An article recently appeared in the Houston Chronicle about the firing of a few scientists who were Chinese from my former employer the UT MD Anderson Cancer Center. The further down I read there was a suggestion that after the firing the institution lost talent. I dont think there is any doubt that the Trump Administration has rightly so elucidated a China Problem to the front and center of the American purview. Its front-page news nowadays. From General Electric to Micron and T-Mobile even American agriculture and biotechnology seem to be spicy fields for adversarial gain.
As an undergraduate research intern there however it seemed peculiar that MD Anderson could lose anything in this regard of foreign talent. I could find no lack of such in the labs or any of the neighboring medical centers. Riding on the city bus to the lab with my blue lunchbox in my lap I looked around at people and just about felt a culture shock I was new knew nothing about biomedical research and was the only Caucasian in the mornings packed near the several shoulders and elbows of others who were not.
But on a narrow front there is a need to address several aspects regarding the argument proposed by critics who say the US loses talent when foreign scientists are fired from US institutions for I think these critics are wrong. The aspects of the critics argument are (1) that there appears to be something valuable regarding the recruitment of foreign scientists to this country - talent diversity experience culture etc (2) that there is a loss of this specific value in the form of talent when scientists leave the US for other countries and/or are fired and (3) that this talent is irreplaceable associated with firing them.
I continually think the United States is the beacon of hope for bright minds - a literal sandbox of scientific fields that individuals can play in and contribute to much unlike anywhere else. The different opinions and experiences brought by foreign scientists that intermingle in the medical and research fields make them valuable to the enterprise of research. However it is important to distinguish talent from these other wonderful things people offer to the US. If scientists have talent in the field of cancer research for example then they are presumably using such talents for something namely to help US research discover a proprietary therapy etc. These specific goals/purposes are natural to the field of research and are the purpose of those scientists being there why else be employed but for the reason to further the field in the previously stated ways? It is interesting to note that these purposes must be specific to the institution meaning that the argument falls flat when scientists are fired for international collaboration in international collaboration there is the exchange of ideas and this has the purpose of benefiting more than one party. However when IP theft occurs there is a violation of the stated purposes. It is when this violation happens that the decision-makers or employers in power rightly must say that you ought to take your talent elsewhere otherwise you are doing more harm than good. In short if there is a net loss to the institution (as in youre helping our research but youre also stealing from us) then its easier to see the institution has not lost" much upon firing someone. In fact they are preventing the repercussions from the previous theft and preventing further loss. Now temporarily there is a loss of talent" in that scientist X can no longer contribute to the institutions project Y. But is the talent replaceable? Can they get some other person to contribute to the proprietary project? I know in the United States there is a growing reluctance to view people as expendable but the view itself is not the concern. The question is that whether the institution of project Y can replace the talent with better talent and not necessarily a better person." I think we can define better talent" as being someone who provides a net benefit to the research institution not stealing or causing harm to the institution and thus helping them achieve their purposes. The answer to the former and latter question is a yes talent is replaceable and also it is possible to get better talent. If talent is indeed replaceable in as far as a persons ability to contribute to the stated purposes of the institution and not unique to every individual then neither the institution nor the US has lost foreign talent. In fact it need not be easier than to simply hire another foreigner who meets the above criteria. And it need not take another youre hired" phrase to prove critics wrong on many fronts associated with this so called loss of foreign talent" argument.
An article recently appeared in the Houston Chronicle about the firing of a few scientists who were Chinese from my former employer the UT MD Anderson Cancer Center. The further down I read there was a suggestion that after the firing the institution lost talent. I dont think there is any doubt that the Trump Administration has rightly so elucidated a China Problem to the front and center of the American purview. Its front-page news nowadays. From General Electric to Micron and T-Mobile even American agriculture and biotechnology seem to be spicy fields for adversarial gain.
As an undergraduate research intern there however it seemed peculiar that MD Anderson could lose anything in this regard of foreign talent. I could find no lack of such in the labs or any of the neighboring medical centers. Riding on the city bus to the lab with my blue lunchbox in my lap I looked around at people and just about felt a culture shock I was new knew nothing about biomedical research and was the only Caucasian in the mornings packed near the several shoulders and elbows of others who were not.
But on a narrow front there is a need to address several aspects regarding the argument proposed by critics who say the US loses talent when foreign scientists are fired from US institutions for I think these critics are wrong. The aspects of the critics argument are (1) that there appears to be something valuable regarding the recruitment of foreign scientists to this country - talent diversity experience culture etc (2) that there is a loss of this specific value in the form of talent when scientists leave the US for other countries and/or are fired and (3) that this talent is irreplaceable associated with firing them.
I continually think the United States is the beacon of hope for bright minds - a literal sandbox of scientific fields that individuals can play in and contribute to much unlike anywhere else. The different opinions and experiences brought by foreign scientists that intermingle in the medical and research fields make them valuable to the enterprise of research. However it is important to distinguish talent from these other wonderful things people offer to the US. If scientists have talent in the field of cancer research for example then they are presumably using such talents for something namely to help US research discover a proprietary therapy etc. These specific goals/purposes are natural to the field of research and are the purpose of those scientists being there why else be employed but for the reason to further the field in the previously stated ways? It is interesting to note that these purposes must be specific to the institution meaning that the argument falls flat when scientists are fired for international collaboration in international collaboration there is the exchange of ideas and this has the purpose of benefiting more than one party. However when IP theft occurs there is a violation of the stated purposes. It is when this violation happens that the decision-makers or employers in power rightly must say that you ought to take your talent elsewhere otherwise you are doing more harm than good. In short if there is a net loss to the institution (as in youre helping our research but youre also stealing from us) then its easier to see the institution has not lost" much upon firing someone. In fact they are preventing the repercussions from the previous theft and preventing further loss. Now temporarily there is a loss of talent" in that scientist X can no longer contribute to the institutions project Y. But is the talent replaceable? Can they get some other person to contribute to the proprietary project? I know in the United States there is a growing reluctance to view people as expendable but the view itself is not the concern. The question is that whether the institution of project Y can replace the talent with better talent and not necessarily a better person." I think we can define better talent" as being someone who provides a net benefit to the research institution not stealing or causing harm to the institution and thus helping them achieve their purposes. The answer to the former and latter question is a yes talent is replaceable and also it is possible to get better talent. If talent is indeed replaceable in as far as a persons ability to contribute to the stated purposes of the institution and not unique to every individual then neither the institution nor the US has lost foreign talent. In fact it need not be easier than to simply hire another foreigner who meets the above criteria. And it need not take another youre hired" phrase to prove critics wrong on many fronts associated with this so called loss of foreign talent" argument.