Foreign-born Scientists Research Articles

A TUDOMÁNYOK FEJLŐDÉSE AZ OLMÜTZI EGYETEMEN A 17-18. SZÁZADBAN

The Jesuits founded a grammar school in Olomouc in 1566, adding a philosophy faculty in 1576 and a theology faculty in 1582. The document describing the Jesuit educational system, Ratio et institutio studiorum, divided education into three stages, the highest of which was called studia superiora, and included philosophy and theology. From the second year onwards, students studied mathematics, astronomy and geography, and in the third year, from 1637 onwards, ethics. The Jesuits did not pay much attention to the teaching of the natural sciences, as these subjects undermined the authority of the Church and contradicted fundamental Church dogma. As a result, in the second half of the 17th century and the early 18th century, only very sporadic research and education in the sciences developed. Nevertheless, the University of Olomouc did have professors engaged in mathematical, physical and astronomical research, including a number of foreign-born scientists. In scholastic disputations, topics approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, mostly controversial, were discussed. Nonetheless, we do find here scientific topics in philosophy, biology, chemistry, physics and mathematics, although not in as large a number as would have been desirable.

U.S. Visa and Immigration Policy Challenges: Explanations for Faculty Perceptions and Intent to Leave.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11162-023-09731-0.

To Be or Not to Be on H-1B Visas: Engineers from India in the United States

Abstract Foreign-born scientists and engineers are increasingly present in technology companies in the United States. Some of them are immigrants, that is, aliens admitted to the US for lawful permanent residence; others are non-immigrants, that is, aliens admitted to the US for a specific period of time for temporary work. Whether immigrant or non-immigrant, an overwhelming majority of foreign-born scientists and engineers enter the US technology sector through one single H-1B visa program. Using a case study of Indian engineers, this article shows different sub-paths of the H-1B visa program, which leads to significant differences in their immigration, work, and socio-economic experiences. The article is based on the secondary sources and 40 in-depth interviews conducted with Indian engineers working in US technology companies.

Earnings of foreign-born doctoral engineers in the United States: intersectionality of citizenship status and gender

Foreign-born scientists and engineers in the United States make significant contributions to their fields. While some studies of their career outcomes investigate the internal differences among immigrant scientists and engineers, there is little scholarly attention to how immigration status and gender work together in shaping their career outcomes. This study employs the intersectionality framework and uses National Science Foundation’s Survey of Doctorate Recipients 2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2017 to examine how citizenship status and the intersection of citizenship status and gender affect earnings among engineers with doctoral degrees. Findings show that naturalized U.S. citizens do not earn less than comparable native-born citizens, but permanent residents and temporary residents do. In terms of intersectional effects, U.S.-born women experience an earnings disadvantage due to their gender, naturalized U.S. citizen women and permanent resident women face earnings disadvantages because of both citizenship status and gender, and temporary resident women earn less because of their citizenship status. The preceding findings persisted in the period of study with one exception. These findings reveal the internal variations among foreign-born engineers, intersectional effects of citizenship status and gender, and the complexity and persistence of these effects, suggesting the intersectional and enduring nature of inequality.

Naturalization and the productivity of foreign-born doctorates

This paper estimates the effect of obtaining US citizenship on individual-level measures of productivity for foreign-born doctoral recipients from US universities. Becoming a US citizen results in the removal of barriers such as access to public sector occupations and to some sources of government-sponsored research funding which are hypothesized to increase the productivity of foreign-born scientists. We utilize panel data from the Survey of Doctoral Recipients from 1993 to 2013 and individual fixed effects models to control for selection bias in the naturalization decision. Our results indicate that becoming a naturalized citizen increases wages and several measures of academic productivity. In support of our argument, we find that foreign-born workers who naturalize are more likely to utilize research funding from a government agency, but not more likely to work for the government post-naturalization.

