A Physicists Perspective

Minorities and Foreign Nationals--A Physicists Perspective on the Job
Market
SIBRINA COLLINS
US
23 AUGUST 2002

"The influx of foreign students has driven down starting salaries so
much that a career in physics or any other science and technology
field is unattractive."

With the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks fast approaching and the
United States establishing the new Department of Homeland Security,
the role and impact of foreign scientists in this country are being
closely examined. MiSciNet recently asked Dr. Keith Jackson, president
of the National Society of Black Physicists (NSBP), his views on the
impact that hiring foreign scientists might have on opportunities for
underrepresented minority scientists in the United States.

MiSciNet: Does this country need to train more scientists and
engineers? For instance, there is apparently an oversupply in the life
sciences at the moment, but other areas--such as mathematics, physics,
and engineering--might need more people.

Jackson: Pushing the education button is a tried and true method for
obfuscating any issue, the case of scientific human resources being a
prime example. Consider this simple 5-minute thought experiment:

Just call any government, industry, or academic institution that hires
physical scientists--a large national laboratory, a small one, new,
old, any location--and talk to the human resources department. Ask if
it is true that they reject the vast majority of their scientific
applicants without even an interview. After they confirm this, ask
them why. The most likely response is that the vast majority of the
applicants don't have the training or skill set the employer wants,
even though the applicants have a Ph.D. in physics, chemistry, or
another science discipline.

Here is what you may conclude from this experiment:
* Many are incorrect when they claim a lack of "bodies," that is, a
lack of people with scientific training. What they really mean
(some insincerely, some sincerely) is a lack of African American
scientists with work experience in a specific field (e.g., x-ray
optics or high-pressure x-ray crystallography).
* The belief that we need to train more scientists is incorrect. The
fields of science change quite rapidly, so it will always be the
case that the vast majority of scientists, African American or
otherwise, do not have direct experience in the newest fields--no
matter how many Ph.D. scientists the schools produce. Producing
more Ph.D. scientists would just give employers such as the
Department of Energy and other national laboratories more people
to reject.

Contrary to the claim some would make--that African American youth
lack interest in science careers--the fact is that university
enrollment in science programs has historically risen and fallen in
almost perfect correlation to the opportunities in the job market. The
concern now is that the number of foreign students willing to work for
low wages has created a huge disincentive for U.S.-born students,
black or white, to major in science. The influx of foreign students
has driven down starting salaries so much that a career in physics or
any other science and technology field is unattractive. The response
of government, industry, or academic institutions to this crisis has
been to lobby to increase the quota for foreign scientists using J-1,
O, and H-1B work visas as incentives on the basis that cheaper labor
is good for business.

To understand the effects of this policy, consider the results of a
recent American Institute of Physics (AIP) survey.* During the
1999-2000 academic year, physics departments recruited for over 500
tenure and tenure-track openings. This is the largest annual number of
faculty openings in the 15 years that AIP has collected data on hiring
trends. However, it should be noted that not all open positions are
filled in 1 year. Many departments do not find the candidate they
want, and about 20% to 30% of the open positions are rolled over to be
included in the recruitment efforts for the following year.

The profile of new faculty members hired by physics departments at
primarily undergraduate institutions is very different than at
research university departments. Most of the new faculty hired by
bachelor's degree-granting institutions are young physicists who
earned their Ph.D.s in the United States. By contrast, only 35% of the
new faculty hired by Ph.D.-granting departments in 1999 were young
scientists from the United States. Almost as many of the new hires
were physicists who had earned their Ph.D.s abroad, most of whom were
mid-career scientists who had already garnered a strong international
reputation for their work. A significant number of the new hires were
mid-career level scientists from industry and government labs.

This profile of the new faculty hired by Ph.D.-granting physics
departments in 2000 is vastly different from that of 10 to 20 years
ago. For example, during the 1980s, only 16% of the new faculty hires
were physicists who had earned their Ph.D.s abroad.

