*Pages 1--73 from  Untitled*
REPORT OF THE 
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

TASK FORCE ON PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 

October, 1990 
1

NATIONAL SCIENCE FODNDATION 
TASK FORCE ON PERSONS WITH DISAJ3ILITIES 

Chair Foundation Staff Members 
Jeff Fenstermacher Assistant Director 
for Administration Room 525 
(202/ 357-9482) 
Executive Secretary 

MEMBERSHIP 

Brenda Brush Director 
Office of Equal Opportunity Room 546 
(202/ 357-5012) 
Outside Exoert Members 
Dr. Kimiko 0. Bowman Oak Ridge National Laboratory 
Building 9207A P. O. Box 2009 
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8083 (615/ 574-3126) 

Dr. Edward C. Keller, Jr. Department of Biology 
West Virginia University Morgantown, WV 26506 
(304/ 293-5201) 

Richard Green Director 
Research Facilities Office Office of the Director 
Room 436 (202/ 357-9785) 

Gerard Glaser Executive Officer 
Directorate for Scientific, Technological, and 
International Affairs 
Linda Parker Program Analyst 
Office of Budget and Control Room 425 
(202/ 357-9531) 

Virginia Stern Director 
Project on Science, Technology, and Disability American Association for the Advancement of Science 
1333 H Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20005 
(202/ 326-6672) 
Dr. Anne B. Swanson Associate Academic Dean 
College of St. Catherine St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 
(612/ 690-6501) 
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Members of the Task Force 
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii 
Introduction and Background................................. 
Part I Findings and Recommendations 
A. Operational Changes within the Foundation......... 
1. Authorization of NSF to Design Programs Specifically for Persons with Disabilities... 

2. Creation of an Office/ Program with Primary Responsibility for Matters Dealing with 
Disability Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
3. Modifications of Certain NSF Internal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Orient NSF Staff to the Special Needs of Persons with Disabilities............... 
Centralizing Facilitation Awards for the Handicapped (FAH)................... 
Increase Representation of Persons with Disabilities among Staff, Advisory 
Committee Members, and Ad Hoc Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Revision of NSF Forms 1225 and 98A...... 
Other NSF Changes....................... 
B. New Programs: 
Research Opportunities for Students with Dis-abilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Research Initiation for Faculty with Disabilities................................. 
Visiting Professorships for Faculty with Dis-abilities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
National Awards for Outstanding Scientists, Engineers, and Science Educators with 
Disabilities................................. 

i 

vi 
1 
1 

1 
2 
2 
3 

5 
7 
7 

8 
3

C. 
Part II 
A. 

B. 

New Initiatives: 
Graduate Fellowships for Students with Dis-abilities....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Solicitations for Proposals in Attitude and Opportunity Issues........................... 
Solicitations for Proposals *in Curriculum Development and Teacher Training Activities.. 
NSF Minority Programs -Outreach to Minorities with Disabilities................. 
NSF Programs for Women-Outreach to Women with Disabilities................................. 
Clearinghouse for Information and Materials Concerning Disabled Persons and Science, 
Science Education, and Engineering........... 

Data on Persons with Disabilities 
A Summary of Federal Data on Persons with Disabilities...................................... 

Data on Persons with Disabilities and Foundation Programs and Activities........................... 

9 
10 
11 
13 
14 

15 

17 
25 
APPENDICES 
A. Issues Beyond NSF's Reach Concerning Individuals with Disabilities and Science, Engineering, and 
Science Education................................. A-l 
B. Examples of Activities that Can Impact on the Problems Addressed by this Task Force............. B-l 

C. Statistical Support for Data on Persons with Dis-abilities......................................... C-l 

ii 
4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
An ongoing concern of the Task Force on Persons with Disabilities was the question l'who are we talking about and how many persons 
with disabilities are there?" With other underrepresented groups such questions are easily answered and there are plenty of data; 
but this is not true for disabled individuals. One figure provides a context within which this final report should be read: 
of the approximately 5,000, OOO scientists and engineers in the U. S., at least 100,000 have disabilities. 

The Division of Science Resources Studies reviewed Federal data and the definitions of "disabilitytl used in obtaining that data. 
Based thereon, SRS provided rough estimates of several popula-tions relevant to the issue of moving more persons with dis-abilities 
into the pipeline and into careers in science, engineering, and science education. Those estimates are: 

* U. S. Adult Population: 15 to 17 percent: 
* Experienced Science and Engineering Population: 2 to 
16 percent: 

* College-aged Population: 4 to 11 percent; and 

* Youth Population: 3 percent (0 -17 years of age) to 9 
percent (6 -17 years of age) 

Findings of the Task Force are consistent with statements made over the years by members of CEOSE, by staff at the AAAS Office 
of Education and Human Resources Programs, by the Interagency Task Force on Women, Minorities and the Handicapped in Science 
and Technology, and by other members of the community of persons with disabilities. 

The most obvious finding is that persons with disabilities are subject to double jeopardy--they face negative attitudes not 
unlike those faced by minorities and women plus barriers of accessibility, of communication, and, for some, of dealing with 
extended time required to do things, from obtaining a Ph. D. to accomplishing the tasks of everyday living. Those persons with 
disabilities who are also women and/ or minorities face even more obstacles to obtaining a quality education and pursuing a career 
in their chosen field of science, science education, or engineer-ing. 

The major pipeline issues that surfaced were: 
* The negative attitudes about the ability of a student with a disability to do science, mathematics, engineer-ing, 

or science education of parents and other gatekeepers (teachers, counselors, rehabilitation 
staff, special education teachers, health personnel, and academic faculty). 

. . . III 
5

* The virtual invisibility of role models in science, 
science education, and engineering for children with disabilities; one witness before the Task Force said he 

had worked with deaf children who thought deaf people were short-lived because they had never met a deaf 
adult. 
* Students and faculty with disabilities may appear less 
qualified than their non-disabled peers because they may have a shorter record of traditional educational 

and/ or professional activities than people their same age. They may have taken longer to complete their pre-college 
education (due to such things as down time while under intense medical care, having to master 
languages others need not master, e. g., braille); they may not have received the same numbers of honors 
because of the negative stereotypes mentioned above (and for other reasons); and they may have devoted 
considerable time and energy developing skills to counteract the system's negative attitudes and to 
accommodate to inaccessible environments. 
* Some persons with disabilities may believe they will 
not fare well in any sort of competition with their non-disabled counterparts (because they have internal-ized 

negative stereotypes or because they believe they will be viewed through negative stereotypes). 

* Scientists, science educators, and engineers with disabilities must deal with the additional and ongoing 
costs associated with their disabilities: special telephones, door bells, and alarms for deaf people: 
manageable living quarters, cars, and other facets of everyday living for persons with mobility impairments; 
alternate (and more expensive) transportation, such as taxis because buses are not accessible; or personal 
assistants, readers, signers, note takers, or other human assistance, are all additional costs incurred by 
individuals with disabilities. 
* Although there is much technology that can help people 
with disabilities to live, learn, and work indepen-dently, information about that technology is not widely 

available. In particular, there is very little awareness of the technology that exists to help 
teachers to teach science to students with disabiliti-es. 

A revitalized effort must be made by the Foundation on many fronts in bringing disabled persons into science, engineering, 
and science education careers. NSF must: 

iv 
6

* make public its commitment to working in this area and 
use its considerable influence on the academic community to join NSF in its efforts to tap this 

reservoir of talent (for example, through the issuance of an Important Notice from the Director of the 
National Science Foundation to college presidents); 
* establish specific new initiatives, centrally managed 
by knowledgeable staff, to provide opportunities to students and faculty with disabilities; 

* modify existing NSF programs to provide expanded 
opportunities to students and faculty with disabiliti-es; 

* solicit much-needed research to identify ways to 
overcome some of the barriers, e. g., those of attitude; 

* finally, put its own house in order in a number of 
areas, including increasing representation of persons with disabilities on its staff and advisory committees, 

holding barrier-free meetings, captioning (closed or open) of video materials that are produced with NSF 
funding, and in other ways. 

V 
\ 
7

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 
Recognizing that persons with disabilities are probably seriously underrepresented in science, engineering, and science education 
careers, and therefore constitute an important resource for a nation facing a shortage of scientists and engineers, in early 
1990 the Director of the National Science Foundation established the Task Force on Persons with Disabilities. He charged the Task 
Force with: 
* examining existing data concerning persons with 
disabilities, and about scientists, engineers, and science educators, 

* isolating factors contributing to the low numbers of 
persons with disabilities in those careers, 

* reviewing Foundation activities and programs as they 
relate to persons with disabilities, and 

* recommending, as appropriate, additions to and/ or 
modifications of Foundation programs/ policies that address these factors. 