Profile of Angelika Amon, winner of the 2019 Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science

In 2006, the New York City-based Vilcek Foundation launched a prize program to honor US-based biomedical scientists who immigrated to the United States and made extraordinary contributions to their fields (1). Established in 2000 by Jan and Marica Vilcek, the Vilcek Foundation has been supported by Jan Vilcek’s donation of royalties received from the New York University School of Medicine for his contribution to the development of the antiinflammatory drug infliximab. The Vilcek Foundation’s prize program was born out of the Vilceks’ desire to recognize the contributions of immigrants to science and arts in the United States. It is also a celebration and emblem of immigration’s role in securing the primacy of the United States in science and arts on the world stage. There is no other major prize that specifically recognizes immigrant contributions to science in the United States. Angelika Amon. Image courtesy of Samara Vise (Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Cambridge, MA). Since the establishment of the prize program in 2006, 15 scientists have received the Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science. The Vilcek Foundation also recognizes outstanding young foreign-born scientists through the establishment of Prizes for Creative Promise in Biomedical Science; these prizes are open to candidates who are not more than 38 y old at the time of consideration. To date, 22 scientists have received Prizes for Creative Promise in Biomedical Science (in parallel, the Vilcek Foundation also awards an equal number of prizes in the arts to outstanding foreign-born artists active in the United States) (2). The recipient of the 2019 Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science is Angelika Amon, an Austrian-born molecular and cell biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Angelika Amon’s passion for biology began early, when a picture of dividing plant cells viewed through a microscope sparked an enduring fascination with … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: pnair{at}nas.edu. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

Foreign Born Scientists and Non-Academic Collaboration in the United States

Academics are no longer the isolated scientists and engineers. Collaboration is the norm of science, and the co-production of academic research with non-academics is recognized as critical to producing research that can lead to broader impacts. Less understood, however, is how the expanding foreign-born academic workforce in the United States contributes to this co-production. Given the high proportion of foreign-born faculty in the U.S., research on this highly productive subset of faculty researchers is relatively limited. We examine the preferences of foreign-born faculty in the U.S. to collaborate with a range of non-academic institutions, in the U.S. and abroad. We use the lens of institutional logics to differentiate between science and other logics, including those of a community/societal impact nature. We use data from a robust national survey and related lifetime bibliometric data to analyze these collaborative patterns. A notable aspect of our work is that we categorize collaborative ties by research and non-research, as well as by sector. We find that foreign-born faculty more engaged than domestically-born faculty in collaborations with care, state and commercial logics. We also find distinct differences based on the geographic region of origin of foreign-born scientists, evidencing the need to abandon a dichotomous treatment of foreignness. The implications for the results of this study are relevant to the growing body of work on foreign-born faculty and the contributions of mobile researchers.

Profile of Alexander Y. Rudensky, winner of the 2018 Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science

In October 2017, the Chicago-based MacArthur Foundation announced the names of the latest winners of the renowned “genius” grants: fellowships awarded for “originality, insight, and potential,” to outstanding scientists, writers, visual artists, and members of other professions. Of the 24 fellows selected, at least one-third are immigrants to the United States, working in fields as varied as immunology, anthropology, psychology, social work, and creative writing. Foreign-born scientists in the United States are routinely well-represented among recipients of prestigious honors, including the Nobel Prizes and election to the National Academy of Sciences, to name but a couple of high honors bestowed on scientists. Alexander Y. Rudensky. Image courtesy of The Vilcek Foundation. T regs in the T cell zone of a lymph node. Foxp3 is shown in blue, CD4 in green, T-bet in red, and CD44 in white. Image courtesy of Alejandra Mendoza (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City). Immunohistochemical staining of a human triple-negative breast cancer tumor with anti-Foxp3 antibody (brown) and hematoxylin. Image courtesy of Hannah Y. Wen (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City). In 2005, the New York City-based Vilcek Foundation began an annual prize program to recognize exceptionally accomplished foreign-born scientists working in the United States. The program’s mission is to raise public awareness of the role of immigrant talent in sustaining the nation’s global leadership in science, technology, and the arts. The Vilcek Foundation’s prize winners are chosen by accomplished peers and receive a cash award of $100,000. Since 2009, the Vilcek Foundation has also recognized promising young scientists who have carved a niche for themselves early in their careers through pathbreaking work that has caught the attention of the scientific community; each winner of the Creative Promise Prize currently receives a $50,000 cash award* (concomitantly, the Vilcek Foundation recognizes foreign-born … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: jan.vilcek{at}nyumc.org. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

AAAS 2017 Annual Meeting AMA Series: Hi, we’re Laura Acevedo and Hilal Lashuel; we are foreign-born scientists who are concerned about the harmful effects of the U.S. immigration policy on international science collaborations. AUA!

