I would need some information about the growth of the number of
scientists in the world over the last 50 years (on some reasonable
definition of who counts as a scientist). Useful would be either
absolute numbers or the doubling rate over the last 50 years.
De Solla Price famously claimed in the 1960s that the number of
scientists grew with a doubling rate of 15 years over the last 300
years, and that ?80 to 90 percent of all scientists who have ever
lived are still alive today?. Are both claims still true today?

Hello ludl-ga:

Regarding Price's famous prediction: 

See the speech " The Big Crunch by David Goodstein [ Professor of
Physics and Applied Physics at Caltech] NCAR 48 Symposium, Portland,
OR September 19, 1994":

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html  

Goldstein references Price's measure: the growth of science journals
will reflect the growth rate for scientists, then notes, "The point is
that the era of exponential growth in science is already over.  . . .
It is probably still true that 90% of all the scientists who have ever
lived are alive today, and that statement has been true at any given
time for nearly 300 years. But it cannot go on being true for very
much longer. Even with the huge increase in world population in this
century, only about one-twentieth of all the people who have ever
lived are alive today. It is a simple mathematical fact that if
scientists keep multiplying faster than people, there will soon be
more scientists than there are people. That seems very unlikely to
happen."

You'll see Goldstein's graph charting science journals and Ph.D.
rates, which he based on "Price's curve."

"The first Ph.D was awarded soon after the Civil War, around 1870. By
the turn of the century the number was about 10 per year, by 1930
about 100 per year, and by 1970, 1000 per year. The curve extrapolates
to about 10,000 a year today, and one million a year in 2050. But
that's not what happened. The growth stopped cold around 1970, and the
number has oscillated around 1000 per year ever since. We didn't
notice it at the time, but, at least in physics, The Big Crunch
happened around 1970."

U.S.:

Here are some statistics that reveal the number of scientists in U.S.
has grown since 1950:
 
"DPE [Dept. of Professional Employees, AFL-CIO]: Programs &
Publications: DPE Analyses: Scientists, Engineers and Technical
Workers"
http://www.dpeaflcio.org/programs/analyses/2002_sci_eng.htm

"Reflecting the importance of advanced technologies to an expanding
global economy, employment in science and engineering dramatically
increased during the second half of the twentieth century. According
to government sources, the number of scientists increased from 150,000
to 2,685,000 between 1950 and 2001" [so the general, overall number
didn't quite double]; however, "the number of engineers increased from
400,000 to 2,122,000. By 2001, scientists and engineers accounted for
more than 23% of the professional labor force."

GLOBAL:
  
" Will biomedicine outgrow support? ," by  M. F. PERUTZ, of the MRC
Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, England, Nature 399, 299 -
301 (27 May 1999):
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v399/n6734/full/399299a0_fs.html

This graph shows growth rate in membership in professional American
science societies since 1950:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6734/fig_tab/399299a0_F1.html

Re: trends outside the U.S. "European trends are harder to measure,
because there are no organizations comparable to FASEB [Federation of
American Societies for Experimental Biology]. From 1920 to 1970, the
British Biochemical Society grew at an average annual rate of 5.8%;
from 1950 to 1970 the Gesellschaft für Biochemie und Molekularbiologie
grew at an annual rate of 16%. After 1970, their rates of growth
slowed to 2.4% and 10%, respectively; the societies now have
memberships of around 10,000 and 5,000, respectively. The growth rate
of the German society outstrips that of FASEB, probably because it
started later."

"National Academies Press, Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the
United States 1995 Profile (1998)"

http://www.nap.edu/openbook/NI000905/html/39.html

See "DETAILED STATISTICAL TABLES." 

Also see this  UNESCO (United Nations' Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization) 2001/2002 study:
http://www.uis.unesco.org/TEMPLATE/pdf/ged/2004/GED2004_EN.pdf

Warning: This page takes forever to load! Scroll down to page 112, to
"Table 9. TERTIARY EDUCATION, ISCED 5 AND 6. GRADUATES BY FIELD OF
EDUCATION, 2001/2002."

You'll have to zoom in, but you can see college degrees awarded by
field of study -- Science is at far right -- according to various
countries. I have no way of knowing how many of the recipients of
those degrees actually found work in the sciences.

Professor Goldstein isn't alone in believing the number of scientists
is actually shrinking. At present, there aren't enough scientists to
go around.

