November 2006

U.S. Competitiveness and the Profession of Engineering

By James L. Flanagan

This article has been reprinted with permission from The Bent of Tau Beta Phi (Fall 2006).

As globalization advances, it has become commonplace (possibly even fashionable) to voice concern over the steady erosion of U.S. prominence in science and engineering. The concern is particularly centered in the physical, computer, and engineering sciences. It is less so in the life and pharmaceutical sciences. A veritable stream of editorials, media features, and government reports have repeatedly reflected alarm over the inexorable decline in U.S. technical capabilities—a decline that has been apparent for much of a decade. The concern is genuine. It was dramatically reinforced by a spike in unemployment of domestic computer scientists and engineers in the 2003 period, reflected by data in the fall 2005 issue of The Bridge. While scientists and engineers have historically faired better in the labor market than college graduates as a whole, the peak has been interpreted as a twenty-year high, trebling the traditional level of about 2 percent to the neighborhood of 6 percent. Major contributing factors were bursting of the dot-com bubble and outsourcing (and offshoring) compelled by foreign competition.

Number of Nobel prize winners by selected countries (counts estimated from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.) Before 1940-42 After 1940-42 Germany 18 U.S. 144 France 18 U.K. 48 U.K. 18 Germany 33 U.S. 10 France 20 Switzerland 10 Russia 18 Netherlands 9 Switzerland 14 Russia 3 Japan 12 China 0 Netherlands 9 Japan 0 China 5 Medal image: ®© The Nobel Foundation

The extensive public discourse has so far had little telling effect, and minimal actionable response from government leadership. But fortunately, in part through the prestige of the National Research Council and its October 2005 committee report “Rising Above the Gathering Storm,” the latent crisis is being more widely apprehended, and initial proposals are being put forward to blunt the threat. Early steps include explicit recognition of the erosion of scientific leadership in the President’s State of the Union message in January 2006, significant bipartisan collaboration in the Senate at about the same time in one bill “Protect America’s Competitive Edge” and another “National Innovation Act,” and the White House embracing some recommendations of the NRC report in its proposed budget for 2007. It would seem that quantitative analyses of long-term impacts on the U.S. economy, on national security, and on quality of life, education, and competitiveness would crystallize the urgency and stimulate vigorous action. But as yet it is not clear how these proposals may come together. The legislative process advances slowly, and actionable proposals must get through numerous House and Senate committees before a resulting consensus emerges from Congress later in the year. Much of the science and engineering community is following this critical process anxiously. This is an interval during which credible public advocacy can have significant influence. At least two groups are actively socializing the issue in the congressional venue—one championed by technical interests of industry, and another by a collection of professional and educational societies. The matter cries for serious organization, leadership, unity, and focus to generate unrelenting pressure that follows the process to successful conclusion. For the immediate time, however, unfavorable employment factors are likely to persist. The spring 2006 issue of THE BENT mentions that offshoring is expected to grow at about 30-40 percent per year in the 2003-06 frame, and that 52 percent of engineering jobs are estimated to be amenable to offshoring in the long term. This climate may be disruptive to the engineering profession and can severely dampen enthusiasm among young students seeking to make career commitments in the discipline. On the opposite side, however, rapidly-developing foreign countries (especially in Asia) are mounting extensive efforts to attract their U.S.-trained nationals back to their home environments.

Also, as a recent favorable circumstance, notable rekindling in the U.S. economy presages a potential increase in demand for science and engineering expertise.

Following World War II the U.S. enjoyed what might be termed a free ride in marketing to the rest of the world. To meet the military threat of this time, an enormous manufacturing capability was marshaled by a dedicated citizenry. Budget allocations for research and development grew from a pre-war level of about 0.5 percent of the gross domestic product to 3.0 percent.²

This war-time sextupling of investment in science and engineering produced new and unique technologies (such as radar refinements, vhf communications, underwater sound ranging, encrypted speech transmission, controlled nuclear reaction, heavy aircraft, and others). The common political threat, and the high visibility of the technological responses, engendered extensive public awareness and appreciation for scientific leadership.

The high valuation of technology and reverence for R&D persisted into the second half of the 20th century. During this period, industry (flush with success) increased its investments as the federal government contributions began to ‘plateau.’ The latter have been nearly level for the last 10 years. In recent time, while industry investment in R&D still shows some growth, its rate has slowed and the emphasis is more on D than on R. The reason has been increasing competition from abroad and pressure of impatient stockholders for greater profitability. This has left the academic sector as the main performer of basic research. And, because the federal government is the principal source of funds for academic research (about 60 percent), the federal leveling plus the shifting of priorities to more applied work (to support mid-east issues and homeland defense activities) has significantly diminished academic basic work. This diminution in creation of knowledge, both by industry and by academia, has opened a major vulnerability in U.S. competitiveness.