AAAS 2017 Annual Meeting AMA Series: Hi, we’re Laura Acevedo and Hilal Lashuel; we are foreign-born scientists who are concerned about the harmful effects of the U.S. immigration policy on international science collaborations. AUA!

Foreign-born scientists find a home in China

Foreign-born scientists find a home in China

Profile of Dan Littman, winner of the 2016 Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science

The 2016 Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science has been awarded to Dan Littman, Professor of Molecular Immunology at New York University’s Skirball Institute. The aim of the Vilcek Prizes, awarded each year since 2006, is to recognize the significant contributions of immigrant professionals to biomedical science in the United States and to help raise public awareness of the important role played by foreign-born scientists in sustaining the nation’s leading role in the international scientific enterprise.

Getting things done—in the lab and beyond

Dr Geoff Watts has been talking to the Spring Meeting’s two keynote speakers, Sir Mark Walport, Chief Scientifi c Adviser to HM Government, London, UK, and Dr Nitzan Rosenfeld, Group Leader, Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, UK, winner of the 2015 Foulkes Foundation Medal. One of the keynote speakers at this year’s Spring Meeting for Clinician Scientists in Training is Sir Mark Walport, former Director of the Wellcome Trust and now the UK Government’s Chief Scientifi c Adviser. The other speaker is Nitzan Rosenfeld, Head of the Laboratory of Circulating DNA and Molecular Diagnostics at the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute. Walport has long been involved in helping to fashion a supportive framework for biomedical research; as an active research worker Rosenfeld is, indirectly, among the benefi ciaries of such a framework. A policy man and a practitioner— each contributing to the achievements of biomedical science in the UK. Walport took up the Chief Scientifi c Adviser post in 2013 and now advises not just on policy in biomedicine but throughout the whole of science, technology, and engineering. In the earlier part of his career he too was focussed, like Rosenfeld, not on the big picture but on the particular. In his case it was immunology. With a medical degree from Cambridge, Walport began specialising in rheumatology before consolidating his research skills with a PhD supervised by Prof Peter Lachman, a scientifi c mentor who also taught him, he says, that “careers can’t be planned”. With or without planning he joined the Royal Postgraduate Medical School at Hammersmith Hospital, becoming a professor of medicine and, by the time he moved to the Wellcome Trust in 2003, Chairman of the Division of Medicine of Imperial College, London. Taking on the directorship of the Trust refl ected his emerging taste for leadership, a taste developed during his time at Hammersmith. He had discovered that he enjoyed getting things done. “I’d sort of begun to categorise the world into two halves. There were people who got together and whinged, and then there are others who felt that if they wanted something sorted out they’d better do it themselves.” First hand experience of research is crucial in directing a body like the Wellcome Trust, says Walport. “It’s very diffi cult to be fair and humane in running a grant funding agency if you’ve never yourself applied for grants and, from time to time, been rejected. And the experience of having been a participant in the research process was absolutely critical.” This familiarity also played into another of his objectives: to promote biomedical research more generally and foster circumstances in which it can fl ourish. While the starting point of UK-based funding agencies is naturally enough to nurture home-grown talent, science is nothing if not international. Rosenfeld is one of countless foreign-born scientists who have thrived in the UK during recent decades. Born in Israel he studied physics at Technion in Haifa, but decided by his second year to move towards biology. He has what he describes as “an affi nity for more tangible things”. By that he means that whereas much cutting edge work in physics is directed at the very large (astrophysics) or the very small (particle physics), he feels more at home in the middle range: something the size of a cell. More specifi cally, in his case, a cancer cell. While working on cell lines as part of his PhD Rosenfeld realised, to his disappointment, how little he knew of practical value to the health of his father, at that time suff ering from lung cancer. “This drove me to do more applied things.” Looking beyond the academic world he joined an Israeli biotech company, Rosetta Genomics, and worked on microRNA-based molecular diagnostics. Although he became the company’s Head opportunities should be seized with both hands. The Academy’s Spring Meeting for Clinician Scientists in Training is a great opportunity to interact with investigators across a wide range of disciplines and to extend your network in a way that will benefi t your future career. Robert Lechler Academy of Medical Sciences, London W1B 1QH, UK; and University College London, London, UK Robert.lechler@acmedsci.ac.uk.