 " 'Scientists and engineers. Crisis, what crisis?' By Mario
Cervantes, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry
Published: January 2004,"  OECD [ Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development ]Observer :
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/1160/Scientists_and_engineers.html

Cervantes reports there is currently a shortage of scientists, worldwide:  

" But where will all these new scientists and researchers come from? A
recent UK government report bemoaned a 16% drop in enrolment in
chemistry and 7% drop in enrolment in physics and engineering between
1995 and 2000. Meanwhile, countries such as Australia and Italy worry
about replacing the large numbers of ?baby boomer? faculty staff when
they retire; some 70% of full professors and 35% of all science staff
in Italian universities are over 50. . . ."
  
But Cervantes's report concludes that, eventually, supply will catch up to demand:

" The supply of PhDs is of particular interest because most research
positions require PhD level training. National data for both France
and the US show a downward trend in science and engineering PhD
graduates since the late 1990s. But historically, data on enrollment
and graduates show that supply follows changes in demand, albeit with
a lag, which has been the case with enrolments in the biological
sciences in the US which have reversed their decline since the
emergence of the biotechnology industry in the 1980s. There has been a
slight rise recently in US students pursuing science and engineering
programmes at graduate level (4% in 2001). If these increases are
sustained, it should lead to a reversal in the overall decline in
science PhD graduates and reduce the risk of general shortages or
supply shortfalls. . . .

" . . . Recent data show a drop in foreign enrolment and graduates in
the US, as students from India and China, which produces a fifth of
the world?s supply of PhD graduates in science and engineering,
increasingly find educational opportunities in other OECD countries,
such as Australia and the UK. "

Those were the best statistics I could find that provide an historical
or global overview. Finding employment data for scientists worldwide
proved tough, as Perutz mentioned in the Nature article.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

Here's a Google Answers question I tackled last year, "PhD's":
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=375747

 "Beyond supply and demand: Assessing their Ph.D. job market," a report
by Elka Jones (economist at the Office of Occupational Statistics and
Employment Projections), published in Occupation Outlook Quarterly,
Winter 2002-2003 issue:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ooq/2002/winter/art03.pdf
Cached:

A section of the report discusses the supply of Ph.D. graduates,first
by field of study and then by demographic
characteristic. 'Field of study Survey of Earned Doctorates' data show
that, between 1970 and 2000, there have been changes by field of study
in the numbers of Ph.D. degrees granted. Generally, fields with the
greatest increases in the numbers of doctoral degrees awarded also had
the most job growth: Natural sciences and engineering. . . . .
Computer science, first measured in 1978, showed similar increases,
demonstrating particularly strong growth from 1980 to 1990. . . . "

"Scroll down to the last chart, chart number 8, to see the percentages
of shifts in doctorates by area of study. The fastest-rising Ph.D rate
between 1996 --2000 is in the biological sciences an increase of 44%
from 1996 to 2000. The increase in computer sciences, in that same
time-frame, was 22% (the fourth-fastest growing field)."

Also see these two studies (U.S.)  

"Graduate Enrollment in Science and Engineering Fields Reaches New
Peak; First-Time Enrollment of Foreign Students Declines," by Lori
Thurgood, published in the NSF's InfoBrief, June 2004:
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/infbrief/nsf04326/start.htm

"Field of Study
Graduate enrollment in 2002 grew in all major S&E fields and in nearly
all subfields (table 2). Engineering and mathematical sciences led in
percentage gains, both rising more than 9 percent over the previous
year. *Other fast-growing fields were computer sciences* and
biological sciences, which each increased by 6 percent . . . ."

Here's a 1995 report from the National Academies Press:  "APPENDIX C.
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS AMONG SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS WITH GRADUATE
DEGREES," by "Michael McGeary Study Director, Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy:
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309052858/html/139.html

Search Strings

De Solla Price +number scientists over past 50 years
increase in the number of scientists over past 50 years
employment rate AND scientists AND 50 years
number of employed scientists since 1950
number of employed scientists since 1950 AND worldwide
employment + worldwide +scientists +since 1950

I hope my research is of help to you. If you have any trouble
navigating any of the above links, please post a "Request For
Clarification," and I will assist you.

Best regards,
nancylynn-ga
Google Answers Researcher

---

Clarification of Answer by nancylynn-ga on 27 Oct 2005 18:37 PDT

Oops! I forgot to remove my error: my dopey comment that the overall
number of scientists in the U.S. hadn't quite doubled.

As "the number of scientists increased from 150,000 to 2,685,000
between 1950 and 2001," I think it's clear -- even to a math dummy
like me -- that the number has definitely more than doubled!

I was a little stunned that the official number of employed scientists
in 1950 was only 150,000. Those stats differentiate between scientists
and engineers. However, given the Space Race and the Cold War, I guess
it's not surprising that the emphasis shifted to engineering.

