Tag Archives: politics

Visa reform for international students in STEM

Posted on by

During my graduate studies at MIT, I would often hear the same story from my friends that were international students–many of them wished to pursue their careers in the United States upon graduation, but were finding it difficult due to visa and immigration issues. During this election season, both the Obama and Romney campaigns have discussed how they would ensure that the United States remains the world leader in innovation and scientific research (see Mark Staples’ previous ScienceWonks post). Immigration issues have also traditionally been a hot topic in the political arena. A recent example is the DREAMAct which would have enabled a path to citizenship for eligible children of undocumented immigrants, and although the legislation passed the House, it failed to reach the 60-vote threshold to end debate on the Senate floor.

Legislation has recently been introduced in both the House and the Senate that focuses on allowing talented international students studying in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields to stay in the United States after graduation. A breakdown of all three bills, along with their legislative sponsor, appears in the chart below.

Legislation

Benefits to Research and American Innovation through Nationality Statutes (BRAINS) Act

STEM Jobs Act

Attracting the Best and Brightest Act 2012

Sponsors

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE)

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)

Main Requirements
  • Graduates must have at least a master’s degree in STEM fields
  • Offer of employment
  • Graduates must have at least a master’s degree in STEM field
  • Offer of employment
  • Graduates must have at least a master’s degree in STEM fields
  •  Offer of employment

Visas Allocated

Additional 55,000 green cards available over a 2-year pilot program

Up to 55,000 green cards available over a 2-year pilot program

Additional 50,000 green cards available via new green card category “EB-6” over a 2-year pilot program

The key difference between the Republican House bill and the Democratic House bill is that the Republican proposal contained a measure to eliminate the diversity visa program. This is important because it is one of the few pathways for immigrants to legally attain citizenship in the United States. This program is also an attempt to ensure immigrant diversity by establishing a lottery to randomly distribute permanent residence or “green card” visas among immigrants from countries that are not largely represented in the United States. Additionally, the elimination of this program is how the Republican proposal intends to make available the 55,000 green card visas for STEM graduates. Both Democratic proposals would create additional green card visas for STEM graduates without eliminating the diversity visa bill program already in existence. As a result, the Republican bill failed last week to pass the House by a vote of 257-158, largely along party lines because of the proposal’s intent to eliminate the diversity visa program.

There is overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation to help talented international students stay legally in the United States, as well as support from the tech industry and universities across the country. While I’m disappointed to see that the Republican bill failed to pass the House, I remain hopeful that some sort of immigration reform for international STEM students will be passed in the near future. At the same time, I’m concerned with the timing of the various proposals, as I do not want Congress and the White House to be too hasty in their drafting and voting on the bill based on the national election cycle. Furthermore, I absolutely do not want this issue to become merely a soundbite for the election. I do think all of the discussion is healthy and demonstrates that the country recognizes the contributions that international students studying STEM fields have made. If the United States has invested in their education through research grants and money, it seems prudent to at least investigate how we can help persuade these students to stay in the United States and apply their acquired skills to help innovation flourish in this country.

Climate Change under President Obama – worth getting heated about?

Posted on by

The Obama administration is keeping quiet about climate policy leading up to the election, refusing to answer whether it will pursue a cap and trade policy if re-elected and remaining startlingly silent about global climate change.  The Romney campaign believes that actions by President Obama have slowed economic growth, is not certain “what the nature of the threat of climate change is” and claims that energy efficiency is a clever ploy by the Democrats to enact expensive policy.  I’ll leave it to the reader to decide, but I think it’s worth talking about what climate policy we do have and how the standards for both stationary and mobile sources came about in Washington.

To take a step back and put the recent rulings and debate in the context of the United States climate policy, I am going to provide a bit of history, a brief lesson in congressional legislation, and some personal commentary about what it all means.  I welcome your opinions, feedback, and questions about this discussion in the comments section of this post.

Continue reading →

Science policy electioneering

Posted on by

With the Presidential election campaign heating up, and in light of Shreya’s dissection of Obama and Romney’s energy policies, I wanted to draw some attention to www.sciencedebate.org this week. In particular, their article here offers the two candidates a chance to answer questions from American scientists and engineers. Here’s a condensed synopsis of the candidates’ positions and my own reactions on three science-policy issues especially interesting to me:

On innovation and the economy:

Obama

  • Double funding for research agencies
  • Aim for 1 million STEM graduates over the next decade

Romney

  • Attract and retain human capital
  • Lower personal and corporate taxes
  • Prevent agencies from creating huge regulatory burdens
  • Create a “Reagan Economic Zone”
  • Confront China and other IP thieving nations
  • Reform K-12 education funding
  • Focus funding on basic research efforts.