Introduction: US High-Skilled Immigration in the Global Economy

Immigrants account for approximately a quarter of US science and engineering ðS&EÞworkers with bachelor’s educations, and yet there have been at most a few dozen detailed academic studies that examine the link of immigration and innovation in the United States. High-skilled immigrants represent an increasing share of the US workforce, particularly in science and engineering S&E fields. Foreign-born individuals account for nearly 28% of doctorate-level workers in the United States and more than 45% of those with PhDs employed in S&E fields. The potential impact of high-skilled immigration on the US economy extends well beyond traditional questions of the impact on wages and employment for the immigrants and natives. The expansion of the pool of high-skilled workers is often accompanied by innovations as measured by patents and other forms of scientific output, which suggests the potential for high-skilled immigration to contribute to net human capital externalities. Indeed, foreign-born scientists account for a disproportionate number of major scientific contributions ðStephan and Levin 2001Þ and about a quarter of US innovative outputs ðKerr 2013Þ. Still, the limited evidence regarding the economic and distributional consequences of highskilled immigration has become all the more apparent and worrisome given the policy focus on the issue. While the study of immigration and immigration policy has a long history, a disproportionate share of the research has focused on lower-skilled groups. There is also an established line of economics research on high-skilled labor markets motivated by the importance of scientific innovation for

Migrant scientists and international networks

We examine collaboration patterns of foreign scientists working in one of 16 countries in 2011 and compare them to the collaboration patterns of nonmigrant scientists and scientists with some international experience who have returned. Data come from the GlobSci survey. Major findings are that both foreign-born scientists and returnees have larger international research networks than do native researchers who lack an international background. The higher incidence of international collaboration among migrants is driven primarily by those who did not get their PhD training in the destination country but rather came for a postdoctoral position or directly for employment. We also find that a sizeable share of foreign born collaborate with researchers located in their country of origin and that migrants are also likely to collaborate with individuals from their home country who are working or studying in a third country (diaspora effect). Finally, the relative strength of the origin country's science base matters in the sense that those who come from a relatively stronger base have superior networks compared to those coming from a relatively weaker science base.

The impact of foreign-born scientists and engineers on American nanoscience research

This paper assesses the contribution of foreign-born scientists and engineers to nanoscience innovation. While studies have assessed immigrants’ general contributions to American science and engineering, less is known about their presence within emergent, cutting-edge, and multidisciplinary fields. Multiple sources are utilized to determine the nativity of researchers within nanotechnology, a platform technology with important implications for economic growth, industrial competitiveness, and numerous fields of scientific research. Specifically, it examines the authors of the most highly-cited articles published in the period 1999–2009. Based on comparisons with the prevalence of foreign-born in the scientific and engineering community and general population, the study’s findings reveal that researchers were disproportionally foreign-born, a trend that has grown over time. Additionally, although over-represented among high-impact researchers, there were no significant differences between the institutional locations (academia versus industry) and research activities (productivity and patterns of collaboration) of foreign and native scientists and engineers.

