China is still basically an agrarian society with about half of its population still engaged in farming. According to the IMF its gross domestic product is only 24% of that of the US. At the graduate level the US educates a significant portion of Chinese students and China educates very few US students at the graduate level. China has always had a huge population and the US has still managed to be dominant in almost every major economic category. So while the US has its own set of unique challenges, one must ask why worry about China?

The answer to this question is very simple… trends.

1. In the last 10 years China made the conscious decision to participate more aggressively as a free market economy. Between 2012 and 2020 China will become the largest consumer market in the world and by 2030 China will have more middle-income consumers than the entire population of the US.

2. Chinese leaders are less likely to overlook the significant impact of engineering and technology in its growth and dominance. Of China’s top 9 leaders, eight are engineers and the other is a scientist. Contrast that with the US where less than 1% of the 435-member house of representatives classify themselves as an engineer.

3. Asia in general and China specifically already represent the largest market for a number of US multinational corporations and because of China’s growth it represents the largest growth market for a number of corporations.

4. In 2006, China engaged in a 15-year plan aimed at increasing its strength in engineering and science. The plan calls for investment in science and technology education such that it accounts for 60% of the country’s economic growth by the end of that period. China has built and upgraded numerous universities assist in that process. In China there is no national discussion on whether they should make the investment. They are just doing it.

What should our response to these changes in China be? Should we invest in technology in a similar fashion by offering significant salaries to engineers in industry to become teachers? Should we reeducate thousands of teachers to become more proficient in science and engineering? How should we change the innovation ecosystem here in the US to radically improve our productivity in engineering and science? Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Updated January 16, 2009

A January report issued by the National Science Foundation addresses concerns that other countries are surpassing the United States in science and engineering education. NSF researchers examined data for 23 countries in which the ratios of first university degrees in natural sciences and engineering to the college-age population have increased substantially since 1975 and found that the rise in those locations compared to the United States is primarily due to increased degree completion rather than an increased emphasis on natural sciences and engineering education.

Read an Inside Higher Ed story about the study here .

Earlier this year, the National Academy of Engineering identified “Grand Challenges for Engineering in the 21st Century,” which if solved would be critical to sustaining our way of life.

Of the 14 challenges, 10 depend on significant breakthroughs in materials research:

• make solar energy economical
• provide energy from fusion
• develop carbon sequestration methods
• provide access to clean water
• restore and improve urban infrastructures
• manage the nitrogen cycle
• prevent nuclear terror
• enhance virtual reality
• engineer better medicines
• advance health informatics

Given Ohio State’s expertise in materials science and engineering, we play a major role in solving many of these challenges. Our success in materials research funding is highlighted by federal research centers including the NSF Center for Affordable Nanoengineering of Polymeric Biomedical Devices, as well as three Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers: the Smart Vehicle Concepts Center, Center for Advanced Polymer and Composite Engineering, and Center for Precision Forming.

These entities are strengthened by major industry- and state-supported centers, such as the Wright Center for Multifunctional Polymer Nanomaterials and Devices, the Fontana Corrosion Center, and the Center for the Accelerated Maturation of Materials. Ohio State is a founding member of the Wright Center for Photovoltaics Innovation and Commercialization, which alone represents $18.6 million in direct funding and more than $23 million in cost-share from its member universities and 16 initial participating companies.

Ohio State’s Institute for Materials Research supports, leverages and coordinates these centers. These organizations and the efforts of individual faculty members contribute significantly to the university‘s current ranking of third in materials research funding, which enables us to make significant progress in a number of the Grand Challenges.