Will the US be able to maintain its global lead in technology over the next twenty years? Mr.

Chairman and members of the Committee agree that the US is facing a serious challenge in competing with other countries to maintain its standard of living. The quality of the jobs held will play a significant role in Americans standard of living regardless of whether they are able to retain employment in the years ahead. Not only have they had to compete for jobs within the nation, but also with others around the world. Human capital is an important factor which attributes their work force into quality and enables them to compete with other nations.1 The America COMPETES Act and the federal stimulus package are soon due to be expire. As a result of the debt that has accumulated over the years, there has been a marked slowing in the progress of new factories, research laboratories and jobs. According to certain biomedical research articles, the US has been replaced by China as the number one exporter of high-technology. Data collected from surveys in US manufacturing companies has also revealed that the skills shortage facing America is contributing to the loss of competitiveness within the country. In 2008, up to 78 percent of US high school graduates did not meet the benchmark college requirements in mathematics, science and English, demonstrating that the education system is struggling to show signs of improvement. Essentially, America needs more money to maintain its position as the global leader in technology. However, this funding, as well as the the America COMPETES Act, need to be reauthorized in order to achieve this goal.2 Eric Schmidt argues that the lack of investment in mathematical and scientific research might put Americans at risk of
1

Committee Chair Norman R. Augustine, Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (2005). 2 Committee Chair Norman R. Augustine, The National Academies: Where the Nation turns for Independent, Expert Advice, September 23, 2010.

becoming captive consumers, as Asia is seeing an increasing rise in its global powers. Without government-funded research, America is losing the core aspect in competition. Amar Bhide of the Columbia Business School does not believe Americas prosperity will be affected by its position or otherwise as the global leader in technology. He argues that the number of doctorates and technical graduates in a country is not necessarily indicative of a high level of innovations or ideas, since nowadays scientists can easily travel across the globe. No matter how much China spends on training more scientists, it cannot prevent America from capitalizing on better business models for their inventions. Furthermore, he makes the point that Americas ability to market and diffuse the use of its innovations is far more important than the initiation of a new idea. In the 1980s, Japan was catching up in terms of technological innovations but because of Americas sophisticated marketing, distribution, sales and customer service systems, these benefits gave America a considerable advantage over its rivals. According to Bhide, the best way for the US to maintain this upper hand is to put more emphasis on MBAs (Master of Business Administration) than PhDs. Adam Segal of the Council on Foreign Relations points out that American weapon technology used by the US military is no longer a secret, but rather what makes them successful in wars is their ability to use weapons in sophisticated ways not easily copied by others. Clayton Christensen of the Harvard Business School focuses on Americas education system and agrees with his former classmate Amar Bhide that instead of producing more scientists, the US would be better served by concentrating on technical skill development among managers and factory workers. Some techno-nationalists argue that American innovation would benefit from a sort of special tax treatment or

government subsidies. However, this makes little sense given the global increase in innovation and its open nature.3 America might be over confident when it comes to hi-tech weaponry and military technology. As was seen during the US intervention in Mogadishu in 1993, US troops were vulnerable to handheld grenade launchers and submachine guns despite the fact these weapons were operated by poorly trained combat troops.4 It is plausible that the US might fall behind in certain markets such as automobiles, audiovisual equipment and PCs, if both the capital and inventiveness for research and development in consumer products continue to decline.5 The US President, Barack Obama, recently emphasized the need to invest government funds in order to maintain the position of the US as the world leader in technology. He encouraged home-grown innovations and stressed the need to maintain US technologybased businesses in order to ensure its competitiveness. He favors two proposals: firstly to double government funding for basic research and secondly to train more scientists and engineers. Bhide disagrees with techno-nationalism, arguing that economic growth is not necessarily a result of technological innovation. He believes that the most important factor contributing to economic prosperity is how these technologies are used, rather than placing an emphasis on inventing new ideas. He believes that Wal-Mart and its followers consider the pinnacle of Americas technological success to be Silicon Valley6, i.e. the area of California where many modern technologies are designed and

The Economist, Innovation in America: A gathering storm (New York: from the print edition, November 20, 2008). 4 Michael Adas, The Paradox of Technological Supremacy: Dominance By Design (Harvard, 2006), 412. 5 Adas, The Paradox of Technological Supremacy, 414. 6 Steve Lohr, Do We Overrate Basic Research?, The New York Times, November 30, 2008.

where there is a concentration of semiconductor manufacturers.7 Bhide adds that, as long as the United States retains its position as the leader of commercial inventions, its economy will continue to prosper. He also points out that instead of obsessing over creating new ideas, there is a need to be more open-minded: to have a willingness to experiment and be able to innovate the use of technology.8 NASA very much epitomizes US technology today, as it is seen to be crucial in the nations future in space exploration. Currently the US, with NASA, is the world leader in space technology.9 In previous times, the US was far more technologically advanced than any other country.10 It is clear that the globalization of business is playing a significant role in American technological leadership today. Foreigners can now learn from American engineers by going to American universities. Europeans can also purchase American operating firms and observe American technologies from their home countries. 11 World leadership in technology is vital to America today, and is believed to be the key to economic prosperity, national security and to its reputation to the world.

7 8

Dictionary.com. Lohr, Do We Overrate Basic Research? 9 Bobby Braun, Technology Investment Critical for NASA, Nation, Space News, September 8, 2011. 10 Richard Nelson and Gavin Wright: The Rise and Fall of American Technological Leadership: The Postwar Era in Historical Perspective, Vol. 30, No. 4 (1992): 1940. 11 Nelson and Wright: The Rise and Fall of American Technological Leadership, 1959.

Bibliography
Adas, Michael. The Paradox of Technological Supremacy: Dominance By Design. Harvard: 2006 Braun, Bobby. Technology Investment Critical for NASA, Nation. Space News, September 8, 2011. Committee Chair Norman R. Augustine. Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future October 20, 2005. Dictionary.com Silicon Valley. Accessed September 30, 2011. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/silicon+valley Lohr, Steve. Do We Overrate Basic Research? The New York Times, November 30, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30ping.html Nelson, Richard and Wright, Gavin. The Rise and Fall of American Technological Leadership: The Postwar Era in Historical Perspective, Vol. 30, No. 4 (1992): 1940-1959. The Economist. Innovation in America: A gathering storm? New York: from the print edition, November 20, 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/12637160