End of the Free Ride

The second half of the 20th century saw confluence of three technical advances that, together, have markedly changed the post-war world:

(a) new understanding of sampled-data theory—that permitted the representation of intelligence in digital form,

(b) development of binary computation— building to some extent on non-linear pulse circuit techniques devised for radar, and

(c) invention of the transistor —that heralded the field of solid-state micro-electronics, scalable to enormous complexities.

As a direct consequence: digital communications evolved, bringing signal quality totally independent of transmission distance; digital computation emerged, enabling enormous accuracy and speed in solution of complex calculations —along with intelligent software for information management; and, explosive development of electronic integrated circuits put low-cost, high-speed devices into the hands of engineers and scientists.

Coalescing of the techniques for packet communication, distributed computing and digital storage, along with those for digital signal processing, has now produced high-speed data networking that has become ubiquitous in the developed world — the public unregulated version of which we know as the Internet. Software capabilities of great variety enhance the utility of this world-wide connectivity. These networking capabilities have created the flat world, and have enabled aggregation of communication-based activities at geographical locations anywhere in the world where a knowledgeable work force can do the best job for the lowest cost. This indeed amplifies our vulnerability.³

Communication-based outsourcing is not the only attraction. Great amounts of American manufacturing (especially textiles) have long been offshored to capitalize on literate low-cost work forces. This has been assisted by advances in transportation — making geography of little consequence. This capability is already extended to agriculture (where in mid-January I enjoy fresh blueberries from Chile). Other major U.S. manufacturing — such as autos and aircraft — are becoming more visible targets for this process. An obvious moderating mechanism is partnerships. However, a more fatalistic view is that outsourcing provides an advantage for a while, but eventually the ‘knowledge work’ follows the production activity, and the outsource-ee becomes a competitor of the outsourceer. Although this equalizing process need not be zero-sum, it often acts to reduce the circumstances of one society while building the other.⁴

In any event, some displacement and dislocation in the domestic work force is likely to occur over extended periods while an expected equalization materializes. And afterwards, there remains the question of how to maintain frontrank position in the contest with competitive peers, all of whom are vying for the same position.

The U.S. Posture

Recognizing, then, that most societies see science and engineering as key to technological development, and hence to the enhancement of quality of life and international competitiveness, and that a great part of the world’s population (now growing towards six billion, with nearly half in Asia) is making enormous investments towards reaching parity with U.S. capabilities, what posture should the U.S. adopt? Knowledge creation and discovery must continue as the foundation. Basic research—both unfettered inquiry driven and directed mission-oriented—remains a mainstay in the production of new ideas. But more than knowledge creation, we must attend to creation of the creators—that is, the educational processes that cultivate research capacity, technical leadership and astute management. Because most of the basic research in the country is performed in academia, and because education is central to producing the creators, heightened responsibility for our society’s well- being falls heavily upon the research universities. In meeting this academic responsibility three ingredients seem vital:

(i) expanded federal funding for university research,

(ii) revision of curricula to emphasize research experience, idea generation, team collaboration, and the stimulation of technical leadership, management talent, and communication skills, and

(iii) vigorous participation and engagement of industry in federally cost-shared academic research.

Gaining (i), expanded funding, requires concerted ‘missionary’ work on the part of academic researchers— that is, actively contributing to public understanding of the societal benefits of science and engineering. This understanding must reach a level where public demands for concrete action flood our congressional leaders. Academics jealously guard their time, and typically prefer to remain above pedestrian public activities. But this involvement is an ‘overhead’ on a successful research program, and faculty must awaken to this realization and to the necessary commitment—in their own interest, if not in that of the country. By way of example, talks to civic luncheons are sometimes a chore, but in one I found the chairman of an important appropriations committee. The time was well spent!

Additionally, most research universities enjoy close rapport with their respective congressional delegations. But much of this access is spent in seeking favored funding for parochial, self-serving projects. A broader view is needed to advocate for the total academic enterprise. In some instances an effective model has been the joining of academic specialists across several states to win commitments from multiple delegations. Such congressional cabals, when formed, especially if they are bipartisan, can result in significant movement and action.