Who is Disabled? How Manv People with Disabilities are There in the NSF Community (pipeline and scientists and engineers)? 
The first concern of the Task Force had to be l'who are we talking about and how many persons with disabilities are there?" With 
other underrepresented groups such questions are easily answered and there are plenty of data; but this is not true for disabled 
individuals. At what point, for example, along the continuum of vision loss, is the line drawn where the loss constitutes a 
disability? Does the loss of two fingers constitute a dis-ability--for many the answer would be llnolV but for a concert 
pianist, it would be "yes . II The experts in this field--US Census, the community of persons with disabilities, and others--
have not agreed on one definition; there are as many definitions as there are surveys and data sets. 

Even if we could agree upon a definition of ltdisability, 'V there remains the problem of deciding who determines if a particular 
individual fits that definition. Reasonable people may disagree whether a given individual fits the definition, and the in-dividual 
has his/ her own answer to the question. Whose answer is the Itright" answer? 

The Task Force could have spent a considerable time on these issues alone but this did not seem appropriate, given the charge 
made to the Task Force. Assistance was sought from the Division of Science Resources Studies. Their review of Federal data found 
the following range in estimates for persons with disabilities in selected population segments: 

vi 
8

* U. S. Adult Population (25 -64 years old): 
15 to 17 percent 
* College-aged Population (18 -24 years old): 

4 to 11 percent 
* Youth Population (0 -17 years old): 

3 to 9 percent 
* Experienced Science and Engineering Population: 

2 to 16 percent1 
As the population becomes older, the percent of members of that population with a disability becomes higher. 

What about Persons with Disabilities that are not Motor, Orthooedic, or Sensory? 
Assuming resolutions of these technical problems, there remained some policy issues in the definition of the group. The most 
troublesome is whether the Foundation should concern itself only with persons with motor, orthopedic, and/ or sensory disabilities 
or should also deal with issues relating to other disabilities as well, including, for example, persons with emotional problems, 
persons with learning disabilities, and persons with various developmental disabilities. The Task Force members were fully 
aware, for example, of a number of well-known scientists who have dyslexia or other learning disabilities whose work is recognized 
as creative and important. 
There is no question whether persons with such other disabilities are encompassed within the Foundation's commitment to preventing 
discrimination based on disability in its own employment practices and in those of grant recipients (as required by 
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act). Nor is there any question that programs and activities of NSF must be accessible 
to persons with disabilities other than motor, orthopedic, or sensory disabilities. The question here is whether the Founda-tion 
should try to design programs that would effectively and 

1These two percentages are derived from two surveys of the same population; however, the surveys used different questions in 
asking about disability. The difference in percentage is primarily due to the different questions asked, rather than a 
change in the disability status of the population. See Part II, pages 18 and 19. 

vii 
9

predictably increase the number of persons with such disabilities in science and engineering careers. The Task Force, after 
considerable thought, decided that at this time the issues are perhaps too complex, too unclear, or that the payoff would be 
too small to warrant extensive efforts in these directions. Therefore, the Task Force recommends that the Foundation 
initially concentrate its efforts in the area of persons with motor, orthopedic, and/ or sensory disabilities, while at the same 
time vigorously enforcing Section 504 in its own programs and activities. 

What are the Similarities and Differences between Persons with Disabilities and other Groups Underrenresented in Science and 
Enqineerinq? 
Persons with disabilities are subject to double jeopardy--they face negative attitudes not unlike those faced by minorities and 
women plus barriers of accessibility, of communication, and, for some, of dealing with extended time required to do things, from 
obtaining a Ph. D. to accomplishing the tasks of everyday living. 
The Interagency Task Force on Women, Minorities, and the Handicapped in Science and Technology found that 
attitudes negative are the single most significant barrier faced by students with disabilities at all levels of education and by 
others beyond their education in careers in science, engineering, and science education. Testimony before this Task Force has 
reinforced that finding over and over again. This is not very different from the major barrier for women and minorities. 
However, persons with disabilities have additional barriers to overcome: they may not be able to work at the laboratory bench; 
they may not be able to see the text; or they may not be able to hear the lecturer or the lab assistant. 

Gatekeepers play a highly significant role in the lives of persons with disabilities, particularly those with an early age 
of onset of their disability. Gatekeepers are individuals in positions to either open up a whole range of opportunities for 
students or close off whole ranges of opportunity. For minorit-ies and women pre-college gatekeepers are mostly counselors and 
teachers. Students with disabilities have additional gatekeepe-rs--special education teachers and, most importantly, vocational 
rehabilitation counselors. The latter can authorize payment of a student's college expenses if he/ she agrees that the student can 
and should pursue their career of choice. If the counselor does not think the student is capable (" science is too hard for 
someone like youV1), he/ she can discourage the student and/ or refuse to provide funding for college education. 

For all three groups--persons with disabilities, minorities, and women--parents also play a key role in their children's attitudes 
toward themselves and their own abilities. of children with disabilities, Parents, particularly may try to protect their children 
from failure and discourage them from taking on "hard" studies, 
. . . VIII 
10

such as mathematics or science. 
Finally, a significant difference between minorities and women on the one hand and persons with disabilities on the other is the 
dynamic nature of the population of persons with disabilities: as the chapter on data shows, the older the population, the 
higher the percentage of its members who have a disability. People enter (and in the case of temporary disabilities, leave) 
this population in a way that does not happen to the populations of minority groups and of women. 

What Should the Foundation's Commitment Be to Address Issues Related to Disability? 
A revitalized effort of significant proportions must be made by the Foundation on many fronts in bringing disabled persons into 
science, engineering, and science education careers. NSF must: make public its commitment to working in this area and use its 
considerable influence on the academic community to join NSF in its efforts to tap this reservoir of talent (for example, through 
the issuance of an Important Notice from the Director to college presidents): establish specific new initiatives, centrally 
managed by knowledgeable staff, to provide opportunities to students and faculty with disabilities; modify existing NSF 
programs to provide expanded opportunities to students and faculty with disabilities; solicit much-needed research to 
identify ways to overcome some of the barriers, e. g., those of attitude; finally, put its own house in order in a number of 
areas, including increasing representation of persons with disabilities on its staff and advisory committees, holding 
barrier-free meetings, captioning (closed or open) its video materials, and in other ways. 

What should NSF do about Persons with Serious Disabilities who do not Self-identify as havinq a Disability? 
As with other groups viewed as "different, 1V some persons with disabilities lack confidence in the system and/ or in themselves 
and will not apply for any program that fails to signal, in some way, that their applications will be welcome. Others, whom most 
would consider to be disabled, choose not to consider themselves so and would not apply for any program designed to help persons 
with disabilities. Clearly the second group neither requests nor accepts assistance of this nature and is not the primary concern 
of this Task Force. 
******* 

The Task Force first examined current levels of support by the Foundation of activities relevant to the concerns of the Task 
Force. It found that during FY 1989, at least $7,000,000 was awarded to proposals in which PI's or at least one co-PI self-identified 
as having a disability. An additional $8,000,000 supported a variety of relevant educational activities and 

ix 
11

topical research and funded various types of accommodations for scientists or engineers with disabilities to do research. This 
support is important and must be continued. In addition, however, it is the conviction of the Task Force members that 
other efforts must be put forth, new programs advanced, and many ongoing NSF programs enhanced if the Foundation is to influence 
the educational and scientific and engineering worlds to make some fundamental changes in the opportunities available to 
students, scientists, science educators, and engineers with disabilities. 

The Task Force identified a number of areas in which it made findings and major recommendations. They are listed in succeed-ing 
sections of this report; within each section the recommenda-tions are listed in order of significance of impact on barriers 
to persons with disabilities entering and advancing in science, science education, and engineering careers. In Appendix A are 
listed global concerns about disabled individuals and science, engineering, and science education which are beyond NSF's 
ability, by itself, to affect. In Appendix B are examples of activities that can impact on the problems addressed by this 
Task Force. In Appendix C are detailed charts, figures, and tables that support the narrative summarizing Federal data on 
persons with disabilities. 
Hearing impaired individuals wishing more information about the Task Force should call: TDD (202) 357-9867 
12

PART I 
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
13

PART I 
FINDINGS AND RECOMIQ3NDATIONS 

A. OPERATIONAL CHANGES WITHIN THE FOUNDATION 
1. AUTHORIZATION OF NSF TO DESIGN PROGRAMS SPECIFICALLY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 

FINDING 
The National Science Foundation is becoming increasingly aware of the need to bring persons with disabilities to the forefront of 
the nation's efforts to expand its supply of scientists and engineers. Although it was clear at the time of the passage of 
the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act, that persons with disabilities were included in the language of the act "other 
groups currently underrepresented in scientific, engineering, and professional fields," people with disabilities were not specifi-cally 
named, as were women and minorities. 
RFCOMMJ2NDATION 
The Foundation should ask Congress to add persons with disabilities to minorities and women as another group that 
is underrepresented in the science and engineering profes-sions whose increased participation in such careers shall be 
encouraged by Foundation programs and activities. 

a; CREATION OF AN OFFICE/ PROGRAM WITH PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR MATTERS 
DEALING WITH DISABILITIES ISSUES 
FINDING 

The National Science Foundation will place increasing emphasis on disability issues in the years to come. Until now, the efforts 
that have been made at NSF have been dispersed among individual program officers in the various directorates with a special 
knowledge of and/ or interest in the issue. Beyond those individuals, there are very few staff who are sufficiently 
knowledgeable about the population and the issues to design appropriate programs or initiatives. 

