1198 



this way at least to fix some measure of cost to the sending nation, 

 however imprecise.^^^ 



Estimated Costs of Emigrant Scientists and PJngineers. — The House 

 Government Operations Subcommittee for Research and Technical 

 Programs, the United Nations, the Pan American Health Organiza- 

 tion, and others have tried to estimate the costs of emigration of 

 scientists and engineers from the LDCs to the United States and 

 other advanced countries of the AVest. (Estimates have been based 

 on the narrow consideration of limited educational costs; not taken 

 into account are the investments of people and capital in the LDCs 

 from outside private and public sources.) 



Taking Dr. Kidd's figure of $20,000 as a minimum cost per person 

 in education and training in the LDCs, the House Government Oper- 

 ations Committee study calculated that the 4.390 scientists, engineers, 

 and physicians emigrating from the LDCs in fiscal year 196(5 repre- 

 sented a "contiibution" of some $88 million to the United States.*^" 

 Applying the same figure of $20,000 to the 1967 scientific immigration 

 to the United States of 7,913 persons, the Committee's report stated, 

 results in an investment loss of 1 year of more than $150 million by 

 the LDCs."^ 



Estimates by the United Nations indicate a substantial financial 

 loss in educational investment to the LDCs through brain drain to the 

 West. According to a report of the Secretary General, dated 1968, the 

 cost to the LDCs of educating professionals who emigrated to the 

 United States from the LDCs since World War II (using the base 

 figure of $20,000 per person) would be on the order of slightly over 



«" James A. Wilson cites the following economic cost to the British In their brain drain 

 of scientists to North An)erica : "There is the loss of the actual products of the research of 

 the lost scientists ; and with these, the profits that could have been gained to the British 

 economj'. The worst has already happened — not once but many times : British institutions 

 have had to pav licensing fees and such upon patented techniques produced by British scien- 

 tists abroad." (The Value Pattern of Productive Scientists, as Reflected in the Contemporary 

 "Brain Drain" from Britain to North America, op. cit., p. 6.) The British experience could 

 be very well duplicated among the LDCs. 



For an elaborate economic analysis of the costs of nonreturning foreign students, see, 

 Herbert (1. Grubel. "Nonreturning Foreign Students and the Cost of Student Exchange," 

 International Educational and Cultural Exchange. U.S. Advisory Commission on Interna- 

 tional Educational and Cultural Affairs (Spring 1966), pp. 20-23. Grubel argues from the 

 internationalist perspective, minimizes the costs of student nonreturn and concludes : "The 

 analysis and computation in this paper lead to the following conclusions. . . . Since it is 

 difficult to establish a valid argument about reductions in the welfare of people In the coun- 

 try from which a person emigrates, there exists a strong presumption that the nonreturn of 

 foreign students increases, overall world welfare. . . ." (p. 29.) 



Professor John C. Shearer of Pennsvlvania State University takes Issue with Grubel in 

 his article, "In Defense of Traditional Views of the 'Brain Drain' Problem," International 

 Educational and Cultural Exchange, U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educa- 

 tional and Cultural Affairs (Fall 1966), pp. 17-25. Shearer makes a point-by-point refuta- 

 tion of Grubel's article, the main thrust of which Is to underscore the high social and 

 economic costs to the sending countries. 



Dr. Thomas F. Jones. President of the University of South Carolina, argued In favor of 

 foreign students remaining in the United States and at one point in his argument addressed 

 himself to the matter of costs of Investment in human resources. He believed that It was 

 reasonable to hold the view that the resource belongs to each country In proportion to the 

 part developed in the respective country. Thus, he argued, the United States "can claim 

 major interest in a person who obtains a B.S. :n a developing country (.SISO.OOO human 

 resource) and spends 4 vears getting a doctorate in the United States ($.SRO,OnO total human 

 resource, or an increase of $200,000). This argument is further enhanced by the fact that 

 engineering graduate students, including those from abroad, are almost always supported 

 bv the host institution through teaching or research grant funds — domestic funds." (Thomas 

 F. Jones. "Should the Foreign Engineering Student Return to His Native Land to Practice 

 His Profession?" In. Selected Readings on International Education, House Committee on 

 Education and Labor. 1966, p. .S65.) (jritics of this noint of view might point out that both 

 the individual and the institution are beneficiaries of teaching and research grants. 



<»» Staff study. House Government Operations Committee, Brain Drain into the United 

 States of Scientists, Engineers and Phvsicians, 1967, p. 7. 



<»i Report House Government Operations Committee, Scientific Brain Drain from the 

 LDCs, 1968, p. 5. 