There are far fewer U.S. citizens working in Ph.D.-granting
institutions and, by extension, in government-funded national
laboratories. Even though there are more academic positions available,
the increase in the number of foreign nationals recruited for these
positions limits the number of positions that remain open for U.S.
citizens at Ph.D.-granting institutions.

I would also raise the question of fundamental fairness. Consider the
employment opportunities available in the United States to a scientist
from the European Union. In most cases, it is next to impossible for a
U.S. citizen to work as a paid member of the scientific staff in a
career position at either an academic institution or European
laboratory such as a Max Plank institute or the European synchrotron
light sources. In many cases, such as the European Synchrotron
Radiation Facility, it is even impossible for a U.S. citizen to take
advantage of the facility on the basis of a peer-reviewed proposal.
Yet, our national laboratories are completely open for both career
opportunities and scientific research for members of the European
Union. Thus, the U.S.-born scientist as a practical matter really only
has access to the scientific job market in the United States, whereas
his or her European counterpart has access to opportunities in the
United States and the European Union. If the population of scientists
is equal, for example, then the European Union member has access to
twice as many job opportunities as his or her U.S. counterpart.

MiSciNet: Some would argue that there simply are not enough trained
minority scientists available to work in government, industry, or the
academy, perhaps as a result of the proverbial leaky pipeline. Thus,
reaching out to the pool of foreign scientists is a necessary option.
How would you respond?

Jackson: First, let me point out that if there were indeed an
undersupply of scientists, youd see hyperinflation of salaries, which
of course is simply not the case in any field of science. For example,
a graduating Ph.D. in physics at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
in California currently receives a starting postdoctoral salary
between $39,312 and $55,788. The other national laboratories and the
National Institutes of Health offer similar salaries. According to the
laws of labor economics, if there is no hyperinflation of salaries,
then there can be no labor shortage. However, I do think that there is
a shortage of U.S. citizens who are willing to spend 10 or more years
to get a Ph.D. in physics for a starting salary of $39,312 a year.

In our study focusing on the status of the African-American Physicist
at the DOE Funded National Laboratories, we were able to identify only
11 African American Ph.D.-level physicists with career positions in
the major DOE-funded national laboratories. This was out of a total of
3200 Ph.D.-level physicists employed by the laboratories. Out of the
top 20 physics departments, there are only two African Americans in
tenure-track faculty positions. What we conclude from this analysis is
that foreign nationals are preferred over African Americans in hiring
at these facilities. In fact, the major employers of African American
physicists and African American scientists in general have been and
continue to be historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs).
In regard to the leaky pipeline issue, NSBP has found the greatest
attrition rate for African American students of physics is during
graduate school. I need not point out that foreign students dominate
many graduate programs in science. With this large supply of foreign
students available, there is little or no incentive for these graduate
departments to expend the effort to recruit or retain African American
or other U.S. students.

I believe that these institutions have a history of discrimination
against hiring African Americans in any position. I have often heard
from government, industry, or academics that they would consider
hiring African American scientists if only they could find one who was
qualified. Yet, when NSBP members have presented candidates for
postdoc and staff positions at national laboratories, little or no
action has been taken. In fact, it has been my experience that it is
very difficult even to get my colleagues to read the CV of an African
American scientist. If any action is taken, it is normally of the
negative type, such as finding some reason why the African American
candidate is not qualified for the position.

MiSciNet: Do you really believe that the reason so many foreign
scientists are allowed to come to the United States is simply to
reduce the cost of scientific labor? Financially, is it cheaper to
bring over foreign scientists or to train U.S. minorities?

Jackson: There is no question in my mind that the main concern is to
reduce the cost of doing research and reduce the employer's commitment
and liability to the lowest level possible. The best and the brightest
in the eyes of business and government seem to be the cheapest and
most pliable. The financial incentive to hire foreign nationals is
tremendous. In addition, the effect of deteriorating terms of
employment and depressed wages has had a steady cumulative effect on
the relative attractiveness of advanced technical training for the
best U.S. students, particularly African Americans.