---

Request for Answer Clarification by ludl-ga on 19 Nov 2005 08:35 PST

Hello nancylynn-ga, 
thank you for your efforts. My main interest is De Solla?s claim that
80-90% of all scientists who have ever lived are still alive today.
Therefore, I?m specifically looking for data about the last 50-100
years (earlier centuries basically don?t count). Most of the sites you
presented have data about the last few years only (1980s and 1990s),
others were of some use though.

The site by the UNESCO that you mention refers only to the present
(http://www.uis.unesco.org/TEMPLATE/pdf/ged/2004/GED2004_EN.pdf). Are
there any sites by the UNESCO on the last 50 to 100 years?

I found the following site with numbers of PhDs in the US (e.g. p. 4
(p. 14 in pdf)):
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/studies/sed/sed9899.pdf. But it doesn?t
include data on the numbers of PhDs before 1957. On that website it
says somewhere that they have data as early as the 1920s, but I
couldn?t find that data. Maybe, you could help me with this.

Another site is http://www.bls.gov/, but it?s very complex. Maybe, you
have an idea how to tackle this site.

Best regards, 
Ludl-ga

---

Clarification of Answer by nancylynn-ga on 19 Nov 2005 14:21 PST

Hi ludl-ga:
 
You can see the increase in employed, professional scientists from
1950 to 2001 in my link to the AFL-CIO DPE research paper.

Your discovery of the survey from National Opinion Research Center
(NORC), University of Chicago, is a goldmine.
 
"I found the following site with numbers of PhDs in the US (e.g. p. 4
(p. 14 in pdf)):
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/studies/sed/sed9899.pdf."

I also couldn't see figures there from pre-1957, so I went to a search
engine and typed in:

"Doctorate Records File 1920"  

That took me to NORC's homepage:
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/

I went through several annual surveys there, but just as with the 1999
survey you found, the published results only went back to 1957, with
references to the fact that NORC has been assembling data since 1920.
(I did see a document detailing doctorates awarded to women, going
back to 1921, but I'm sure women were a very tiny minority among
scientists at that time, so not very helpful re: total numbers.)

It looks like you're going to have to contact NORC directly to ask for
data pre-1957.

Contact:

"Please address all general inquiries to: 
norcinfo@norc.org 
Office Locations: 
University of Chicago Office:
NORC
1155 East 60th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
(773) 256-6000 
Chicago Loop Office:
NORC
55 East Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 759-4000 
Washington D.C. Office:
NORC
1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 500
Washington D.C. 20036
(202) 223-6040" 

Your question specified: "Useful would be either absolute numbers or
the doubling rate over the last 50 years."

I did give you the numbers for the increase of scientists from 1950 to
2001, in this report from the AFL-CIO:
 
"DPE [Dept. of Professional Employees, AFL-CIO]: Programs &
Publications: DPE Analyses: Scientists, Engineers and Technical
Workers"
http://www.dpeaflcio.org/programs/analyses/2002_sci_eng.htm

". . . According to government sources, the number of scientists
increased from 150,000
to 2,685,000 between 1950 and 2001" . . . . "the number of engineers
increased from 400,000 to 2,122,000. By 2001, scientists and engineers
accounted for
more than 23% of the professional labor force."

You can click on the hyperlinked footnotes to find the references used
in that report, which, along with contacting the NORC, may be your
only chance of finding year-by-year data.

That is certainly what I was seeking on your behalf, but couldn't
find. Year-by-year breakdowns going back fifty years or so appear
impossible to find online. The oldest year-by-year survey I found
covered 1966 - 1997:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf00310/
(National Science Foundation.)   

This is the sort of problem I kept running into: I couldn't find
surveys that covered 5 or more decades that included all sciences.

At Science Masters, I found "MASTER'S DEGREES IN THE BIOLOGICAL AND
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES BY SUBFIELD AND SEX, 1950 to 2001":
http://sciencemasters.org/pdfs/M6-01.pdf
(The survey starts with 1960. Scroll down to bottom of the page to see
breakdown by decades, from 1900-1959.)

Also at Science Masters, see "Master?s Degrees in Science and
Engineering by Field and Sex, 1950 to 2001
CPST, data derived from NCES, Series of Earned Degrees 1950 through
1965; National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Degrees,
1966-2001; and National Center for Education Statistics (for 1999
data)":
http://sciencemasters.org/pdfs/M3-03.pdf

At the Commission for Professionals in Science and Technology:
http://www.cpst.org/HRDATA/Pages/QResultbig.cfm?cDocsource='Information+Technology'
Scroll down to
"Doctorates Awarded In The Mathematical And Computer Sciences By
Subfield And Sex, 1950 to 2001"
and click on that hyperlink to bring up an XLS chart.  