In some foreign countries, petitioning government leaders and decision-makers on behalf of science seems easier, because of their technical backgrounds and their ingrained devotion to technological development. The past president of China is an engineer; a former president and a former premier of Taiwan are respectively engineer and scientist; and in South Korea, the minister of information and telecommunications is a Ph.D. electrical engineer from Stanford, and the minister of science is a Ph.D. electrical engineer from SUNY. In the U.S. it seems less usual to find this level of technical expertise in top ranks of government, though relevant specialties are usually found in the agencies that disburse research funds. This, in itself, points up the grave responsibility for staffing these positions with the most knowledgeable individuals available. The program managers wield great power, and essentially control the objectives of research in the nation—because academic researchers follow the money!⁵

Grant allocations must be made thoughtfully, with vision, and on a merit basis. The award process must be efficient and transparent. But more than anything, there must be adequate funds to award! Funds are now so pinched that it is not uncommon to encounter a ‘what’s the use?’ attitude towards the substantial labor needed to identify a significant research problem, form a team, and prepare a proposal for the contest where only one out of a dozen or more may be selected. In earlier times funding was not so constrained, and often returned remarkable advances (a prime example might be the search technology behind the fast-developing company Google, initiated as part of an NSF-funded project on digital libraries at Stanford University).

In addressing (ii), revision of curricula, one meets the traditional academic inertia. Faculty members are set in their ways and mostly enjoy teaching their individual specialties. But to produce graduates who will maintain our competitive edge into the future, new educational emphasis should be devoted to research exposure, knowledge creation, imaginative application, team collaboration, ethical behavior, and the development of communication, managerial, and leadership skills. Some engineering faculties complain that we already have too much to teach, and that the business schools should address the people factors. But experience suggests that talents for leadership and management might perhaps best be stimulated early—literally, in the hands-on research activity. A leader inspires or initiates concerted group effort towards a common goal. The mechanisms might be varied—fear, force, charisma, or confidence in knowledge of the task. A manager organizes and administers application of resources (including human capital) to an assigned objective. The underlying talents are not the same, but if the combination can be instilled in a single individual the student product is admirable. (It might be argued that Hitler and Stalin were leaders, but not desirable ones. Jefferson and Adams might be considered good managers. But likely, Washington and Lincoln could be acceptable examples of the combination of talents.) So, as others have noted, the emphasis may not be on producing more science and engineering graduates, but on producing versatile graduates of higher value, having unique skills and a penchant for sustaining their excellence through career-long self-education. Such graduates might be less attracted to the necessary (but sometimes pedestrian) role of manufacturer/implementer, but more to pioneering in innovation, ideas, knowledge creation, and in determining how new knowledge can be applied.

It is perhaps interesting that the 2006 international conference Davos, held in Switzerland in January, identified innovation as a key theme. And, it would seem unusual if a careful review and coordination of curricula couldn’t wring out more opportunities to adapt to the changing world—so as to produce a well-prepared graduate. In accomplishing this, the role of the instructor is likely to change—from the ‘Herr Professor’ image, with selected students worshipping at the feet, to one where the professor is more mentor and coach, and in some instances, colleague. Some egos may be bruised in the process, but success will enhance both student and instructor. In addressing item (iii), industry-university interaction, we recognize that knowledge application and the identification of ways that technology may serve society are largely the domains of industry (and for its services, in a free society, industry and its shareholders expect, and usually get, a fair return). If there are to be job opportunities and careers for the highvalue graduates just postulated, the businesses with which they are associated must likewise be elite and smart. They must have access to new knowledge, or generate it themselves. Over recent time industry has been sorely deficient in the latter. It is not likely that large multinational companies will cease outsourcing and offshoring where they can get engineering expertise for routine manufacturing for one-fifth the salary cost in the U.S. venue. But the creation of new knowledge and product innovation might be sourced in the U.S. In this activity, interaction between industry and university can produce significant novelty.

Industry-University Cooperation

Much of industry is not aware of the large pool of intellectual talent residing in research universities, and even when aware, how to tap into it. There are numerous obstacles and pitfalls, but they can usually be negotiated. An inherent benefit to industry by participating in and supporting academic research is the leveraging of federal and state investment. This sharing takes the sting out of research cost and risk. (Historically this participation has been very one-sided, with federal sources supplying about 60 percent of academic research funds, and industry supplying about 7 percent.) This cost-sharing is sometimes criticized as corporate welfare. I prefer to think of it as societal welfare. The attractions for industry are several: new ideas and the opportunity for exclusive licensing; first in line for recruiting (sometimes tailor-made) skilled graduates; and, enhanced public image. Even the smallest successful start-up will be compelled to find new ideas if it is to be sustained. This implies either research investment on its own, or collaboration with a partner who possesses a research culture and a research infrastructure. Large companies that have retreated from research over the recent years face the same need.