RECOMMENDATION 
An office/ program should be established that would: 
14

* provide central management of programs for persons 
with disabilities described in this report until such time as those programs can be mainstreamed 

into W'regular8V NSF programs: 
* serve as a source of assistance and oversight/ gui-dance 
to others in the Foundation involved in disability issues, particularly in the areas of 

the technologies available to help persons with disabilities and of the most effective methods of 
outreach to, and recruitment of, persons with disabilities: and 

* through its very existence help to serve notice on 
the scientific, communities science education, and engineering that the Foundation takes 

seriously its role in this area. very 

3. MODIFICATIONS OF CERTAIN NSF INTERNAL OPERATIONS 
ORIENT NSF STAFF TO THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 
FINDING 
Program officers at the Foundation have been inundated over the past several years with changing requirements for 
initially, targeted programs: for some programs they were asked to review proposals, fund awards made, 
itself. but not make the funding decision In others, although the program officers made the award decisions, they had to spend a given amount of money for those 
programs for women or for minorities. At a time when the Foundation is receiving far more very good proposals to do 
research than it can fund, there is a natural tendency to want to use the targeted funds for the underfunded 18regularll research 
programs. 
Now program officers may be faced with more targeted programs 
and/ or set asides having to do with a whole @'newIt category of persons, those with disabilities. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 
To ensure a high level of understanding on the part of NSF program staff concerning 
disabilities, the population of persons with of the reasons that the population requires special targeting, and of the kinds of strategies that can 
and should be used to assist them in entering and advancing in careers in science, science education, and engineering, 
NSF should: 
2 
15

* Distribute the final report of the Task Force to all 
NSF program staff. Ensure discussion of the report and of its possible impact on each program in each 

division. 
* Incorporate training by knowledgeable individuals about 
Federal and NSF responsibilities concerning persons with disabilities into the program managers' training 

program and other appropriate training situations. 

CENTRALIZING FACILITATION AWARDS FOR TI-IE HANDICAPPED (FAH) 
FINDING 

It is not possible to predict where, when, or for how much FAH requests will be made: virtually all Foundation programs are 
eligible and costs vary a great deal, depending upon the nature of the individual accommodation required. Therefore, the costs 
cannot be budgeted and must come out of the program officer's program funds. An unknown number of accommodations have not 
been funded for lack of funds within the individual programs. 
RECOMMENDATION 
A specific amount of money should be available at a central location within NSF to reimburse program officers who have 
used program funds to provide an accommodation needed by a funded student or faculty member with a disability. The 
accommodation might be extra travel funds, money to pay an interpreter, money to buy an assistive device, or other 
reasonable accommodation necessary to the performance of the individual with a disability under an NSF grant. 

(To reflect the terminology preferred by the disabled community, the program should be renamed "Disability 
Accommodation Award" or some similar name that does not refer to "the handicapped." However, since the reader knows 
the meaning of 'IFAH," that acronym will be used throughout this report.) 

INCREASE REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AMONG STAFF, ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS, AND AD HOC REVIEWERS 
FINDING 
One of the stated reasons for having outside expert members on this Task Force, even though there were none in its two predeces-sor 
task forces on minorities and women, was that so few NSF staff understood the problems facing persons with disabilities in 

3 
16

science, science education, and engineering. If NSF is to become more pro-active-in this area, it will have to raise the level of 
such understanding of its staff, of the various advisory committees, and of its ad hoc reviewers. 

RECOMKENDATION 
The Foundation must raise its level of sensitivity to and awareness of disability issues through more effective 
recruitment of persons with disabilities in all phases of Foundation activities. 

REVISION OF NSF FORMS 1225 AND 98A 
FINDING 
As has been discussed in several sections of this report, data on persons with disabilities are few and those that there are use a 
variety of definitions of lldisability. VW Questions concerning disability status on NSF forms 1225 and 98A appropriately use the 
definition of lldisability" used in the Rehabilitation Act and in the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, as Foundation 
programs/ initiatives/ services for persons with disabilities increase, more information about type of disability will be 
required, since accommodations vary a great deal, depending on the nature of the disability. 

RECOMMENDATION 
The Foundation ought to revise its forms to add the following to its question about disability: the form 
should collect information about whether the disability relates to hearing impairment, visual impairment, mobility/ -orthopedic 
impairment, or other. The Task Force also recommends that this change be made as soon as possible, 
before other Federal agencies adopt NSF's forms. 

OTHER NSF CHANGES 
FINDING 
>From time to time, NSF has either held, or funded, conferences and meetings that were not accessible to persons with dis-abilities. 
Some of NSF's products (e. g., videos, announcements) and some products funded by NSF are not accessible to persons 
with a visual or hearing impairment. People in the various disability communities have been ill informed about NSF ac-tivities 
of interest to them, at least in part because the appropriate media have not been informed of those activities. 
Staff have not been able to provide helpful information to PI's 
4 
17

and others who ask about the technology that is available to assist persons with disabilities. 
RECOMMENDATION 
NSF should ensure that: 
* All meetings, conferences, and other NSF gather-ings 
are accessible to the disabled community in every sense of the word. 

* All meetings, conferences, and other gatherings 
funded in part or fully by NSF are accessible. 

* All NSF-funded videos, films, TV shows, and other 
visual media are captioned (closed or open) for the hearing impaired. 

* NSF press releases are available to media sources which target disabled populations. 
* NSF staff receives training in the availability of 
technology to assist persons with disabilities to gain access to science, science education, and 

engineering activities in a wide variety of ways. 
* Serious consideration is given to the question of 
whether or not certain basic Foundation documents (e. g., Grants for Research and Education in 

Science and Engineering, Guide to Programs, program announcements) should be produced in 
alternate formats (primarily tapes) or be available in such formats upon request. 

B. NEW PROGRAMS 
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 
FINDING 

Students with disabilities studying science, science education, or engineering are perceived as less qualified to be research 
assistants than others: 
Negative stereotypes about abilities of persons with disabilities will adversely affect assessments of such 
students. 

5 
18

Undergraduate and graduate students with disabilities may have accumulated less time employed in relevant work: at 
times when students without disabilities work (e. g., summers and during the school year) some students with disabilities 
cannot assume they will be available to work (surgery or other medical treatment may be required, getting through the 
day's activities may take longer, and other difficulties). 
Even if a student with a disability appears to be highly qualified, the research laboratory may not be accessible or it 
may not be reached by accessible public transportation. Such difficulties may discourage even the most motivated faculty 
member from selecting such a student to serve as a research assistant. 

Finally, there is the possibility that the researcher has an uneasy feeling, a level of discomfort, in dealing with a disabled 
student. This intangible factor can be what tips the scale in favor of another but non-disabled candidate. 

RECOMMF. NDATION 
A centralized account should be created to provide funds to recruit and support pre-college, undergraduate, and graduate 
students with disabilities to work on individual research funded by NSF. FAH funds should be available to provide 
accommodations--for example, travel supplements, inter-preters, or assistive devices--needed by the student to 
perform his/ her research and related activities. 
NSF centers are unique resources, because of their connec-tion with private industry, to provide disabled individuals 
work and study opportunities in science and engineering, particularly at the pre-college and undergraduate levels. 
Students with disabilities are likely to have less work experience than others and need exposure to the oppor-tunities 
in private industry. For such students, a successful work history can be of even greater importance by 
providing evidence to counter negative attitudes. 
NSF should initiate NSF research apprenticeships for students with disabilities at NSF centers. The centers 
would provide disabled students--at the pre-college and undergraduate levels--opportunities to work, study, and do 
research at the centers. To ensure the inclusion of minority students with disabilities in this program, the six 
Minority Research Centers of Excellence should be assisted in recruiting and hiring minority students with disabili-ties. 

NSF would provide funds to cover salaries and reasonable expenses of the students with disabilities. 
6 
19

NSF should obtain the services of disability experts who could help the centers identify and recruit candidates with 
disabilities. 

RESEARCH INITIATION FOR FACULTY WITH DISABILITIES 
FINDING 
Faculty with disabilities may appear less qualified than their non-disabled peers because they may have a shorter record of 
traditional educational and/ or professional activities than people their same age. Publications may be fewer and employment 
histories shorter because it can take a longer time to obtain degrees, to do research and write up and publish results, and to 
accomplish all the other steps along the way to becoming an upward-moving faculty member. Honors and awards may be fewer 
because of the above factors plus the negative attitudes about the abilities of persons with disabilities that are mentioned 
throughout this report. 
RECOMMENDATION 
A research initiation program, similar in all essential respects to the Research Initiation Awards programs in the 
Engineering and Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorates, should be established. As part of 
this program, funds must be available to pay for extra costs incurred which are disability-related and are required for 
the faculty member to conduct the research and perform related functions. 