I couldn’t agree more with working to better retain human capital, especially after watching some very qualified colleagues at MIT go back home because of visa issues. But what the heck is a “Reagan Economic Zone”?

On climate change:

Obama

  • New emissions standards for vehicles as well as carbon emissions regulations for power generation have came into force under Obama.
  • America is making serious progress towards energy independence.

Romney

  • This is a policy decision and science is but one input in the process.
  • The US is only one part of that picture and China isn’t doing anything, so doesn’t make sense for America to adopt cap and trade or carbon tax policies.

Sure, some decent progress has been made under Obama. However, I’m not sure the administration can take credit for the development of hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling technology, which is what ushered in the “shale gas revolution”.

On space:

Obama

  • The US is committed to the International Space Station until 2020, and sending a human to an asteroid by 2025 and then to Mars by 2030.
  • America is still the leader in space technology.
  • The way to stay there is through investment in STEM education.

Romney

  • American dominance in space is important but America is slipping behind
  • Throwing money at it is not the solution. Rather, NASA needs better focus, international partners, and new markets.

I tend to agree with Romney’s implication that perhaps space travel shouldn’t be on the top of the priority list. At the same time, a project like Curiosity can’t help but get me excited and I’d like to see a human on another planet in my lifetime.

I’d encourage anyone interested in science and politics to check out the rest of this article to see where the candidates, and you, stand on more science policy issues.

Forward.Energy

Posted on by

Last week I brought some numbers to the energy plan proposed by the now-confirmed Republican nominee for President of the United States.  Today I take a look at President Obama’s energy claims and promises.

The fundamentals of Obama’s energy plan are as follows:

  • Encourage safe and responsible domestic oil and gas production in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill by reevaluating the permitting process.
  • Develop domestic oil and gas production to increase America’s energy independence.
  • Provide consumers with more efficient cars and trucks to combat gasoline price volatility.
  • Improve the energy efficiency of residential and commercial buildings.
  • Establish a Clean Energy Standard in order to double the share of electricity from clean energy sources.
  • Continue investment in clean energy technologies through programs such as ARPA-E, clean energy hubs, and encouraging federal organizations to become first adopters.

Pretty comprehensive, but it’s probably no surprise that I have some comments.  First, the Obama administration is quick to point out that the US domestic production of energy sources is the highest that it has been in more than a decade.  I would like to remind you that no Presidency acts entirely in isolation.  This is something that a campaign likes to remind you when hard times hit, but quietly forgets when good things happen.  It’s true that, according to the  Energy Information Administration, US crude oil production increased  in 2009 more than it had since 1955 (on a percentage basis), but the lead time between permitting and production for drilling and production can be anywhere between 3 months and 4 years.  That means, at least some, if not a fair bit, of the production that is occurring during the Obama’s administration is thanks to former-President George W. Bush.

US Production of Crude Oil. Source: EIA 2012.

Meanwhile, representatives from the oil and gas industries claim that regulations imparted by the Obama administration have discouraged the development of federally-owned lands.  They claim that the additional regulatory burdens are the reason that the number of new wells drilled in 2010 is less than half of the new wells begun on public land in any year in the past decade (Greenwire 2012).

And yet, the new wells drilled represent only one third of the total number of permits issued in 2010.  In previous years up to 75% of the permits issued were used, suggesting that there are other factors at play.  These factors include the cost of opening new wells, the low price of natural gas, and improvements in technology that make existing wells more productive.  Proponents of the Obama regulatory reform point to a lower price of oil as the main reason for this downturn.  (This excellent piece from Greenwire is my source and outlines these points in more detail.)  Permits are an integral part of domestic energy production and unnecessary regulation is burdensome on the economy, but the private companies that operate these wells make their decisions based market factors as well as long term strategy; it is a complex system.

Both candidates seem to think domestic production is a priority.  And while US production may be up now, new drilling appears to be going down.  No Presidency acts entirely in isolation, so who is going to take responsibility for what happens next?

Black gold without a home

Posted on by

Ahmadinejad’s Iran faces EU and American oil sanctions.

