1195 



servicps — but the social needs of the country as a whole for such serv- 

 ices, described by the CI^SIT study as "overwhelming," are clearly not 

 satisfied. From this perspective of need the flight of' M.D.'s from the 

 LDCs to the advanced countries may be seen more as brain drain than 

 overflow.*^^ 



Loss of Students Through Nonreturn. — Depletion of reserve profes- 

 sional manpower resources in the LDCs can result from loss of students 

 studying in the United States and other advanced countries. Data on 

 tliis aspect of brain drain are discussed above in chapter II. Briefly, 

 the United States educates approximately one-fourth of tlie foreign 

 students who study abroad.'*^* Estimates of student nonreturn vary. 

 Officially, the U.S. Government has cited 8.8. percent.^ '^ A United 

 Nations study on brain drain states that in 1967 tlie overall rate of 

 student nonreturnees from both developed and developing countries 

 from the United States was bet\veen 15 and 25 .percent. The 

 percentage for Asians students, which constitutes approximately one- 

 third of all foreign students in the United States, was 30 percent.*^*' 



Estimates for specific countries have been higher. Of the 7,913 sci- 

 entists, engineers, and physicians immigrating into the United States 

 from tlie LDCs in 1967, 3,772, or 48 percent, had originally entered 

 the country as students with declared intentions of obtaining education 

 or training and then returning home. The high overall 48 percent 

 average ratio of student to total scientific immigration conceals even 

 higher ratios for individual countries, namel}', 89 percent for Taiwan ; 

 80 percent for Korea ; 78 percent for India ; and 71 percent for Iran.^^^ 

 Among nonreturnees it was further estimated that *' an alarmino; 51 

 I^ercent" of foreign recipients of Ph. D.'s planned to remain in the 

 United States and "an even more alarming 60 percent" intended to take 

 jobs in this country.*'^ 



Whatever the variables in numbers and percentages and however 

 valid the purposes of international educational exchange, the fact 

 remains that a high percentage of foreign students, notably from the 

 LDCs, remain in the United States, and, thus deprive their countries 

 of important manpower resources, real or potential.*'^ This depriva- 

 tion is felt most keenly when countries have schemes of planned devel- 

 opment and the flow of manpower has to be orchestrated according to 

 I)rearranged plans."*^" 



«" CIMT study, p. 698. The LDCs also pay a hlph cost in the loss of tralnpd nurses 

 and mldwlves who play an important role in health care. It is estimated tliat between 

 25-40 percent of all 256,000 nur.^es worlvinK In the Britisli National Health Service were 

 born outside the Britisli Isles, almost 75 percent in developing Commonwealth countries. 

 About 43 percent of the midwives practicing in England and Wales were born outside 

 the \].K. (For details on nurses and mldwlves from the LDCs see Henderson, op. cit., 

 pp. 5S-60.) 



474 Testimony of Reverend Gibbons, In, Hearings, House, Government Operations Com- 

 mittee. Brain Drain, 1968, p. 11. 



*'^ Hearings, Senate Judiciary Committee, International Migration of Talent and Skills, 

 1968, pp. 91-92. 



*'« Report of U.N. Secretary General, Outflow of Trained Personnel from LDCs, Nov. 5, 

 1968, p. 32.58. 



*" Report, House Government Operations Committee, Scientific Brain Drain from the 

 LDCs, 1968, p. 7. 



*"Ibid., p. 8. 



*~^ Professor Patinkin explained this point : "It Is frequently Impossible to detect the 

 outstanding scholars at a young age. Hence the loss involved in the flow of young Ph. D.'s 

 abroad is greater than usually considered : for it decreases the probability that the country 

 in question will really have the pick of its people." (Patinkin. op. cit.," p. 103.) 



*^ Professor Gardiner discusses various aspects of this matter as it applies to Africa. 

 (Gardiner, op. cit., p. 196.) 