VISITING PROFESSORSHIPS FOR FACULTY WITH DISABILITIES 
FINDING 
For the same reasons that scientists, science educators, and engineers with disabilities can benefit from research initiation 
awards early in their careers, experienced scientists, science educators, and engineers can benefit from opportunities to 
undertake advanced research and teaching as a visiting professor at another institution. In addition, the Task Force received 
recommendations from several of its witnesses that NSF devise ways to make scientists, science educators, and engineers with 
disabilities visible to students at all levels and to faculty: to be role models for the students and object-lessons for faculty 
who have their doubts about whether one who has a disability can be a scientist, science educator, or engineer. 

7 
20

RFaCOMMENDATION 
NSF should establish a program of visiting professorships for faculty with disabilities similar in all essential 
respects to Visiting Professorships for Women with research and outreach components. As part of this program, funds 
must be available to pay for extra costs incurred which are disability-related and are required for the faculty member 
to move to the host institution, conduct research there, perform outreach activities, and accomplish all related 
functions. 

NATIONAL AWARDS FOR OUTSTANDING SCIENTISTS, ENGINEERS, AND SCIENCE EDUCATORS WITH 
DISABILITIES 
FINDING 
Students with disabilities who are trying to envision themselves as adults working in an exciting career need to know that there 
are many talented and contributing scientists, engineers, and science educators who have disabilities. 

One of the most poignant statements to this effect was made by the last witness to appear before the Task Force who said that he 
has known a number of young children with disabilities who believe that they will die before they become an adult because 
they have never seen a disabled adult. 
Additionally, gatekeepers at the pre-college level, parents, college faculty and employers also need to know that having a 
disability does not prevent one from being a successful scien-tist, engineer or science educator. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 
NSF post-doctoral awards should be made annually to recognize outstanding young researchers with disabilities in 
any field of science, engineering, or science education supported by the NSF. These awards would provide funds for 
up to three years of post-doctoral studies at an institution of the awardeels choice. Candidates would be nominated by 
universities, colleges, or professional societies. A committee of distinguished scientists, engineers, science 
educators, and mathematicians, including representatives of the disabled community, would review the nominations. 

An NSF award should also be created to recognize one or more senior scientists, science educators, and/ or engineers 
a 
21

with disabilities who have made major contributions to science, engineering, or science education. Candidates 
would be nominated by universities, colleges, or profes-sional societies. A committee of distinguished scientists, 
engineers, science educators, and mathematicians, including representatives of the disabled community, would review the 
nominations. 
One of the conditions of these awards is that recipients would allow videotapes or other media presentations to be made about 
their careers in science, science education, or engineering that can be shown to a wide variety of audiences, including represen-tatives 
of the media, that will benefit from seeing a distin-guished scientist, science educator, or engineer who incidentally 
has a disability. 

C. NEW INITIATIVES 
GRADUATE FELLOWSHIPS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 
FINDING 
Some graduate students with disabilities, faced all their lives with negative attitudes from the various school, rehabilitative, 
and other systems of which they have been a part, may well believe that there is no point in applying for the prestigious 
NSF graduate fellowships. They may downplay their own abilities or believe that the NSF V8system88 will not take their applications 
seriously (since they believe they may not be viewed as competi-tive with their peers). 

RECOMMENDATION 
The Graduate Fellowships Program should have a special sub-section for students with disabilities but which is in all 
other essential respects similar to the basic program. As part of this program, funds must be available to pay for 
extra costs incurred which are disability-related and are required for the awardee to study, conduct research, and 
engage in related activities. 

9 
22

SOLICITATIONS FOR PROPOSALS IN ATTITUDE AND OPPORTUNITY ISSUFS 
FINDING 
As has been stated in other parts of this report, attitudes held by others that individuals with disabilities cannot do science or 
engineering are the primary barriers facing students with disabilities preparing for and entering into careers in science, 
science education, and engineering. Many parents, medical professionals, teachers, vocational rehabilitation, faculty 
(particularly some born and raised in other countries) and other counselors may discourage, forbid, or in any of a variety of 
other ways exclude students with disabilities from the challenges of science and mathematics in pre-college education. Though the 
barriers are easily identified, they are not easily removed. 
RECOMMENDATION 
The Education and Human Resources directorate (EHR) should issue one or more solicitations calling for proposals in the 
following subject areas: 
develop and test strategies and/ or materials designed to change stereotypical views held by "gatekeepers" 
about (1) the capability of students with disabilities to do science and engineering and (2) educational and 
career options in science: 
create opportunities for disabled and non-disabled students to be exposed to and work with disabled role 
models in science, science education, and engineering through such things as media portrayal of scientists 
and engineers with disabilities and visits to schools of scientists, engineers, and science educators with 
disabilities: 
initiate studies of the successful paths through the pipeline taken by established scientists, engineers, 
and science educators with disabilities; 
initiate studies of the reasons why students with disabilities who had an early interest and talent in 
science gave up on studying science, analyzed by age of onset and type of disability: 

study the unique problems faced by minority and female students with disabilities; 
develop strategies for assisting teachers, parents, and allied health professionals to help disabled students 
with goal-setting and exploration of educational and 
10 
23

* initiate astudy of the loss of vital talent in 
science, science education, and engineering due to lack of reasonable accommodations or failure to provide re-training 

opportunities by employers of scientists, science educators, and engineers following a change in 
physical or sensory status; and 
* develop and make available information and materials 
for pre-graduate and graduate students, and their mentors, to help facilitate the removal of the barriers 

and problems faced by disabled students in graduate education; 

11 

career options, particularly through the expanded use of technology; 
* develop materials for high school disciplinary 
teachers, parents, special education teachers, and counselors to assist them in guiding disabled high 

school students as they plan for college; 
* develop strategies and materials that will expand 
opportunities for K-16 students with disabilities to participate in such informal educational experiences as 

those provided by science centers, aquariums, and museums; 

* convene conferences of vocational rehabilitation, high 
school, and undergraduate academic counselors to learn about science and engineering career options for 

disabled students and requisite educational paths; 
* initiate a study, or project, to determine effective 
ways of reaching and assisting undergraduate science, science education, and engineering instructors to 

integrate students with disabilities into undergraduate science and engineering courses and programs; 

* prepare materials for college and university disabled 
student counselors to assist them in advising disabled students about course background requirements, general 

requirements of programs in science, science education, and engineering, alternate science and engineering 
programs, laboratory adaptations and accommodations, disabled science and engineering role models, and 
career opportunities for scientists, science educators, and engineers with disabilities: 
24

SOLICITATIONS FOR PROPOSALS IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AND TEACHER TRAINING ACTIVITIES 
FINDING 
The general lack of knowledge, experience, and training in the area of teaching science to disabled youth by special education, 
elementary, elementary science, middle school science, and high school science teachers is a widespread problem. Likewise, 
knowledge and experience about teaching science and engineering to disabled students in higher education is virtually non-existent. 
The restructuring of science and engineering teaching must be coupled with the increased access of disabled students to 
such changes through adaptive technologies, materials, and texts. The "teach-to-the-text" classical methods of teaching science (as 
against the hands-on, experiment-driven approach) are deeply embedded in our schools, and although research shows that they 
are not the best methods to teach science to youth, they are the most frequently used. This strong coupling of the K-12 science 
curriculum to the science textbook strongly suggests that initial strategies for disabled students be developed with the 
cooperation of textbook publishers. 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 
The EHR directorate should issue one or more solicita-tions calling for proposals to: 

* Develop hands-on instructional materials for teaching 
K-12 science to students with disabilities. 

* Assess existing K-12 science teaching materials 
designed for students with disabilities and identify specific areas of the science curriculum and types of 

disabilities that lack appropriate materials. 
* Develop K -12 science materials--including text books 
and assistive materials such as overheads, instructors manuals, study guides, and test banks--which integrate 

disabled student needs and special concerns (e. g., incorporating disabled scientist and engineer role 
models into textbooks). 
* Because hands-on science is the best method of teaching 
science to students with disabilities, examine the elementary and middle school science curricula of those 

countries using such methods and showing superior student performance in science and mathematics 
standardized tests (such as Japan, Hong Kong, etc.); adapt same for use in US schools. 

12 
25

* Examine paths by which instructional materials and 
technological aids developed for teaching science to students with disabilities are disseminated and 

identify which paths are most effective. 
* Develop, in cooperation with college textbook and 
laboratory manual publishers, texts and adjunct teaching materials to assist disabled science, science 

education, and engineering students. 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHER TRAINING ACTIVITIES 
The EHR directorate should issue one or more solicitations calling for proposals to: 

* Develop pre-service materials and methods for training 
classroom science teachers, special education teachers, and teachers in schools for the deaf and 

blind how to teach science to students with dis-abilities through the use of appropriate strategies, 
particularly through the expanded use of technology. These materials should include state-of-the-art 
technology, e. g., computer-controlled inter-active presentations (video and/ or experimental). 

* Incorporate into pre-service science education 
curricula (science methods courses) significant activities on mitigative strategies (also including the 

use of role models) and technologies, in the education of disabled students K-12. 