July 1st marked the beginning of European and American embargoes on Iranian oil exports. Since then the sanctions have been effective at squeezing Iran because, in the past, the European Union has been the largest importer of Iranian crude and condensate products. In recent years total Iranian production has hovered around 4 million barrels per day, but dropped in July to around 2.8 million barrels per day.

In an effort to avoid shutting-in huge production volumes, and risk damaging mature and fragile reserves, Iran began to store it’s excess production volumes in it’s tanker fleet. This was only a temporary solution. With the fleet quickly bumping up against its storage capacity of approximately 42 million barrels, Iran has resorted to sneakier alternate strategies. The New York Times reported in July that some Iranian tankers are receiving fresh paint, and many ships belonging to the National Iranian Tanker Corporation (NITC) are flying “flags of convenience,” in an effort to disguise the origin of the crude onboard. These counter-efforts seem, at a minimum, to be keeping any additional pressure off the Iranian government; production saw a slight increase in August.

The West’s reasoning for imposing the sanctions is to strong-arm Iran into abandoning its uranium enrichment program, but Iran is insistent on pursuing its nuclear program and may be able to partially circumvent the embargo. And, as a recent article in The Economist points out, such embargoes often end up punishing the poorest in society, while those in power stay the course. The motivation behind the sanctions might be defensible, but their effectiveness at manipulating Iranian nuclear policy isn’t yet clear. It will be interesting to see who blinks first.

Energy Independent by 2020?

Posted on by

If you’re anything like me, you may find that the claims made in an election year start to get a bit irrational by this point.  Still, they give us an opportunity to do a self-check on what is feasible and what is impractical.  Romney’s energy plan, released yesterday, aims to make the United States energy independent by 2020.  He proposes to do this with the following:

  • Streamline the regulatory procedures for coal-fired power plants to facilitate approval and recommissioning.
  • Explore and develop US oil and gas reserves to bring lower energy prices, greater reliability of supply, and jobs.
  • Reform nuclear regulation to issue more permits, begin construction on new plants, and add to existing infrastructure.
  • Overhaul the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act such that domestic energy companies are less burdened.
  • Invest in Canadian and Mexican sources of oil and gas.
  • Redirect clean energy funding towards basic energy research.

To say nothing of the fact that Canada and Mexico are not technically part of the United States, and to spare you some political rhetoric, I give you the following facts.

First, the United States imported 11.4 million barrels of oil per day in 2011 (EIA 2012).  Despite impressive advancements in technology and cost reductions for oil and gas extraction, can the Shale Gas Revolution really reverse the import trend shown below in as few as eight years?

US Imports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products (thousand barrels). Source: EIA 2012

For more charts like these, visit the US Energy Information Administration’s website.

And second, there is an element of economics that is often forgotten when discussing oil prices, national security, and energy imports:  the price of oil is set in global markets.  Although increasing domestic production increases supply (and similarly, reducing dependence of oil by using domestically produced natural gas reduces demand), thereby having some impact on prices, the United States is still subject to global price fluctuations that are affected by both friendly and unfriendly countries restricting production or flooding the market.  At the end of the day, being one hundred percent energy independent can help, but is not guaranteed to eliminate the risk of price volatility because the United States is only producing a fraction of the world’s oil supply.

Oil production by region (MT). Source: 2012 BP Statistical Review

For more charts like this one, see the BP Statistical Review.

The United States accounted for just 8.8% of the world’s oil production in 2011.  The total North American oil production was about twice that, at 16.8%.  By contrast, the Middle East accounted for the greatest percentage of global oil production at 32.6%.  Furthermore, although the United States increased its oil production by 3% from 2010 to 2011, the countries in the Middle East increased oil production by 9.3% (BP Statistical Review 2012).  Remember this reality the next time you hear that domestic energy is a silver bullet solution to high energy prices, price volatility, and national security.

Next week, I will do a reality-check on the Obama energy proposal, both present and future.

‘Muzzled’ scientists and stifled debate: the fight for scientific integrity in Canada

Posted on by

The Canadian government has come under fire for allegedly “muzzling” scientists in its federal agencies.

At this year’s meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Canadian government came under fire for allegedly “muzzling” scientists in its federal agencies. The accusation refers to media protocols imposed by the current government which discourage federal scientists from communicating freely with the press, and ultimately the public, about their research. Peter Kent, Canada’s Environment Minister, has stood by these protocols, arguing that such measures are necessary to ensure that “journalists [do not] try to lead scientists away from science and into policy matters,” which he believes should be the domain of ministers alone. However, journalists and scientists alike are concerned that these new protocols are being used to bury scientific findings that are not in line with the government’s political priorities. Their concern is well founded. This lack of openness undermines the fundamental purpose of government research agencies: to produce science that objectively informs policy in areas of public interest.