On the academic faculty side, there is often an aversion to working with industry, having someone tell them what to do, and using them as a pair of hands. But as government shifts more towards applied work, and funding for basic science and engineering becomes diminished, it is gravely in the interest of faculty to cultivate support from industry and identify issues of mutual interest that have high intellectual content. It is similarly in the interest of industry to expand support of and participation in academic research that can address long-term, risky problems in a cost-effective way (namely, as part of the educational process).

Numerous universities have experimented with industry cooperation, usually with mixed results. Issues often center on research objectives, time scales, freedom-to-publish, and intellectual property. These matters generally can be surmounted, especially where the company has a designated ‘champion’ for the cooperation—one who can devote effort to faculty/student interaction and can establish rapport with university administration. Intellectual property agreements typically follow existing university policy, which is flexible for negotiation in terms of ownership, exclusivity, and licensing. The desired outcome is that both parties benefit. One university/ industry tech-transfer model that has some merit, and has had some success, works with state seeding and municipal bonding for establishing infrastructure. The state seeding is only advanced where there is clear opportunity for federal amplification, multiple industry participation, new industry creation, and other potential contributions to the state’s economy.

Industry’s Side

The whole industrial enterprise is a major element that has been given short shrift here. It is in this sphere that knowledge application is crafted. The process is generally guided by a close apprehension of societal needs and desires, and technology is developed to match business opportunities. Industry must see to the manufacturing and deployment of products and services. Given existing trends, it seems unlikely that domestic industry will seek to compete in large-scale labor-intensive manufacturing, where a skilled work force and routine engineering expertise can be found in more cost-effective locations. Again, the attractive place to compete is in unique high-value activities of knowledge creation, work force education, and in identifying technology to match societal needs. While labor-intensive mass manufacturing is de-emphasized in this view, the creation of new technologies for manufacturing is not, nor is the engineering management of contracted work. Implied throughout, too, is industry’s responsibility for deployment, maintenance, and salvage, much of which is local. A predilection for this mode may already be established, as we witness new products such as Razr, iPod, and xBox, and new services based on search engines, voice-over-Internet, and broadband fiber to the home.

Offshore manufacturing poses some concerns in national defense. And, this matter reflects in a different way the growing importance of partnerships—partnerships among nations, as well as among multinational companies.

Innovation implies the application of new knowledge, which must come from some store. A pervasive worry is that we are largely living on knowledge created over the past decade, and that this condition can be sustained for while—perhaps another five years—before the store is depleted, and the situation becomes critical. Performance then ceases to be competitive. One possible marker of this trend is our output of technical articles, which has essentially been flat since 1992, and has been overtaken and exceeded by that of Western Europe since 1996. An insidious aspect is that criticality might be far enough into the future so as not to draw much attention. This may be yet one more point to socialize, and on which to seek public and congressional understanding.

Because industry must have new knowledge to stay competitive—indeed to survive—the hope is that basic research and innovation can be strengthened enough in the U.S. to constantly stoke the knowledge store and maintain global leadership. Given the risk-averseness of stockholders, and the necessity of stable, sustained support for long-term research to succeed, it seems that government remains the key factor in nurturing leadership. Government can encourage research investment among industry, but government investment is most certainly central and necessary to academic research. This necessity is well apprehended in some governments abroad, where basic, sustained, programmatic support is already being implemented and handsomely financed.

Reprise

The thesis here is that knowledge creation is preeminent to leadership. Knowledge creation derives from basic research. Over half of the U.S. basic research is performed in academia, largely with government funding. This support has languished over recent years, as industry has also pulled back from its investments. Leadership and technical capabilities are consequently eroding. Educational efforts to attract young students into science and engineering may be ineffectual, unless satisfying careers and stable contributory jobs can be demonstrated. These typically are based upon exploitation of new knowledge. While it is believed that industry R&D will grow under mounting pressure of global competition, it seems absolutely key that government substantially expand support of U.S. academic research. This can occur if the various proposals mentioned earlier successfully coalesce and navigate the legislative process. Constant public support and advocacy are critical to assure a positive outcome.