* Initiate in-service programs to instruct K-12 teachers 
of disabled students in the existence of and use of curriculum technologies, and strategies, for teaching 

lthands-ontt science to students with disabilities. 

NSF PROGRAMS FOR MINORITIES -OUTRFACH TO MINORITIES WITH DISABILITIES 
FINDING 
Minority men and women who have disabilities suffer two-and three-fold discrimination in their educational and career 
opportunities, in addition to having to deal with barriers of communication, physical access, and--for many--the increased 
costs in time and money of accomplishing goals. 
RECOMMENDATION 
NSF should ensure that all programs for underrepresented minorities receive assistance, at least initially from the 

13 
26

office/ program described in A. 2. above, in recruiting or reaching out to minorities with disabilities to participate 
in these programs. 
Programs that reach out to pre-college students in par-ticular should receive priority attention. For example, 
Comprehensive Regional Centers for Minorities, located in institutions with significant minority enrollments, serve 
students in local school systems and people in local community organizations working with minorities, as well as 
serve the students in the institutions themselves. Such centers are ideal organizations to reach out to minority 
students with disabilities to ensure that they are included in all programs offered by the center. Another pre-college 
program is Research Assistantships for Minority High School Students. Model projects of Career Access serve under-graduates. 

Other programs that should ensure recruitment of minorities with disabilities include: Alliances for Minority Par-ticipation, 
Minority Graduate Fellowships, Research Careers for Minority Scholars, Minority Research Initiation, and 
Minority Research Centers of Excellence. 
While neither the Young Scholars program nor the Research Experience for Undergraduates program is a minority-targeted 
program, each should, insofar as it recruits minorities, recruit minorities with disabilities. 

NSF PROGRAM! 3 FOR WOMEN -ODTREACH TO WOMEN WITH DISABILITIES 
FINDING 
Women who have disabilities suffer at least double discrimination in their educational and career opportunities, in addition to 
having to deal with barriers of communication, physical access, and--for many--the increased costs in time and money of ac-complishing 
goals due to their disabilities. 
RECOMMENDATION 

NSF should ensure that all programs targeted toward women receive assistance, at least initially from the office/ -program 
described in A. 2. above, in encouraging women with disabilities to participate in these programs. Programs 
that should encourage women with disabilities to participate include: Visiting Professorships for Women, Faculty Awards 
for Women, Research Planning Grants, and Career Advancement Awards. 

14 
27

CLEARINGHOUSE FOR INFORMATION AND MATERIALS CONCERNING DISABLED PERSONS AND SCIENCE, SCIENCE EDUCATION, AND ENGINEERING 
FINDING 
Disabled youth, people who work with disabled youth, and people who work with youth, any one of whom could become disabled at any 
time, lack access to information about educational tracks, mitigative strategies, appropriate technologies, and career 
opportunities in science and engineering. Disabled individuals and their gatekeepers need to have a centralized point of access 
to this information. 

RFXOMMENDATIONS 
NSF should fund the development of a clearinghouse for science and engineering educational materials relating to 
disabled students: general information in the teaching and learning of science for students with disabilities; 
scientists, engineers, and science educators with dis-abilities who can serve as role models; and research 
findings on the science and engineering education of disabled students at all levels. This might be done on a 
contract basis through an R. F. P. 
NSF should initiate broad-based national efforts to locate materials and other information for teaching 
science and engineering to students with disabilities, evaluate and abstract the materials, and disseminate them 
through the clearinghouse. 
NSF should develop and disseminate information (workshops, newsletters, computer disks, videos, electronic bulletin 
boards, etc.) about appropriate communication modes for disabled students to facilitate access to science and 
engineering information. 
NSF should ensure that the bibliographies, abstracts, and all other outputs of such a clearinghouse are available in 
appropriate modes of communication for all types of disabled people: e. g., audio tapes, braille, hard copy, computer 
disks, and electronic networks. 
The clearinghouse should include support for the following on-line facilities on the NSFnet or other appropriate network: 

* a database containing the Handbook on 508 Compliance 
(requirements of federal agencies that they make office equipment accessible) currently published by the GSA 

Clearinghouse for Computer Accommodation; 
15 
28

* an on-line directory of currently available computer 
access technology and products; 

* an on-line directory of scientists, science educators, 
and engineers with disabilities: and 

* an on-line, constantly updated database of challenging 
open problems related to computers and persons with disabilities. 

16 
29

PART II 
DATA ON PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 
30

A. A Summary of Federal Data on Persons with Disabilities 
Although the discussion below will make it only too clear that data on persons with disabilities are not as available as data 
for other groups underrepresented in science and engineering, one number should be kept in mind throughout the discussion below. 
According to surveys of various groups which together comprise the general science and engineering population of the US totaling 
5,000,000, a minimum of 2% of that population, or lOO, OOO+ scientists and engineers have disabilities. 

A review of Federal data on different segments of the populations listed, using differing definitions of V@ disability, VV found the 
following range in percentages for persons with disabilities: 
* U. S. Adult Population: 15 to 17 percent: 

* Experienced Science and Engineering Population: 2 to 
16 percent; l 

* College-aged Population: 4 to 11 percent; and 

* Youth Population: 3 percent (O-17 years of age) to 9 
percent (6-17 years of age). 

Data sources reviewed for this section provide several alterna-tive definitions of VVdisability. VV None of these is entirely 
satisfactory for measuring the degree of disability among the population of current and potential scientists and engineers. 
Yet taken together, the different definitions, and the popula-tions among which they were estimated, provide a means of 
identifying a set of estimates for different segments of the population. 

The estimates presented herein do not result from the calculation of confidence margins using classical statistical techniques. 
Rather they result from critical assessment of individual data series, and from comparison across these series. 

1. Estimates of the Disabled Population 
Estimates have been compiled for four segments of the population: (a) the adult population, approximately 25 to 64 years of age, 
(b) the science and engineering population, ages 25 to 64 years, 

IThis is a subset of the 5,000, OOO total science and engineering population mentioned above; this experienced subset 
numbers 1,700, OOO. 
17 
31

(c) the college-aged population, 16 to 24, and (d) the youth population, under 18 years of age. 
U. S. Adult Population 
The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for 1985 shows 15 percent of the adult population (17 million persons) reported "a 
limitation in major activity" (see Appendix C, table I-A). l In contrast, an upper bound may be derived from the 1984 Survey of 
Income and Program Participation (SIPP). In this survey, approximately 17 percent, or 20 million persons, reported a 
functional limitation (see Appendix C, table I-G). 

Other findings: 
* The presence of a limitation does not equate with the 
presence of a work disability. For example, roughly 54 percent who reported any functional limitation on SIPP 

reported that they did not have a work disability (see Appendix C, table I-F). 

In the same survey, 17 percent with a severe functional limitation reported no work disability. 
* Limitation in work activities as a result of chronic 
conditions declines as education level increases (see Appendix C, figure 1). In the NHIS, about one-fifth of 

persons who had eight years or less of schooling were "unable to work" (see Appendix C, table I-E). This 
percentage declined to 3 percent for persons with 13 to 15 years of education and to less than 2 percent for those who 
had finished college. 2 
* The presence of functional limitations and work disabilities 
increases with age, with the most significant increases occurring after age 54 (see Appendix C, figures 2 and 3). 

Science and Engineering (S& E) Population 
Estimates in the number of experienced scientists and engineers 3 with disabilities range from roughly 2 percent (38,000) to 16 
percent (288,000) (see Appendix C, tables IV-E, third section, and IV-A). The lower estimate was derived from the 1986 National 
Survey of Natural and Social Scientists and Engineers in which survey participants were asked if they had a physical disability 
and if so, to identify the nature of that disability (e. g., visual, ambulatory, or auditory). The upper estimate is from the 

18 
32

same survey conducted in 1989. In the latter survey, respondents were queried on a series of questions about the degree of 
difficulty they had with seeing, hearing, and walking and to what extent those functional limitations affected their education, 
employment, and career. 
Other findings: 
* The proportion of the experienced S& E population reporting a 
functional limitation increases with age (figure 4). While roughly 9 percent of persons under age 40 reported a 

limitation, almost 17 percent of those between 40 and 49, and 21 percent of persons between 50 and 64 did so (see 
Appendix C, table IV-B). 
* Among experienced scientists and engineers with functional 
limitations, small fractions report that their limitations have affected their education, employment, and career 

advancement (figure 5). Between 2 and 3 percent indicated some problem in completing school or finding employment and 
more than 6 percent reported some problem in career advancement (see Appendix C, table IV-C). 

* In addition to experienced scientists and engineers, some 
information is available on the total U. S. population of scientists and engineers, i. e., experienced persons as well 

as those who have entered the S& E work force since 1980. In 1986, roughly 100,000, or 2 percent, of all scientists and 
engineers reported a physical impairment (see Appendix C, table IV-E). This fraction varies by age. Whereas, about 
one percent of scientists and engineers under age 50 report a physical impairment, more than four percent of those over 
50 did so. 