By any standard you care to apply, for employers in the United States,
this is a buyer's market. U.S. laboratories and universities can pick
from tens of millions of people around the world to get the brightest,
best-educated people--educated on somebody else's dime. In the case of
U.S. citizens, you would have to pay to train them, and then they
would have the expectation of full-time career employment with
benefits.

The growing influx of foreign Ph.D. scientists into U.S. labor markets
will hold down the level of Ph.D. salaries to the extent that foreign
students are attracted to U.S. doctoral programs as a way of
immigrating to the U.S. One way to look at this for this group is that
the Ph.D. salary premium is much higher than for Americans, because it
is based on B.S.-level pay in the foreign students' home nations
versus Ph.D.-level pay in the United States. For the U.S. citizen, the
salary differential (the difference between the starting Ph.D. salary
and B.S. salary) is much lower.

I would also like to point out that the income of a foreign national
with a J-1 visa, typically used for postdoctoral appointments, is not
subject to U.S. income taxes. This puts the foreign national at a 15%
salary advantage compared to the U.S. citizen in the same postdoctoral
position.

MiSciNet: In a recent issue of Science (10 May 2002, p. 996), it was
reported that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has adopted a policy
by which it will no longer apply for visas to permit foreign
scientists to work in its labs. Due to recent heightened security
concerns because of 9/11, has this caused a slowdown in the hiring of
foreign scientists compared to minority scientists in the national
laboratories?

Jackson: There has been some slowdown of hiring of foreign nationals
in the national laboratories due to security concerns, but NSBP has
not detected any commensurate increase in the hiring of African
Americans. In fact, I would attribute the slowdown in hiring of
foreign nationals more to the result of uncertainty in research
funding than to security concerns.

I would like to point out that if federal agencies are going to be
competitive in performing research in the name of homeland security,
it does not make sense to hire foreign scientists for these types of
positions. For example, if the United States Air Force has a shortage
of fighter pilots, it would not go out and lobby Congress to hire
fighter pilots from the former Soviet Union.

MiSciNet: Has NSBP formed partnerships with other groups such as
NOBCChE, SACNAS, AISES, and NSBE to focus on these types of issues?

Jackson: We are anxious to join with these organizations on this and
many other issues facing the community of African American scientists.
For example, NSBP would like NOBCChE to join us in calling for a
meeting with the secretary of energy and the director of the Office of
Science and National Nuclear Security Administration to discuss our
concerns.

MiSciNet: A small number of minority scientists hold postdoc positions
in national laboratories and academia. You recognize this with regard
to African American Ph.D. physicists. What are the actual numbers, and
are there any initiatives in place to deal with this problem?

Jackson: NSBP has been unable to identify with confidence the number
and status of African American postdocs in the DOE national
laboratories. This is an area of great concern because we fear that
the number of postdocs in physics is even smaller than the number of
African American physicists with career positions within the DOE
laboratories. Some of the initiatives that the NSBP is working on
include:
* NSBP summer institutes--intense 10-week summer schools, open to
all but held in the African American community. They would provide
advanced instruction in hot topical areas of science such as
nanoscience, string theory, biophysics, advanced computation, and
neutron science.
* Joint research appointments for faculty from HBCUs at national
laboratories.
* Insistence that more African Americans serve on national technical
panels with government agencies such as NASA, DOE, NSF, and NRC.
NSBP could serve as a resource to identify scientists to work on
these panels.
* Development of a professional networking infrastructure that would
be a support system for African American physics students.

* Ivie and Stowe, 2000 Academic Workforce Survey (AIP Statistical
Research Center Department Chairs Conference, June 2002).

Dr. Jackson is associate director of the Center for X-ray Optics in
the Materials Sciences Division of Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. For further information regarding this interview, please
send e-mail to msneditor@aaas.org.

Copyright © 2002 The American Association for the Advancement of
Science

Donate to the Cause at
http://www.zazona.com/Donations.htm