Yet an anxious America, with its intense security concerns about terrorist infiltration and technology leaks, along with fears about losing jobs to immigrants, discourages many potential innovators. Unless current restrictions are eased or a concerted effort is made to encourage science and technology education among American students, the US will face economic crisis.

Notwithstanding Microsoft, Apple or Google, several indicators point to the decline. First, US students have little interest in science or engineering as a career. Second, patents filed by US inventors have started to decline, whereas patents from Asia are steadily increasing. Third, US manufacturing employment peaked in 1979, and shop-floor innovation vanishes as companies make more consumer products overseas. Finally, companies scramble to secure more overseas talent, and a survey soon to be released by the Kauffman Foundation reports that 40 per cent of 200 multinational corporations plan relocating some R&D within the next three years, with more preferring expansion in India and China.

The US once countered such trends by attracting scientists from other nations. Snatching foreign help is easier than nurturing home-grown scientists - and other countries have caught on. So the old methods for recruiting foreign talent may no longer work.

For now, students from Asia, Russia and Eastern Europe keep US college math and science programmes afloat. About half of all science students are non-US citizens, reports the US Council of Graduate Schools, but applications from Chinese and Indian students declined by 15 and 5 per cent, respectively, in 2005 from the previous year. Australia, the UK, Singapore, even China, lure students who would have once studied in the US, and after graduation, stayed on to work. Alarmed about fewer students pursuing science and postdoctoral research, universities protest the visa restrictions and background checks.

But security measures remain bureaucratic, so universities also head to the countries with eager students. State universities of Florida, Texas and Michigan are among the dozens that have started operations in China and India. So students who would have once started careers in the US stay overseas.

US employers struggle to hire foreign scientists, too, because of fears of exacerbating unemployment. The US Immigration Act of 1990 formalised the visa program to attract professionals to speciality occupations, especially in science and math. Universities like Harvard and Yale, firms like General Electric and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and public research powerhouses like Nasa and Los Alamos recruit hundreds of scientists who hold the visa known as H-1B. India, China and Canada are the leading contributors of such employees, and many workers eventually apply for citizenship.

Yet politicians, buffeted by demand from special-interest groups, debate the value of the H-1B. So the annual cap has jumped up and down over the years: when the investment climate was hot, industry persuaded politicians to raise the number; in hard times, labour interests demand reductions. The cap was originally set at 65,000 in 1990. Amid fear of massive computer outages associated with Y2K, Congress swelled the cap to 195,000 for three years starting in 2000. Then the cap returned to 65,000, with special deals for Chile, Singapore and Australia, disguised with different letters and numbers. Education and non-profit research institutions have always been exempt from the limit. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, visa caps were reached on the first available day.

Initially the biggest obstacles for foreign scientists willing to work in the US were the visa caps and fees of thousands of dollars, often not covered by companies. Since 9/11, visa applicants undergo a two-prong background check. First, the US Department of Labour certifies that no willing or qualified Americans are available for the position, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the US Immigration and Citizen Services run the same screening performed for those applying for citizenship or permanent residency. For FY 2003, DHS approved 94 per cent of the applications.

The visa programme has its critics. Some complain that the programme encouraged a brain drain by removing talent from developing countries. Others complain that the arrival of foreign scientists depress US salaries.

More parents urge students to think twice before pursuing a science career. US unemployment statistics are hardly encouraging: According to the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, unemployment for engineers has risen from 1.4 per cent in 2000 to 4.3 per cent in 2003; for computer scientists, from 2 per cent in 2000 to 5.5 per cent in 2004.

The net effect of shutting the door to foreign scientists, the homeward journey by others, could mean less international recognition for the US. Half of US Nobel physics and chemistry laureates in this century were born in foreign countries or of foreign parents, and a recent World Bank report suggests that every 10 per cent increase in foreign graduate students leads to a 6 per cent increase in patents.

Of course, most patents do not have the value of electricity or broadband, inventions that revolutionise everyday life. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development notes that US creation of high-value patents has been stagnant since 1996.

High-value innovations do not emerge in a vacuum. Creating an environment that recognises creativity - and high-value invention - requires nurturing and respect. Closing the door to scientific talent out of fear and suspicion, discouraging scientists through neglect and low wages, is not how the US should alter the disturbing trends - falling numbers of students, scientists and patents - that will eventually erode prosperity.

Susan Froetschel is assistant editor of YaleGlobal Online.

Susan Froetschel

YaleGlobal

NEW YORK