College-Aged Population 
Among the college-aged population, a lower bound estimate of the number of persons with disabilities is approximately 4 to 6 
percent. The 1988 Current Population Survey (CPS) gives an estimate of roughly 3.8 percent (1.3 million) of the population 
between 16 and 24 having either a severe or non-severe work disability (see Appendix C, table I-C). The 1985 NHIS shows that 
roughly 6 percent of individuals (1.6 million) between 18 and 24 years of age had a limitation in major activity (see Appendix C, 
table I-A). 
The Fall 1986 National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey may be used to provide an upper estimate. About 11 percent, or 1.3 
million, postsecondary students (15 years of age or older) in 

19 
33

either undergraduate, graduate, or first-professional de ree programs had a disability (see Appendix C, table III-B). % 
Other findings: 
* Major fields of study do not differ substantially between 
disabled and non-disabled students at the undergraduate level (see Appendix C, table III-A). However, at the 

graduate and first-professional level, some differences emerge. For example, roughly one-half of disabled students 
compared to less than two-fifths of non-disabled students were studying law. 

* A higher fraction of disabled than non-disabled students are 
over age thirty: 33 percent and 24 percent, respectively. Higher proportions of disabled students are also male and 

veterans (see Appendix C, table III-C). 

Youth Pooulation 
The 1985 NHIS shows approximately 3.6 percent (2.3 million) of persons under age 17 have a limitation in major activities 
whereas 1984 SIPP reported 3.1 percent (1.9 million) of this population had either a physical, mental, or emotional disability 
(see Appendix C, tables II-A and C). In contrast, information on program participation from the Office of Special Education 
Programs (Department of Education) estimates that the 3.9 million persons enrolled in programs represent about 9 percent of 
children between 6 and 17 years of age in 1988 (see Appendix C, table II-D). 

2. Selected Definitions of Disability 
The following discussion of data sources highlights issues involving differences in both definitions of disabilities and in 
data collection methodologies of which the reader should be aware. For a full discussion of both definitions and methodol-ogy, 
the reader is referred to the original source documents listed in part 3. 

Limitation of Activitv 
The NHIS uses the concept lllimitation of activity" to refer to long-term reductions in activities resulting from chronic 

20 
34

conditions. The concept is normally broken down into persons with: 
-limitation in their non-major activity: -limitation in the amount or kind of their usual activity; 
-inability to carry on their usual activity. 
For children, the major activity is playing or attending school. For adults the major activity may be working, keeping house, 
living independently, etc. 
A chronic condition is a condition appearing at least 3. months before the date of interview, or a condition considered chronic 
whenever it began. 

Functional Limitation 
Two surveys discussed in this report use the concept "functional limitationtt: the Survey of Income and Program Participation 
(SIPP) and the National Survey of Natural and Social Scientists and Engineers. Persons with V'disabilitiesVV in these surveys are 
persons with limitations in their ability to perform specific functional activities defined, variously, as seeing, hearing, 
speaking, lifting or carrying, etc. 
Usually the functional limitation is divided into two measures of degree: some limitation, and great limitation/ or unable. 

Work Disabilitv 
Work disabilities is used in two of the surveys reviewed in this report (see Appendix C, chart I). In SIPP, a work disability 
question was asked only of adults aged 16 to 72 and concerned only the ability to work at a job or business. In SIPP, which 
also uses functional limitation, the two concepts, "work disability" and "functional limitation," are not precisely the 
same measure (see Appendix C, table I-F). 
In the Current Population Survey (CPS), work disability is defined by a set of criteria. A person is considered to have a 
work disability if one of the following conditions is met: 
If persons state that they have a condition preventing or limiting their work 

If a person retired or left a job for health reasons 

21 
35

If the person did not work in the survey week due to a long term condition 
If the person did not work at all in the previous year because of illness 
If the person is under 65 and receives Medicare 
If the person is under 65 and receives Supplemental Security Income 

In CPS, if any one of the final four criteria is met, the work disability is considered severe. 

Program Particioation 
Data from the Office of Special Education Programs of the Department of Education was used in this report to provide an 
upper estimate of disability among the school-aged population. These data are collected from state reporting agencies and 
include students enrolled in a variety of special education programs under various Federal statutes. 

The reader is cautioned that these program participation data are not subject to statistical tests. The source document also shows 
large differences in state-level percentages on the various measures which strongly suggest wide variation in state reporting 
practices as well as possible wide variation in state program participation rates. 

Physical Impairment 
Authors of this report used "self-identified physical impairment" in cases where survey respondents self-reported physical 
impairments, i. e., all but one of the NSF surveys and the NCES survey of postsecondary education. 

In the NSF surveys, respondents were given the choice of identifying Wisual, ll @'auditory, 1' lWambulatory, lt etc., impair-ments. 

NCES also gave respondents great leeway in identifying their own physical impairments and may have especially overestimated the 
amount of Wisual'l impairment. 

22 
36

3. Sources 
Bureau of the Census. Disability, Functional Limitation, and Health Insurance Coverase: 1984/ 85. Washington, D. C.: Bureau of 
the Census, 1986. 
Bennefield, Robert L. and John M. McNeil. Labor Force Status and Other Characteristics of Persons With a Work Disability: 1981 to 
1988. Washington, D. C.: Bureau of the Census, 1989. 
Collins, John Gary. Health Characteristics bv Occupation and Industry: United States, 1983-85. Hyattsville, Md.: National 
Center for Health Statistics, 1989. 
Greene, Bernard and Linda Zimbler. Profile of Handicanoed Students in Postsecondarv Education, 1987. Washington, D. C.: 
National Center for Education Statistics, 1989. 
LaPlante, Mitchell P. Data on Disability from the National Health Interview Survey, 1983-1985. Washington, D. C.: National 
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 1988. 
National Center for Health Statistics. Current Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, 1988. Hyattsville, Md.: 
National Center for Health Statistics, 1989. 
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies. 1989 National Survey of Natural and Social Scientists 
and Ensineers, unpublished tabulations. 
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies. 1986 National Survey of Natural and Social Scientists 
and Ensineers, unpublished tabulations. 
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies. 1~ 988 Survey of Natural and Social Science and Engineer-g 
Graduates, unpublished tabulations. in 
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies. 1987 Survey of Doctorate Recipients, unpublished 
tabulations. 
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies. U. S. Scientists and Engineers: 1986, unpublished 
tabulations. 
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Eleventh Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of The 
Education of the Handicapped Act. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education, 1989. 

23 
37

ENDNOTES 
lSee part B for a discussion of definitions used in the surveys. 
2Authors of this section did not explore other socioeconomic variables which are strongly related to disability status. 
However, the Bureau of the Census notes: 
The data do not allow for a determination of causality and it seems very likely that both directions are important. 
That is, disability has a causal effect on schooling, schooling has a causal effect on disability. From a more 
basic point of view, it may be that high rates of disability and low levels of schooling are both caused by economic and 
social disadvantages experienced in childhood. 
See Bureau of the Census, p. 5. 
3Experienced scientists and engineers are defined as those persons who reported a science or engineering occupation on the 
1980 Decennial Census. 
4Disabilities include physical impairments related to sight, hearing, and mobility as well as learning disabilities. It 
should be noted that question wording was such that survey analysts warn that students reporting visual disabilities may 
include such conditions as myopia. 

24 
38

B. Data on Persons with Disabilities and Foundation Programs and Activities 
To establish a benchmark of the rate of participation of persons with disabilities in Foundation programs and activities, data are 
provided below in the following areas: 
1. FY 1989 NSF Support of PI's with Disabilities: 2. FY 1989 NSF Support of PYI's, Graduate Fellows, and 
Minority Graduate Fellows with Disabilities: 3. Disability Status of Members of the National Science 
Board, NSF Staff, and Committees as of 1989 and 1990; and 
4. FY 1989 NSF Educational, Facilitation, and Topical Research Project Support 

1. FY 89 NSF Support of Principal Investisators with Dis-abilities 
NSF asks proposers to indicate whether they have a disability. Submission of the information is voluntary, so those who do not 
wish to identify themselves cannot be included in calculations concerning funding or success rates for proposers with dis-abilities. 

