It's been rolling around in my head for a while, and now I'm finally ready to talk about it.

One of my Tech Nation guests, Robert Herbold, was for many years the Chief Operating Officer of Microsoft, and more recently, a member of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. He chaired its Technology/Education Subcommittee, which in June 2004 issued a report: "Maintaining the Strength of our Science and Engineering Capabilities." In Herbold's words, "The key issue here is what we ended up calling the 'innovation ecosystem.'"

The reason behind all this is pretty simple: It's American innovation which enables us to be master creators of technology and leaders at the cutting edge of science. Arguably, innovation is the cornerstone of our economy.

But what feeds the innovation ecosystem? And what state is it in today?

The report contains lots of information, and the authors did nothing to whitewash the situation - the American innovation ecosystem appears to be living on borrowed time.

Innovation cannot be created on a whim. It requires a whole lot of education - and advanced education - to get people to the point where they can actually create something.

The facts and figures assembled are impressive. Asia is now cranking out Bachelors degrees, Masters degrees and PhD's at an astounding rate, while nearly half of American graduate degrees in science and engineering go to foreign nationals … who for the most part, then go home.

And there are problems with the pipeline which feeds all this. Apparently, those darn kids would rather listen to their ipods than study science, while their teachers are under stress to boot - some 90% of American science teachers at the middle school level are what is called "out of field," as they have little formal science training. Some add to this the low tests scores comparing our students with students from other countries, but to tell you the truth, that doesn't bother me so much. You see, it doesn't matter when you learn the basics of science; it matters that you learn it - and sometimes later is better, quicker and more effective.

Finally, one statistic brought me up short: The average time it takes to get a PhD in science or engineering - once you've graduated from college - is now over seven years. Seven years? Law school takes three. Medical school takes three plus internship and residency. How did we get to seven years for a PhD in science or engineering? When I got my PhD in Mechanical Engineering, it only took me four. I can tell you right now - I never would have signed up for seven years … and I can't be the only one.

It turns out the pipeline has other problems: If you've ever been to a large engineering school you know they wash out a huge swath of the Freshmen Engineering class, sending them on to other majors - a loss of 40% would not be unusual. But who's to say that these 40% wouldn't have made great engineers? And once you miss the Freshman cut, it's extremely difficult to transfer back into engineering.

The bottom line is this - if we want more engineers and scientists, we can produce them, but we will need a whole new host of educational programs. Programs for kids who didn't make the first cut. Programs for people who want to try science midway through college, after eschewing it in high school, and for adults who want to completely switch careers.

The call to action for education is this: "One size fits enough" just won't work any more.

I'm Moira Gunn. This is Five Minutes.

Back to Five Minutes List