By putting those three surveys together, so to speak, you may be able
to see a broader, more defined picture stretching back over 50 to 100
years, but those surveys aren't inclusive of all the sciences, which
is more than a little problematic.

So, you may want to contact DPE to see if you can order a copy of that
report which appears to have been based on wide-ranging, comprehensive
data. (Note that the summary mentions "See page 3"; ostensibly, for
statistical data, but you can't access that page online.) Contact DPE
to inquire about obtaining a full copy of this report:
http://www.dpeaflcio.org/contact.htm
  
As for Price's claim, the first link in my answer is to Dr.
Goodstein's speech which was basically a rebuttal to De Solla Price.

Regarding Price's famous prediction: 

See the speech "The Big Crunch by David Goodstein [ Professor of
Physics and Applied Physics at Caltech] NCAR 48 Symposium, Portland,
OR September 19, 1994":

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html  

Goldstein references Price's measure: the growth of science journals
will reflect the growth rate for scientists, then notes, "The point is
that the era of exponential growth in science is already over.  . . .
It is probably still true that 90% of all the scientists who have ever
lived are alive today, and that statement has been true at any given
time for nearly 300 years. But it cannot go on being true for very
much longer. . . "  

Also see the Nature article I cited for you (written by Perutz), which
contains a graph documenting the growth rate in membership in
professional American science societies since 1920. (That's very
analogous to Price's prediction re: growth of science journals):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6734/fig_tab/399299a0_F1.html

I also gave you Cervantes's report which explores the argument that
the world is currently facing a scientist shortage, but supply may,
eventually, meet demand.

I included the more recent data, such as BLS data, to demonstrate the
recent uptick in science students. However, I think that employment
statistics are the most decisive, which is why I felt the DPE report
was the most valuable resource in my answer. (I would not have even
posted an answer had I not found that report.)

The number of science degrees awarded doesn't necessarily correlate to
the number of professional scientists. For instance, in "Indicators
2000," the National Science Foundation:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind00/c3/c3s1.htm#c3s1l1 

"A little over half of the 4.9 million S&E degree holders working
outside S&E occupations in 1997 were employed in either
management-administration occupations (29 percent), sales and
marketing jobs (16 percent) or non-S&E related teaching positions (9
percent) in 1997. (See text table 3-3.) Almost 90 percent of those
employed as non-S&E teachers said that their work was at least
somewhat related to their S&E degree field, compared to 71 percent of
managers-administrators and 47 percent of those employed in sales and
marketing jobs.

"About 82 percent of the 4.9 million S&E degree holders not working in
S&E occupations in 1997 reported their highest degree as a bachelor?s
degree, while 15 percent listed a master?s degree and 3 percent a
doctorate. Approximately three-fifths of bachelor?s degree holders
reported that their jobs were closely related to their highest degree
field, compared to four-fifths of both doctorate and master?s S&E
degree recipients."

So, you can see the problem with trying to measure the number of
professional scientists just by degrees awarded.

As for BLS, I don't believe you can access pre-1993 data at their
site. The National Science Foundation was founded in 1950:
http://www.nsf.gov/
However, I couldn't find any data older than 1995 re: degrees awarded.   

So, again, I think you will have to contact NORC and/or DPE to obtain
detailed, year-by-year information.

nancylynn-ga
Google Answers Researcher

---

Request for Answer Clarification by ludl-ga on 20 Nov 2005 12:37 PST

Hello nancylynn-ga, 
Thanks for the clarifications. I had carfully looked at all web-sites
that you offered in the first answer. My problem with the DPE website
was that I didn?t find the reference (in the footnote). Without
reference, the claim that you cite is just a claim and not useful for
me. I had contacted DPE, but they didn?t reply. I will try again, as
you suggest. I will also try with the other addresses you suggest.
You write ?At Science Masters, I found "MASTER'S DEGREES IN THE
BIOLOGICAL AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES BY SUBFIELD AND SEX, 1950 to
2001":
http://sciencemasters.org/pdfs/M6-01.pdf
(The survey starts with 1960. Scroll down to bottom of the page to see
breakdown by decades, from 1900-1959.)? 
I think you misread that document. It has no data on 1900-1959. (Or
did I misread it?)

I was already aware of the paper of Goldstein. It is of some interest
(although it?s only about physics), but I also couldn?t find the
reference.

Your remark that employment statistics are more informative than
statistics of students was an insight for me. I also found the page
about the question ?Who is a Scientist or Engineer?? useful.