In FY 1989, $7.1 million was awarded to proposals in which PI's or at least one co-PI indicated that he or she had a disability. 
Of that, $2.5 million was awarded to proposals in which at least one co-PI self-identified as having a disability, and $4.6 
million was awarded to PIIs. Among PI's, those submitting proposals to disciplinary research directorates received $3.9 
million. 
Across the five disciplinary research directorates, the success rate for proposals upon which a competitive decision was made in 
FY 1989 was 31%. For proposals submitted to these directorates by PI's who identified themselves as having a disability, the 
success rate was 35%. Across all seven directorates, proposals submitted by disabled PI's who identified themselves had a 31% 
chance of success. 
2. FY 1989 NSF Support of PYI's, Graduate Fellows, and Minority Graduate Fellows with Disabilities 

Of the 197 Presidential Young Investigator awards made in FY 1989, one of the $25,000 awards went to a person with a dis-ability. 
Of the 1657 eligible nominees, 7 had disabilities. 
The following tables show the distribution of individuals who identified themselves as having a disability among FY 1989 
graduate fellowship applicants, awardees, and honorable mention recipients. 
. 
25 
39

fellowship applicants, awardees, and honorable mention reci-pients. 
1989 NSF GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM 
DISABILITY STATUS OF AWARDEES, HONORABLE MENTIONS, 
AND ALL APPLICANTS 

WITH A NO STATUS TOTAL DISABILITY DISABILITY UNKNOWN ALL 
Awardee 8 746 6 760 
Honorable Mention 18 1594 7 1619 
All Applicants 73 5263 31 5367 

1989 NSF MINORITY GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM 
DISABILITY STATUS OF AWARDEES, HONORABLE MENTIONS, 
AND ALL APPLICANTS 

WITH A NO STATUS TOTAL DISABILITY DISABILITY UNKNOWN ALL 
Awardee 1 98 1 100 
Honorable Mention 2 247 2 251 
All Applicants 13 777 7 797 

26 
40

c 
3 . 3 . DISABILITY STATUS OF NSB AND NSF DISABILITY STATUS OF NSB AND NSF STAFF STAFF 
AND COMMITTEES AS OF 1989 AND 1990 AND COMMITTEES AS OF 1989 AND 1990 

NO. NO. & & PERCENT PERCENT NO. NO. & & PERCENT PERCENT 
TOTAL TOTAL A A 

--------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD 1 5 1 5 0 0 

NSF ADVISORY COMMITTEES NSF ADVISORY COMMITTEES 1,046 1,046 8 8 
NSF STAFF NSF STAFF 
S E S S E S 95 95 0 0 
S c i e n t i s t s /E n g i n e e r s S c i e n t i s t s /E n g i n e e r s (excl. SES) (excl. SES) 438 438 28 28 
O t h e r O t h e r 770 770 3 1 3 1 

STAFF STAFF TOTAL TOTAL 1,303 1,303 59 59 

UITH UITH WITH A SEVERE WITH A SEVERE 
D I S A B I L I T Y D I S A B I L I T Y D I S A B I L I T Y D I S A B I L I T Y 

---------------_-----------------------------_--------------

0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 

0.8% 0.8% (not available) (not available) 

0 .0 0 .0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 
6.4% 6.4% 1 1 0.2% 0.2% 
4.0% 4.0% 7 7 0.9% 0.9% 

4.5% 4.5% 8 8 0.6% 0.6% 
41

4. NSF Educational, Facilitation, and Topical Research Project Support 
During FY 1989, over $8 million was spent by NSF in direct support of activities involving or benefiting persons with 
disabilities. This figure and its components are probably minimums, not maximums: 

* A minimum of $4 million was spent on applied research 
on technology for persons with disabilities. 

* At least $3 million was awarded for basic research with 
direct implications for aiding persons with dis-abilities in the future. 

* More than $850,000 was awarded in support of science 
and engineering education involving students with disabilities or teachers of students with disabilities. 

* Students, technicians, and researchers on NSF grants 
received at least $200,000 to provide assistive devices or services that allow them to participate in the 

awards. 

28 
42

APPENDICES 
43

APPENDIX A -Issues Beyond NSF's Reach Concerning Persons with Disabilities and Science, Enqineerinq, and Science Education 
There are a number of major issues in the area of disability and science, engineering, and science education that the Task Force 
discussed but had to exclude from its final report because of their global nature. These are issues that NSF could not have 
sufficient impact upon or that NSF would not have a sufficiently direct interest to justify expending scarce resources thereon. 
Nevertheless, these issues should be surfaced. 
1. Disabilitv Data: 
As federal, state, and local government agency officials begin enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it will 
become all too apparent that there are no consistent data available about Americans with disabilities and no accepted 
definition( s) of key concepts, including that of "disability. 1l Data must be collected about persons with disabilities' par-ticipation 
in the educational systems (including degrees earned data), in employment, and in a wide variety of similar areas. 
Only after these problems have been addressed will the magnitude of the difficulties that have been the subject of this Task Force 
and of the problems that led to the enactment of the ADA become known with any precision. 

2 . Academia and Compliance with Section 504 of the 1973 
Rehabilitation Act: 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires recipients of federal funds to make their programs, activities, and services 
accessible to persons with disabilities. This includes familiar requirements to make buildings and laboratories physically 
accessible, but it also means making lectures accessible to deaf students, providing readers or technological equivalents to blind 
students, and other reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities. Prosram accessibility must be emphasized. 

The Department of Education, which has compliance oversight in this area, is not able to expend the kind of resources that would 
be necessary to do appropriate compliance reviews of all institutions of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary 
education under Section 504. NSF also has an obligation to ensure compliance with Section 504 by all recipients of NSF 
funds; it, too, lacks the resources necessary to ensure such compliance. 

It was not surprising to the Task Force, in this context of inadequate resources for oversight, to learn that compliance is 
spotty. In listening to witnesses, reviewing prior recommen-dations to the Foundation, and otherwise trying to learn what is 
actually happening on campuses vis-a-vis students with disabi-A 

-l 

--1 
44

lities and science, science education, and engineering courses, it was all too apparent that some campuses are doing an outstand-ing 
job but most are not. New horror stories of faculty excluding students with disabilities from their science courses 
continue to surface. 
The Foundation cannot, and should not, try to do on its own what so many other federal agencies are also required to do--ensure 
compliance with Section 504. Nevertheless, under ADA or Section 504, greater oversight of compliance with the law is necessary 
before several of the major barriers to students with dis-abilities entering majors, and eventually careers, in science, 
science education, and engineering can be overcome: negative attitudes of teachers and faculty; and accessibility of education 
services to all. 
3. Academic Strateqy of Cultivating Students vs. Weedino Them Out: 

Students with disabilities who have been faced with negative stereotypes by personnel of educational institutions throughout 
their elementary and secondary education will have internalized those attitudes to some extent, unless they are extremely self-confident 
individuals. So long as academia views its primary pedagogical role to be to weed out those who cannot make it in a 
narrowly defined, highly competitive classroom situation (sometimes called the "Teach the best, shoot the rest" theory of 
education), students with disabilities will be disproportionately affected. Science, science education, and engineering will lose 
potential practitioners because the classroom has been viewed as . . a playing field rather than a classroom: and for students with 
disabilities, the playing field is not level. 
Clearly, bringing about a revolution in academia is beyond the scope or objectives of the Foundation. Nevertheless, the issue 
is highly significant to the national effort to "grow@ ' more scientists, science educators, and engineers. 

4. Reward Systems in Academia: 
The reward systems of many colleges and universities do not assign value to faculty efforts to increase the opportunities of 
students with disabilities to excel in their chosen disciplines. There is a great deal of work to be done by faculty if students 
with disabilities (and women and minority students, as well) are to receive an education equal to that afforded by these institu-tions 
to non-disabled majority male students. The reward systems, many of which give primary recognition to the tradition-al 
accomplishments of accumulating research grant monies and publishing research, must change if faculty are to do creative 
work in the areas of teaching, understanding and removing obstacles to achievement, and the many other activities described 
throughout this report. 

A--2 
45

5. Scientists, Engineers, and Science Educators with New or Changing Disabilities: 
When a fully-trained and productive scientist, engineer, or science educator becomes disabled or when such a person's 
disability changes in a way that imposes significantly greater limitations on work activities, the total loss of his/ her 
participation in the work force is likely, though frequently not necessary. For example, a considerable number of academic 
scientists and engineers with disabilities retire on disability at around the age of fifty, because the disability makes them 
less mobile, for example, in a field requiring considerable mobility. With some minor re-training, such an individual could 
re-direct his/ her research into a related area where less mobility is required. An investment in retraining might help 
someone remain productive for another 20 years or more. The same dynamics hold for a newly-disabled scientist, engineer, or 
science educator. Employers cannot afford to give up such talent and must devise means to avoid such unnecessary losses. 

6. Hands-on Science in Pre-collese Education: 
Most science taught in elementary and secondary schools, if any, is text-driven; that is, science stays in. a book and rarely 
becomes an experiment in the laboratory or the classroom. Teachers, who frequently are mathematics and science shy, prefer 
the more controllable text approach over experiments because the students might ask questions in the experiment context that the 
teachers cannot answer. Yet research shows that students are "turned on" to science by experimenting: students with dis-abilities 
in particular benefit from this approach. 
Until there are extensive materials, including good teachers guides, available to teachers for use in experimental science 
education, some of which deal with teaching hands-on science to students with various types and degrees of disabilities, far 
fewer disabled students will eventually select science, science education, or engineering careers. 

7 . The Media: 
Most persons with disabilities object to their near invisibility in the media and to their portrayal in negative stereotypes on 
the few occasions that they do appear in movies, television shows, newspapers, and other areas of the media. Until this 
erroneous stereotyping is changed, the negative attitudes toward persons with disabilities will remain entrenched and will 
continue to be a primary barrier to participating fully in society. 

