It looked like for a while in the 1980's that Japan was going to take over the world. Somehow, they seemed to have hit some kind of ceiling. From what I have read and heard, most people are blaming it on the Japanize government's monetary or fiscal policies. Without having that kind of education, I can't really understand those arguments.
In my humble opinion (I have lot to be humble about), the Japanese do not have the modern day language structure and the advanced educational system, that could take Japan into the lead. They could catch up (because they are very smart and are willing to work very hard), but they can not take the lead.
1.) I would argue that in the last 10 years Japanese R&D and education are on a pace to be of the same caliber of the US(although a smaller market) within 5 years. In the area of chemistry and pharmaceutical the competition is already fierce. Some of the brightest minds in chemistry are in Japan right now.
2.) The smaller market and ceiling you refer to has part to do with scarcity of resources and labor pool IMO. Eg it's hard to brain drain english speakers. With that said, one of the things that is important to take into account from both sides of this discussion is the simple fact that once you are in the lead, it's WAY harder to stay in the lead. The closer you get to leading the way, the easier it is to fall off the mountain a little too.
3.) I think one of the points that Jay makes that is important to consider is the dichotomy between manufacturing and innovation. A round of innovation in the US would afford us another growth spurt that would again put us in the lead. But, the juggernaut that is Asian economic development has all the tools and resources at their disposal to overtake, should the proper selection pressure evolve. I happen to think it will. Chinese are much more about keeping up with the Jone's than America has been in the last 20 years.
4.) On the subject of outsourcing innovation: I don't have references that are free off the top of my head. I can PM you the whole articles if you want them. I don't consider this work to be the most innovative, but I do feel as though it is innovative in that it is developmental in providing the capital for future innovative growth. Bear in mind that these folks have none of the EPA and labor considerations we have here to slow them down. Labor costs are about 1/10th, that means I could hire 10 guys and sit around and point all day. I tend to think I could be more productive in this environment than with one guy who really knew what he was doing. Especially when part of discovery research is a simple numbers game.
pubs.acs.org
Merck Embraces Offshore Outsourcing
MICHAEL MCCOY
In the world of chemistry research outsourcing, everyone seems to know Steven M. Hutchins. Hutchins is director of outsourcing at Merck & Co. and is regarded as a savvy arranger of research help for Merck's medicinal chemists.
In May, Hutchins struck a multiyear agreement with WuXi PharmaTech that helped put the young Chinese firm on the map.
pubs.acs.org
THE FUTURE OF JOBS?
Entrepreneurship could be a key to the growth of the U.S. chemical industry at home
BY ALEXANDER H. TULLO
In Asia, the driver has been the exponential expansion of industry in China, which is attracting chemical makers that want to be closer to their future markets.
This shift is not only hitting manufacturing workers; many C&EN readers are also facing cheaper labor competition overseas. Raymond W. LeBoeuf, CEO of PPG Industries, told the Pittsburgh Technology Council last month that PPG would outsource more of its research outside the U.S. to cut costs. “The former Soviet Union is filled with world-class scientists who are happy to work for $300 a month,” he said. “The same conditions exist in China and India, and we’re actively recruiting these talented individuals in the pursuit of new products.”
Former General Electric CEO Jack F. Welch has coined the 70:70:70 rule, according to the Indian publication Business World. The rule calls for outsourcing 70% of GE’s workload, 70% of which would be offshore, and 70% of that offshore work would be done in India.
With its new John F. Welch Technology Centre in Bangalore, India, GE Plastics has been able to double its worldwide research staff to 400 while only increasing its total budget by 40%. GE says India is teeming with qualified scientists, many of them trained in the developed world.
pubs.acs.org
BUSINESS
ASIA-PACIFIC
October 22, 2001
Volume 79, Number 43
CENEAR 79 43 p. 27
ISSN 0009-2347
[Previous Story] [Next Story]
CHEMICAL FIRMS SIGN ON FOR SHANGHAI SITE
Multinational producers set plans for large-scale projects, including petrochemicals and fine chemicals
PATRICIA SHORT
For Ruan Yan Hua, president of Shanghai Chemical Industry Park (SCIP), the fields are open and the vision is clear: to build one of the world's largest chemical complexes at Caojing. The industry park is a vast greenfield site on the southernmost edge of China's largest city, on the north coast of Hangzhou Bay about 8 miles north of a China Petroleum & Chemical Corp. (Sinopec) refinery.
December 1, 2003
Volume 81, Number 48
CENEAR 81 48 pp. 15-23
ISSN 0009-2347
pubs.acs.org
TAPPING FOREIGN BRAINS FOR PROFIT
Globalization allows drug firms to stretch their R&D budgets, possibly at expense of U.S. chemists
MICHAEL MCCOY, C&EN NORTHEAST NEWS BUREAU
JEAN-FRANÇOIS TREMBLAY, C&EN HONG KONG
In April, Discovery Partners International (DPI) announced that it would close a chemistry laboratory in Tucson, Ariz., and set up a new, lower cost facility in a developing country, later revealed to be India. The Tucson facility employed more than 40 scientists plus other support staff. Only about half of them ended up with jobs in DPI's other U.S. labs in South San Francisco and San Diego.
Voodoo |