Finally, I?m looking for data on the number of scientists and
engineers in China or India. I found *one* site about China:
http://www.chinaembassy.org.in/eng/ssygd/China%20in%20Diagrams/ScienceTechnology/t162149.htm
Do you know any other such sites?

Best
Ludwig

---

Clarification of Answer by nancylynn-ga on 20 Nov 2005 13:28 PST

I will e-mail DPE to see if they'll give me the references that we've
inferred are listed on missing page 3. If so, I will post those
references for you as an Answer Clarification.

There are hyperlinked footnotes throughout that report, which
certainly lends credibility to the DPE's reported findings.

As to:

?At Science Masters, I found "MASTER'S DEGREES IN THE
BIOLOGICAL AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES BY SUBFIELD AND SEX, 1950 to
2001":
http://sciencemasters.org/pdfs/M6-01.pdf
(The survey starts with 1960. Scroll down to bottom of the page to see
breakdown by decades, from 1900-1959.)? 
I think you misread that document. It has no data on 1900-1959. (Or
did I misread it?)"

That chart has year-by-year breakdowns from 1960 to 2001. 

For pre-1960 data, you have to scroll down the bottom of that table.
There, you'll see data bundled by decades. For 1950-1959, there's only
bundled data; not a year-by-year breakdown. For the years 1950-1959,
the total of degrees awarded in biology and agriculture was 35,026.

I'm afraid I don't have data for India and China. I would suggest you
post that as a new question.

nancylynn-ga

---

Clarification of Answer by nancylynn-ga on 20 Nov 2005 14:07 PST

One other point: I realize the chart Goodstein used in his 1994 speech
is for physics degrees only; however, the thrust of his speech
concerns science and the number of scientists in general, not just
physicists.

---

Request for Answer Clarification by ludl-ga on 21 Nov 2005 08:25 PST

Hello nancylynn-ga, 

You wrote: ?I will e-mail DPE to see if they'll give me the references
that we've inferred are listed on missing page 3. If so, I will post
those
references for you as an Answer Clarification.?

Thanks for doing that.

You wrote: ?There are hyperlinked footnotes throughout that report, which
certainly lends credibility to the DPE's reported findings.?

I had looked at the footnotes, of course. I had tried to google them,
but couldn?t find the references in the Internet.

Concerning the comment: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind00/c3/c3s1.htm#c3s1l1
has a useful discussion of the problem of who counts as a scientist or engineer.

Best
Ludwig

---

Clarification of Answer by nancylynn-ga on 21 Nov 2005 19:09 PST

I think you can get some idea of what the DPE considers scientists
just by reading through the summary of their report: biological
sciences, computer sciences, etc. Note that the DPE provides
percentages for growth by category.

The DPE report relies heavily on BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
data. I believe you cannot access BLS reports released prior to 1993.

No doubt you could have an endless debate over who qualifies as a
scientist, but since DPE is going by BLS data -- which is considered
THE most authoritative source for employment data in the U.S. I looked
to the BLS, too.

See this page which lists all 19,000 occupations the BLS considers scientists:

http://stats.bls.gov/soc/soc_e0a0.htm

You'll see that list includes medical scientists, economists, and
historians. It's pretty much all-encompassing!

---

Clarification of Answer by nancylynn-ga on 27 Nov 2005 19:47 PST

Since I've not heard back from the DPE, I suggest you call the BLS to
inquire about data showing employment rates for scientists from 1950
to the present.

Their number is 202-691-5200.

You will likely have to pay for photocopying and postage. 

All I know is some of the BLS stats cited in the DPE report simply
aren't available online, so it looks like you'll have to call BLS for
any data that isn't available online.

Great job. I was not satisfied with the answer, but that's not a
problem of the researcher. As far as I can tell, there simply is not
enough data in the web to answer my question.

Is there a common definition of "scientist" in all these numbers and sources?

Any statistics based on the numbers of academic degrees, for example,
says nothing about those persons' professional activity.
Everyone involved in scientific work is not a scientist in my opinion;
many are lab technicians, etc.

I am certainly not questioning Nancylynn's great answer; I just have
to question statistics like this  - question the definition of terms:
". . . According to government sources, the number of scientists
increased from 150,000
to 2,685,000 between 1950 and 2001" . . . . "the number of engineers
increased from 400,000 to 2,122,000. By 2001, scientists and engineers
accounted for more than 23% of the professional labor force."

My apologies for confusing what is already a difficult problem.

Ludwig,
Thanks for that link.  It really hits the mark.
Good luck with your project.
Myoarin

Thank you for your generous compliment and rating, Ludl-ga. 

I am terribly sorry I couldn't quite nail down the sources in that
report, and I greatly appreciate the fact that you recognized that I
honestly did the best I could.