An abiding concern is that the societal contributions of research in physical science and engineering have less public visibility, because they are more difficult to relate to daily lives of individual citizens—despite the many technologies that affect people directly, such as MRI’s, CAT scans, ultrasonic cardiography, laser surgery, biomaterials, electronic prostheses (pacemakers, hearing aids, artificial larynges), and others.

A continuing question is how to enhance public awareness and gain congressional attention for the basic physical science that helps protect our future? Survey data suggest that public understanding of science arises primarily from television vehicles. This, in turn, suggests that public broadcast might give special emphasis to the societal benefits of scientific innovation. Additionally, congressional attention is clearly responsive to public opinion, and this, among other means, can be offered in personal letters, calls, and visits. The coalitions, mentioned at the outset, share related objectives and are working to keep science and engineering initiatives before government officials. But, it would seem that unifying and coordinating processes should be urged to enhance their effectiveness and focus. Individuals in each technical sector can contribute influence. In whatever way efforts are consolidated, the resulting coalition would find senior faculty of leading research universities and representatives of science-based industry willing collaborators. In concert, a non-partisan strategy, and a plan of action, can forcefully be laid before our leaders in Washington.

References

1. During recent times more than half (55 percent) of the Ph.D. candidates in engineering in U.S. universities were from foreign countries. Up to 2001 more than half (56 percent) of the foreign graduates remained to work in the U.S. This statistic may be changing as developing countries prosper and enhance both their employment opportunities and their technical education. An MIT e-newsletter points out that of all bachelor’s degees in China, 40 percent are in engineering. In the U.S. the number is 5 percent. As a perspective, we graduate more M.B.A.s than bachelor’s in engineering.

2. During and after this era a number of immigrant scientists joined those of the U.S., further strengthening the growth in R&D spending and in research capability. It is relevant to note the Nobel prizes before and after WW II. (No prizes were awarded during 1940, ’41, or ’42.) Prior to this interval, European countries garnered the most prizes, while afterwards the U.S. was more successful.

3. The classic example of a communications-based activity is the massive outsourcing by American businesses of customer-care call centers to Asia (especially India, where an able, English-speaking work force can provide excellent service at low cost).

4. Just how convoluted this process may get is perhaps illustrated by one U.S. company financing a multibillion-dollar microelectronics plant abroad, with the government of the host country subsidizing the new business while receiving foreign-aid payments from the U.S. At the same time, the U.S. company is supporting excellent science and engineering scholarships for U.S. students, and advocating the production of more graduates to meet industry shortages (which might be somewhat at odds with employment opportunities of recent time). A central issue for young students, of course, is whether, upon graduation, our society can provide them with satisfying jobs and gratifying, contributory careers.

5. Over the last few years ‘following the money’ has somewhat distorted the balance in research, as basic science funding has diminished and emphasis has shifted to applied military problems and to well-supported health care

Resource Materials Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board, “2003-04 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory, National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2005, 127 pages

Augustine, Norman, “Learning to Lose?” Washington Post, p. A29, 6 December 6, 2005

Baron, Paul, “The Beginnings of Packet Switching,” IEEE Communications Magazine, July 2002, pp. 42-48

Barboza, David, “Trade Surplus Tripled in ’05 China Says,” New York Times, 11 January 11, 2006, p.C1

Barrett, Craig, “A Corporate Science Project,” Business Week, December 19, 2005, p. 108

Bartiromo, Maria, “What They Said At Davos,” Business Week, p. 102, 6 February 6, 2006

Beech, Hannah, et al, “Nation,” Time, pp.26-30, 13 February 13, 2006

Bugliarello, George, “Globalization and Engineering,” The Bridge, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC, Fall 2005, p. 3-4

Chen, Kathy and Dean, Jason, “Low Costs, Plentiful Talent Make China a Global Magnet for R & D,” pp. A1, A12, Wall Street Journal, 13 March 13, 2006

Committee to Assess the Capacity of the U.S. Engineering Research Enterprise, “Engineering Research and America’s Future,” National Academy of Engineering, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2005, 50 pages

Cuello, Joel, “Offshoring and the Local Ethics of Engineering,” The Bent of Tau Beta Pi, v. XCVII, no. 2, pp. 12-16, Spring 2006

Dawson, Jim, “Most Federal Science Money Flat or Falling as Bush Favors Medical and Defense R &D in Fiscal 2002,” Physics Today, June 2001, pp. 24-29

Dawson, Jim, “Basic Science Funding Flat as War, Deficit and Hurricane Recovery Squeeze Federal Budget,” Physics Today, January 2006, pp. 28-29

