Down the drain

SCIENCE PETER J. SMITH

The greater the publicity a problem receives the larger that problem looms in the public consciousness, but very often the amount of publicity bears little relation to the importance of the subject. Even problems which, in them- selves, are of considerable consequence, can be overstated in this way. This is precisely what has happened in the case of the brain drain.

The very term 'brain drain' clearly implies that the migration of skilled manpower from countries such as Britain represents an unmitigated loss to the donor country. At the same time, the exploitation of indi- vidual cases by journalists and the publicity given to organisations devoted to the sys- tematic encouragement of migration to the United States have tended to emphasise the undesirable aspects. How often, by contrast, do we hear of the counterbalancing efforts of such organisations as the Central Electricity Gener- ating Board, which regularly sends recruiting teams to the United States? As a net result, the brain drain has become a political issue of a magnitude quite out of proportion to its true significance when viewed in relation to other aspects of the distribution of scientific man- power. It is, as yet, far from being a national disaster.

Incredible though it might appear, we have to admit that we just do not know how many scientists and engineers we export. This in a decade that has witnessed a prominent rise in the status and extent of the social sciences, not to mention economic 'planning'! The only well-documented figure we have is that published in a 1965 OECD survey, which re- ported that in the late 1950s about 11 per cent of our annual output of science graduates emigrated to the United States.

That the rate has increased since then is certain, but we do not know by how much. According to the latest figures issued by the us immigration authorities, 1,351 British persons of 'distinguished merit' entered the United States as immigrants in the most recent year for which statistics are available. Although this includes immigrants other than scientists and technolo- gists, it nevertheless indicates that the present brain drain rate is about 7 per cent of our annual output of skilled scientific manpower. Signifi- cantly, though, the corresponding figure for the previous year was only about 5 per cent.

Whether these figures are to be regarded as large or small depends essentially on one's point of view. If one takes the extreme attitude that all contributors to the brain drain are unpatriotic, then, of course, any figure greater than zero will be unacceptable. For my part, I believe that we can stand a rate of 7 per

cent without hardship. I am less certain about how high this figure should go before it ought to be considered undesirable.

Quite apart from the positive advantages of scientific manpower mobility, which tend to be overlooked, many of the so-called adverse effects of the brain drain are illusory. Take, for example, the case of a pure scientist, a research worker in the basic sciences, who re- ceives his higher education in this country and then decides to take off for America for one reason or another. A very high proportion of emigrant scientists fall into this class. The general argument from those who deplore his departure usually runs something like this: `Here,' they say, 'is a man who has freely accepted a costly education, completely paid for by the long-suffering taxpayer. But does he show any gratitude for this by staying to boost the production of this country? Not a bit of it! He callously goes off to sell his services to the highest bidder.' (It may be recalled that this type of shabby argurrient was recently em- ployed by the Minister of Health.)

Not only does this line of reasoning, or rather unreasoning, do the scientist an injustice, for few regard the higher us salaries as a prime consideration in emigrating; it also fails to define the nature of his productive capacity. In fact, when he gets to America he continues his research (often faster because of better facilities) and publishes it in the scientific press —where it immediately becomes available to Britain at zero cost. 'Yes,' the groaners con- tinue, 'but what if everyone did likewise?' But, of course, everyone does not do likewise. This non-argument is as old as the hills and still does not hold water.

Admittedly the case for applied scientists is less convincing: and at any given time there may be key areas which raise special problems —such as the medical services at present. Even here, though, there are a few factors which miti- gate the losses involved. Many people return home with skills and experience not available in this country. Further, although highly trained people are above average in their contribution to Britain's prosperity, evidence suggests that they are also above average in their consump- tion of welfare facilities, so the two effects tend to cancel out. But the most telling point of all is that there would certainly be little increase in Britain's prosperity if emigration were to be stopped. Our rate of investment in basic and applied science has recently been running at about twice that of the other major European countries, and yet our economic growth rate is one of the lowest.

In short, the more or less economic aspects of the brain drain have been overrated. It is true that the problem could become more serious if the emigration rate rises indefi- nitely. But economic considerations apart, there are higher motives which support some mobility of scientists. Freedom of move- ment of people brings greater freedom for the communication of ideas. There is also a sense in which geographical boundaries are irrelevant. If each emigrant is better off by emi- grating, then the scientific community in par- ticular, and humanity in general, are also better off as a result,

Certainly any political device which seeks physically- to restrict the movement of scien- tists should be resisted. If we finally decide that .the brain-drain has reached unacceptable proportions, what we must do, if we respect

freedom at all, is to use indirect persuasion: which means we must seek to redress the ills 'which are powerful enough to cause people to take such drastic steps.

Having given a somewhat approving view of the brain drain it would perhaps be less than fair if I failed to declare my personal stake in it, for I am at present in California on a two-year British Fellowship. Why did I decide to come? Two factors stand out. The first is that I am at present working in the top research group in my own particular discipline. To have missed such an opportunity would have been foolish; and I would certainly have spent the rest of my life regretting it. But there is another very important reason, not concerned solely with academic merits.

During my last few years in England I had

become depressed with the English situation. I had what I can only describe as a desperate desire to discover once and for all whether man could order things better. I wanted to know whether it was really true that in general the Americans work harder than we do, whether they are more enthusiastic about life and work than we are, whether they organise their society better and whether they are more polite than we are—to mention but a few points. The answer to all these questions, I have found, is in the affirmative. But the important point is that it soon becomes obvious from talking to other British migrants here, whether per- manent or temporary, that motivation for the brain drain runs far deeper than better research equipment and better salaries. This is the real tragedy of the situation.