Continue reading →

US Health Care Reform’s Week in Court

Posted on by

The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the PPACA legislation this week.

By Judy Wang

On Monday, March 26, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments for all cases involved with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Unless you have been living under a rock, you probably know that the PPACA is the landmark health care legislation passed by the 111th Congress and signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. Continue reading →

In American Apathy Towards Science, Scientists Have a Role to Play

Posted on by

Scientists need to make an effort to relate their work to the public

In a recent editorial in the New York Times, John Allen Paulos asks the question “Why don’t Americans Elect Scientists?” Only two (Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter) of the past 44 US presidents have been engineers and only a little over 30 of the 435 members of the House studied science, engineering, or medicine. This year we also have a Medical Doctor, Ron Paul, in the running for the Republican candidacy to president. Despite Paulos’s intriguing question, he comes to a rather disappointing conclusion: Americans dismiss scientists because they seem out of touch with public reality, and there’s not much to be done. Paulos finds that Americans’ belief that scientists are out of touch elitists have kept the public from paying much attention to what they have to say and from considering them for elected office.  I disagree wholeheartedly with this conclusion. If scientists are not making it through the din of media outlets and others trying to reach the public, it is most likely because we are not making our stories sufficiently compelling. Although Paulos notes that scientists “are sometimes tone-deaf to the social environment in which they state their conclusions,” (which helps to widen the gap between scientists and the general public) he doesn’t suggest that this distance from “real life” is inevitable. On the contrary, our daily lives are so saturated with science and technology that innumerable examples exist for scientists to make their work relevant to the general public. Americans may view scientists “as impractical and elitist,” but this is not a reason to give up on a public science discussion. Quite the opposite, this is a call for scientists to seek new and creative ways to connect with the public.

Given the multitude of science, technology, and policy issues our country faces today, a vibrant discussion between the public, policy makers, and scientists is more important than ever. If Americans aren’t giving scientists and scientific issues the attention they deserve, then it is the role of the scientific community to seek new and more effective means to engage the public. Although it may seem innocuous for my next door neighbor to be unaware of the laws of thermodynamics and even more clueless as to their profound meaning for energy conversion technologies, the danger comes when he and his representative support policies that are written without an understanding of the science half of science policy. When we as a society invest money in or promote the development of technologies we must do our best to predict and weigh the unintended consequences of these actions. Without scientists engaging in the public discussion over science policy issues, we are making policies with one hand tied behind our back.

In their defense, congress people and representatives employ science advisors and turn to agencies like the National Academies of Science for advice on science policy questions. What I am arguing for is not just greater communication of scientists with policy makers, but also with the voters and those that engage in public discussions over science policy. Paulos points out in his article that science has largely exited the domain of scientists and has become politicized with the conclusions of scientific studies being up for interpretation by pundits. The fact that scientists in the US are overwhelmingly (according to Paulos) reaching out to the public and getting nowhere suggests that scientists are not communicating effectively. We could of course lament the sad state of science education and awareness in the US and the apathy of the general public towards scientific questions, but without a radical change in the public’s perception of science and technology, we won’t get very far. The responsibility for bringing science to the forefront of public life and politics lies with scientists; it is our responsibility to reach out to the public, not on our terms, but on theirs. This means leaving confusing jargon out of the conversation and instead trying to make science relevant to the public. It means getting creative with how we spark a conversation with the public and making science and laboratory work less of a mystery available only to the few with sufficient scientific training and an expensive subscription to a science journal.

Our goal in starting this blog is precisely what I’ve outlined above – to engage with the public on science issues that are relevant to us all in such a way that we enhance, rather than confound the science policy discussion. Our scope is narrow, given the grand scope of scientific issues out there (we will be focusing mostly on issues related to current events and policy), but we hope to build an active discussion with our readers on the science behind the news through our posts and through recommendations to other well-written sources. Given the growing reliance of our society on technology and its underlying scientific precepts we, in the scientific community, have a unique opportunity to make science more accessible and relevant than ever before. We can complain all we want about the lack of public interest in the real science behind the technology we take for granted, but the solution to the problem ultimately lies in our hands.