Dawson, Jim and Guinnessy, Paul, “Bush Budget Boosts Funding for Physical Sciences in FY 2007,” Physics Today, v. 59, no. 4, pp. 36-41, April 2006

Editor read me Summary, “Research Funding: Get Worried,” Technology Review, March 2005, pp. 14-15

Editor, “Real Numbers,” Issues in Science and Technology, The National Academies and The University of Texas at Dallas, Winter 2006, pp. 83-84

Flanagan, James, “A Model for Moving University Research to Industrial Application,” IEEE Digital Signal Processing, v. 3, 1993, pp. 240-252

Friedman, Thomas, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005

Friedman, Thomas, “Keeping Us in the Race,” New York Times, p. A 25, 14 October 14, 2005

Garten, Jefferey, “When Everything is Made in China,” Business Week, 17 June 17, 2002, p. 20

Grant, Peter and Latour, Almar, “In Risky Move, a New AT&T Bets on Internet Technology,” Wall Street Journal, v. CCXLVI, no. 110, pp. A1, A10, 21 November 21, 2005

Hamm, Steve, “A Red Flag in the Brain Game,” Business Week, pp. 32- 34, 1 May 1, 2006

Harsha, Peter, “Innovative, Competitiveness Plans Advance, but Hurdles Ahead,” Computing Research News, v. 18, no. 3, May 2006, pp. 1, 6

Hira, Ron, “Impacts and Trends of Offshoring Engineering Tasks and Jobs,” The Bridge, National Academy of Engineering, Fall 2005, pp. 22-27

Hirsh, Michael, “Dollars Without Borders,” New York Times Book Review, p. 13, 5 March 5, 2006

Holstein, William, “Novel Thinking As a Survival Tactic,” New York Times, 1 January 1, 2006, p. 8BU

Jackson, Shirley, “The Nexus: Where Science Meets Society,” Science, v.310, 9 December 2005, pp. 1634-1639

Judson, Horace, “The Great Chinese Experiment,” Technology Review, December 2005/January 2006, pp. 52-61

Lague, David, “China, a Trade Superstar,” New York Times, 17 January 17, 2006

Landler, Mark, “Chilly Streets and Hot Technology in Estonia,” New York Times, 13 December 13, 2005, p. C1

Markoff, John, “3 Technology Companies Join to Finance Research,” New York Times, 15 December 15, 2005, p. C5

Mervis, Jeffrey, “NIH Shrinks, NSF Crawls as Congress Finishes Spending Bills,” Science, v. 311, 6 January 2006, pp. 28-29

Myre, Greg, “High-Tech Industry in Israel Goes from Bust to Boom,” New York Times, 26 December 26, 2005, p. C3

National Science Board 2004, “Science and Engineering Indicators 2004,” v. 1 NSB-04-1, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA National Science Board 2006, “Science and Engineering Indicators 2006,” v. 1 NSB-06-1

Nussbaum, Bruce, “Davos Will Be Different,” Business Week, 23 January 23, 2006, p. 96

Overbye, Dennis, “Science Panel Says Physics in U.S. Faces Crisis,” New York Times, p. N26, 30 April 30, 2006

Reinhardt, Andy, “Getting Skittish About Skype,” Business Week, 28 November 28, 2005, p. 47

Romero, Simon, “5 Years and $15 Billion Later,” New York Times, 29 January 29, 2002, p. 1

Vest, Charles, “A Precarious Position at the Top,” The Boston Globe, Third Edition, p. K12, 18 December 18, 2005

Weisel, Davis, “Building a Better Engineer,” Wall Street Journal, 20 December 20, 2005, p. B1

Young, Shawn, “Vonnage to Unveil Private Funding of $250 Million,” Wall Street Journal, 17 December 17, 2005

Zakaria, Fareed, “How Long Will America Lead the World?” Newsweek, 12 June 2006

This article has been reprinted with permission from The Bent of Tau Beta Phi (Fall 2006).

Dr. James Flanagan, Mississippi Alpha ’48, is retired vice president for research at Rutgers University and emeritus board of governors professor in electrical and computer engineering. He received his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering at Mississsippi State University in 1948 and his M.S. and D.Sc. at MIT. Holder of 50 U.S. patents, he has received technical recognition that includes the National Medal of Science (1996) and the IEEE medal of honor (2005). A fellow of the IEEE, the Acoustical Society of America, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, he has been elected to the National Academy of Engineering and the National Academy of Sciences. Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.