 7-8431
cmatthews@crs.loc.gov, 7-7055

(...continued)
three-year increments). For expanded discussion of the H-1B visa see CRS Report RL30498, Immigration: Legislative
Issues on Nonimmigrant Professional Specialty (H-1B) Workers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem; CRS Report 97-746, Foreign
Science and Engineering Presence in U.S. Institutions and the Labor Force, by Christine M. Matthews, and CRS
Report RL31973, Programs Funded by the H-1B Visa Education and Training Fee, and Labor Market Conditions for
Information Technology (IT) Workers, by Linda Levine and Blake Alan Naughton.
45 See for example, Ephraim Schwartz, “H-1B: Patriotic or Treasonous?,” InfoWorld, v. 27, May 6, 2005, at
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/05/06/19NNh1b_1.html.
46 Carrie Johnson, “Hiring of Foreign Workers Frustrates Native Job-Seekers,” Washington Post, February 27, 2002, p.
E01.
47 See for example, John Clark, Nadine Jeserich, and Graham Toft, Hudson Institute, Can Foreign Talent Fill Gaps in
the U.S. Labor Force? The Contributions of Recent Literature, September 2004; Chris Baker, “Visa Restrictions Will
Harm U.S. Technology, Gates Says; Microsoft Chief Calls For End to Caps On Workers,” The Washington Times,
April 29, 2005, p. C13; and Ed Frauenheim, “Brain Drain in Tech’s Future?,” CNET Nets.com, August 6, 2004.
Congressional Research Service
13