The U.S. is falling behind in science and engineering

In January of this year the National Science Board published its biennial report on Science and Engineering Indicators. It captures how the United States compares to other countries from the perspective of degree production, investments in research and development, and scientific articles and patents. Basically, we’re falling behind on every major measure, which means we may not have enough trained people to combat climate change, defeat contagious viruses or compete in the market for advanced energy systems.

Not only have we closed the borders and raised the walls to shared knowledge, we have diluted educational achievement standards at home and outsourced our critical manufacturing capabilities overseas. Turning the tide will require new educational policy, targeted federal funding and visionary executive leadership. Investment in science reveals verifiable facts that we use to live longer, happier, more-affordable lives. The only “alternative fact” is that China is eager to assume any mantle we abandon or neglect.

The U.S. should be leading from reducing greenhouse gas emissions to clean electricity generation. China has almost three times our renewable generative capacity.

One example of where science-based decisions could better inform our energy policy are small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs. Many people immediately reject nuclear power as a viable energy option because of two false perceptions: that it is unsafe and that there is no good way to dispense with spent fuel. However, even former anti-nuclear advocates, like Michael Schellenberger, have changed their minds. Electricity from nuclear plants can be created safely, affordably and without turning radioactive material into weapons.

Another example is hydrogen-based fuel cells, which produce electricity in a way that exhausts only water and heat. The global market is still small, but one analyst believes it could grow to $40 billion in six years; another believes that in 2032 over 5 million hydrogenfueled cars will be sold worldwide. Almost every major foreign manufacturer has scaled a fuel cell electric vehicle to production, but the U.S. is virtually invisible in the market. Unwisely retreating from FCEVs limits the U.S. from competing in advanced energy manufacturing and transportation.

There are three decisions we can make.

First, we need to agree that voluntarily relinquishing technological leadership is going to severely hurt our economy. Pushing a coal-based agenda or ripping up environmental regulations is not going to make us cleaner, healthier or more employable. The last Quadrennial Energy Review predicted that 1.5 million new jobs will be created in the energy sector between 2016 and 2030; in fact, according to the 2020 US Energy and Employment Report, there were 54,000 net new jobs in just energy efficiency alone.

Second, we need to get serious about exposing our children to core concepts of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Just because K-12 public education is typically a local or state issue doesn’t mean that we can afford to live in regional isolation, where some school boards promote fundamental physics and others fundamentalist philosophy.

Finally, we need leadership attention and actionable agenda on where and how to invest precious resources into research, technology transfer and export commercialization. And we need to make sure that the international playing field is safe, fair and level for everybody. That means constructive engagement with our partners, and clear and enforceable rules for our competitors.

Greg Douquet is a former Marine Corps colonel, co-founder and managing partner of Red Duke Strategies LLC, and co- director of the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center’s Veterans Advanced Energy Project. Peter L. Levin is a co-founder and CEO of Amida Technology Solutions, and a senior adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

(c) 2020 The Baltimore Sun. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency LLC.