Migrant Scientists and International Networks

We examine collaboration patterns of foreign scientists working in one of 16 countries in 2011 and compare them to the collaboration patterns of nonmigrant scientists and scientists with some international experience who have returned. Data come from the GlobSci survey. Major findings are that both foreign-born scientists and returnees have larger international research networks than do native researchers who lack an international background. The higher incidence of international collaboration among migrants is driven primarily by those who did not get their PhD training in the destination country but rather came for a postdoctoral position or directly for employment. We also find that a sizeable share of foreign born collaborate with researchers located in their country of origin and that migrants are also likely to collaborate with individuals from their home country who are working or studying in a third country (diaspora effect). Finally, the relative strength of the origin country’s science base matters in the sense that those who come from a relatively stronger base have superior networks compared to those coming from a relatively weaker science base.

Academic scientists’ affiliation with university research centers: Selection dynamics

University research centers have been institutionalized as a part of the science policy repertoire committed to strategic use of science and technology. Based on a representative sample of academic scientists and engineers in American research universities, this study investigates the selection dynamics, attempting to unfold the determinants of department-affiliated faculty members to be center affiliates. The findings suggest that university research centers select their affiliates on the basis of individual scientific and technical human capital. Scientists from prestigious departments are more likely to be center affiliates, so are prolific scientists, former postdoctoral scholars and the elder cohorts. In the meantime, university research centers are able to overcome the incentive incongruity with academic departments, as is evidenced by a higher likelihood among junior scientists to secure center connections. Dedicated to diversity and equity, university research centers provide a level playing field for women, minority and foreign-born scientists. The study concludes with a discussion of the scientific and technical human capital theory and policy implications in the science enterprise.

Foreign minds, fenceless imagination: The 2013 Vilcek Foundation Prizes

Every year, the White House announces the winners of the National Medal of Science and the National Medal of Technology and Innovation. Awarded during a special ceremony by the president, these medals represent the highest honors bestowed by the United States government on scientists and engineers. In his address during the White House awards ceremony in the fall of 2011, President Obama noted that nine of the 12 honorees were born outside of the U.S. (1). The winners came to the U.S., he said, because “America is the best place in the world to do the work they do.” At a time when immigration counts as an issue of pressing political currency, the importance of foreign-born scientists to the U.S. biomedical research enterprise bears repeating: the proportion of foreign-born researchers among recipients of high honors bestowed on American scientists typically exceeds the percentage of foreign-born people living in the U.S., which—including undocumented aliens—hovers around 13% of the general population (2). In fact, at least one in three scientists honored with the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for work done in the U.S. during the past century was born outside of the country (3). The United States is a nation of immigrants, and most Americans are proud of their ancestral roots. Nevertheless, a significant portion of the populace subscribes to the view that new immigrants are a burden on the country’s economy. To raise public awareness of the invaluable contribution of immigrants to science in America, the Vilcek Foundation initiated an annual program of prizes to recognize accomplished foreign-born biomedical scientists who are widely regarded as leaders in their fields (Table 1). Currently, each of these prizes includes a cash award of $100,000 (3–5). To recognize a younger generation of distinguished immigrant scientists, the Vilcek Foundation established annual Prizes for Creative Promise in 2009; to be eligible, applicants must be 38 years of age or younger (4–5). In 2013, three winners of the Prize for Creative Promise in Biomedical Science were selected, and each winner was awarded a cash prize of $35,000 (Table 2). Similarly, the Vilcek Foundation (5) confers annual prizes on prominent, foreign-born artists for outstanding achievement in various artistic endeavors. This year, the Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science is shared by immunologists Richard Flavell and Ruslan Medzhitov, both Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigators in the Department of Immunobiology at Yale University.

Foreign-born scientists: mobility patterns for 16 countries

A cross-country survey of research scientists in 16 countries finds considerable variation in immigration and emigration patterns.

Around the World

In science news around the world this week, the first of the Giant Magellan Telescope's seven mirrors has been cast, Australian scientists are once again being awarded grants, the United Kingdom is fighting a fungal disease that threatens its ash woodlands, European researchers are petitioning their heads of state in an effort to prevent budget cuts, and a new report says the U.S. Department of Defense should consider hiring foreign-born scientists.