1165 



manage coronary disease, which is not yet a major medical concern 

 in the LDCs.^^^ 



In short, FMGs coming to the United States entor a system that is 

 not suited to the needs of their countries. The system itself creates mis- 

 match conditions and accordingly contributes to "permanent draw." 

 But the situation is further exacerbated by the tendency of FMGs in 

 residency positions to enter specialized fields of anesthesiology, pa- 

 thology, physical medicine, radiology, and psychiatry — all of which 

 have limited appeal to American medical graduates. Data drawn from 

 the AMA's study on FMGs for 1970 gives the following figures and 

 percentages of FMGs (excluding Canadians) in these specialities as 

 of December 31, 1970: anesthesiology, 3,304 (or 30.4 percent of the 

 total physicians in this category) ; radiology, 1,952 (14.6 percent) ; 

 pathology, 3,132 (30.5 percent) ; physical medicine, 501 (33.9 per- 

 cent) ; and psychiatry, 5,025 (23.8 percent). ^^* Apparently with these 

 statistics in mind. Stevens and Vermeulen concluded : "Indeed, the pos- 

 sibility exists that at the conclusion of their experience many foreign 

 physicians will no longer, either professionally or culturally, be able to 

 fit into their own countries." ^" But the FMGs have what statistics 

 indicate to be an irresistible option, namely, immigration. 



Donor Indifference. — The final factor creating a "permanent draw" 

 attitude in the cultural-intellectual sphere is donor indifference to stu- 

 dent returnees. With few exceptions developing countries lack ade- 

 quate arrangements for informing their overseas students about em- 

 ployment opportunities, development needs, programs, and trends at 

 home. Such official indifference can breed alienation. Often an unde- 

 sirable gap exists between the government-sponsored student returnee 

 who may be automatically placed upon return and the private student, 

 who may be potentially a very valuable asset, but who is likely to be 

 met with indifference when it comes to employment possibilities. Re- 

 turnees often may be led to believe that their countries devalue their 

 training as an asset to be used in development. Underemployment often 

 results. Such discouraging experiences of official indifferences can ef- 

 fect other students abroad. As the U.N. study on brain drain said, 

 ''When these returnees then re-emigrate permanently to the country of 

 training, their personal tales of discouraging employment experience 

 may have an effect on the return plans of fellow nationals studying 

 abroad." ^^® 



Official indifference of donor nations can also be demonstrated by 

 restrictions placed on career choices of returnee students by outright 

 discriminatory regulations. A case in point is that of Malaysia. In 1966, 

 the Malaysian Government ruled that only doctors who graduated 

 from American medical schools in universities that were members 

 of the Association of American Universities would be allowed to stand 

 for civil service examinations for the Public Health Service of Malay- 

 sia. This rule meant that graduates from Jolms Hopkins, for example, 

 would be accepted, but those from 41 other medical schools in the 

 United States could not practice in Malaysia.^" Such manifested in- 

 difference to career possibilities by governments would presumably be 



3^ Nader, Science and Technology in Developing Countries^ p. 456, 



^* Stevens and Vermeulen, op. cit.. p. 153. 



3^ Ibid., p. xvl. 



»^ Report of U.N. Secretary General, Outflow of Trained Personnel from LDCs, Nov. 5, 

 1968, p. 38. 



'^ Department of State. Proceedings of Workshop on the International Migration of 

 Talent and Skills, October 1966, p. 88. 