A -3 
46

APPENDIX B -Examples of Activities that Can Impact on the Problems Addressed by the Task Force 
Greater visibility of scientists, science educators, and engineers with disabilities is critical to the success of many of 
the recommendations in this report. Such role models could be enlisted to make presentations at workshops about issues of 
disability and science, science education, and engineering. Such workshops could be part of regional and national discipline 
focused functions (e. g., The American Chemical Society, the American Statistical Association). 

The major discipline associations in science and engineering should initiate or revitalize committees on disability to gather 
and disseminate information about disability in their discipline (especially career-related information). 

Develop, with the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration, science career and role model materials for special educators, 
science teachers, parents and counsellors to give to and discuss with disabled high school students preparing to make the 
transition from high school to college. 
Multi-media information needs to be developed concerning the science experience in college for disabled students. 

Develop and disseminate strategies to get more disabled science, science education, and engineering individuals funded by State, 
Federal, and non-profit organizations through information and assistance in: matching skills and expertise to the appropriate 
funding area: educating disabled science, science education, and engineering individuals about grant preparation; and supplying 
assistance in the writing and editing of initial grant proposals. 
Bring disabled scientists together (nationally or perhaps by region) to engage in a variety of activities, e. g., discussion: 
joint proposal preparation: workshops on proposal writing; strategies for career advancement; counseling by successful 
disabled scientists, science educators, and engineers about career advancement in academia, government, and industry. This 
could also be a series of summer conferences for disabled scientists to attend with two-fold purposes: 1) to interact with 
other disabled scientists in an open format on any scientific, science education, or engineering topic for brainstorming and 2) 
to have the groups sub-divide into specific assigned topics and write position papers dealing with e. g.: science, science 
education, and engineering and disabled students (K-16), pre-service teachers of disabled students, in-service teachers of 
disabled students, graduate/ post-doctoral disabled students, career advancement, and employed/ unemployed/ retired disabled 
scientists, science educators, and engineers. 

B---1 
47

Fund projects focused on changing the pre-service curriculum to improve the teaching of science, particularly to encourage the 
use of role models who can "prove It that persons with disabilities can do science, science education, and engineering. The revised 
curriculum should target K-12 teachers, elementary science teachers, elementary special education teachers, and science 
teachers. 
Develop up-to-date materials for high school science teachers to help them inform their students about regional and national pre-college 
experimental science and engineering programs in which disabled students may participate. This is very much needed for 
the science teachers of disabled students in the mainstream, mainstream specialty programs, and in the schools for the deaf 
and the blind. 

B -2 
48

APPENDIX C -Statistical Support for Data on Persons with Disabilities 
1. CHARTS 
Chart I. Data Sources and Characteristics Chart II. Data Sources by Population of Interest 

C-l C-l 
A -
49

I-I 
I I-
I I 
I-I 
I-I-
I 1-
I_ f 
I-I 
I II 
I-I-

Chart I: Data Sources and Characteristics 
I ! Principal concepts 
I I II I I ISelf-identified 1 Program 

I 
physical 
'articipation impairment I I F _ 

I .I_ 

-_ 
_ . _ . 

_ . 
_ 

I -I 
_I _I 
-I 

Data Source I 
. i Survey ' A c t i v i t y Fwutional ' years Type Limitation limitation Disabilities 

I 
I I I I 

I I I I I 1988 households I I xxxx I I 
National Health I I II I II I I Interview Survey 
I average of i i i xxxx i I 

Survey of Income and Program Participation 
1983-85 . households " 
I 

I 1984 households II 
Current Population Survey I 1981-88 households I I I I I xxxx 

Office of Special I school year 
Education Progrwts 1 I nota II 1987-88 1 survey 11 I I I 

NCES Profile of Handicapped 
Students in Postsecondary 
E& cation 

National Survey of Natural and Social Scientists 
and Engineers 
Survey of Recent Science and Engineering 
Graduates 

1989 individual 
I 
Survey of Doctorate Recipients 
1988 . 
I 
individual ' 
I 1987 

I 
individual 
I Survey of Earned Doctorates 1987-88 co&. 

I 
individual 

U. S. Scientists and Engineers I I I 1986 lnot a survey) 1 

I I I 
I 
I Fat I 1986 individual I I I I 

I I 1 xxxx . I 
I I 

1 
I I 

I 1 I 
I I I I I xxxx 
I 
I xxxx 
I I 
I I 
1 
I xxxx 
I xxxx 
I 
I xxxx I I XXXX I 
50

I' 
C h a r t I I . D a t a S o u r c e s b y P o p u l a t i o n o f I n t e r e s t C h a r t I I . D a t a S o u r c e s b y P o p u l a t i o n o f I n t e r e s t 
I I I I 
D a t a S o u r c e D a t a S o u r c e 
. . II P o p u l a t i o n o f I n t e r e s t P o p u l a t i o n o f I n t e r e s t 

I I I I A d u l t A d u l t I I Y o u t h Y o u t h I IP o s t s e c o n d a r y P o s t s e c o n d a r y 11 11 p o p u l a t i o n p o p u l a t i o n 1 1 p o p u l a t i o n p o p u l a t i o n 
I I p o p u l a t i o n p o p u l a t i o n 

1 1 1 1 I I I I ii xxxx i xxxx 
N a t i o n a l H e a l t h N a t i o n a l H e a l t h II II I I I n t e r v i e w S u r v e y I n t e r v i e w S u r v e y 
12 12 I I I I x x x x x x x x 1 1 I I I I I I 
Survey of Survey of Income Income and and 11 11 Program Program Participation Participation 

I I I I 
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

C u r r e n t P o p u l a t i o n S u r v e y C u r r e n t P o p u l a t i o n S u r v e y 
I I I I 
x x x x x x x x I 

O f f i c e o f S p e c i a l O f f i c e o f S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m s E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m s I I I X X X X X X X X 

NCES Profile of NCES Profile of Pandicapped Pandicapped I I S t u d e n t s i n P o s t s e c o n d a r y S t u d e n t s i n P o s t s e c o n d a r y 
E d u c a t i o n E d u c a t i o n I I 

I I N a t i o n a l S u r v e y o f N a t u r a l N a t i o n a l S u r v e y o f N a t u r a l I I I I a n d S o c i a l S c i e n t i s t s a n d S o c i a l S c i e n t i s t s a n d E n g i n e e r s a n d E n g i n e e r s I I I 

I I S u r v e y o f R e c e n t S c i e n c e S u r v e y o f R e c e n t S c i e n c e I I I a n d E n g i n e e r i n g a n d E n g i n e e r i n g G r a d u a t e s G r a d u a t e s I I I I 
survey survey o f D o c t o r a t e R e c i p i e n t s o f D o c t o r a t e R e c i p i e n t s I I I I 
S u r v e y o f E a r n e d D o c t o r a t e s S u r v e y o f E a r n e d D o c t o r a t e s I I 
U .S . S c i e n t i s t s a n d E n g i n e e r s U .S . S c i e n t i s t s a n d E n g i n e e r s I I 

X X X X X X X X 

I S c i e n c e a n d I S c i e n c e a n d / / E n g i n e e r i n g E n g i n e e r i n g 
/ / populstion populstion 

xxxx 
xxxx I 

xxxx 1 xxxx I 

I I 
I I I I I I T a b l e T a b l e T a b l e T a b l e 

I I I I r e f e r e n c e r e f e r e n c e r e f e r e n c e r e f e r e n c e I I I I I-& E I-& E I-& E I-& E 
I I I I -A I I -A I I -A I I I-B I-B II-B II-B I I 
I -f ,G I -f ,G I -f ,G I -f ,G I I I I -C I I -C I I -C I I -C 
I I I -C ,D I -C ,D I -C ,D I -C ,D I I I I 

1 1 -D 1 1 -D 1 1 
I I I I -A ,B ,C I I I -A ,B ,C I 

I V -A ,B ,C ,D I V -A ,B ,C ,D 
I 
I V -F I V -F I 

I V -E I V -E I 
I V -F I V -F I 
I V -E I V -E I 

c 

c---3 
51

2. FIGURES 
Figure 1. Work Limitations by Years of Education: 1983-85 
Figure 2. Percent of Population with Functional Limitations, by Degree of Limitation 
Figure 3. Percent of Total Population with Work Disabilities, by Degree of Disability and Age 
Figure 4. Percent of Scientists and Engineers by Degree of Functional Limitation and Age Group 
Figure 5. Effect of Functional Limitations on Selected Activities 

c-4 
52

Figure 1. 
Work Limitations by Years of Education: 

1983-85 

Pwcont of population 
25 25 

20 20 

Unable to Work 
15 

10 10 
Limited in amount ---or kind of work 

5 5 
activity 
0 1 I I I 0 8 years or less 9-l 1 years 12 years 13-15 years 18 years plus 
Level of Education 

SOURCE: Mitchell LaPlante, "Data on Disability from the National Health Interview Survey, 1983-85," Prepared for the National Institute 
on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (I 988). 
See Table I-E. 

c -5 
53

Figure 2. 
Percent of Population with Functional 
Limitations, by Degree of Limitation 

Percent 
100 100 

40 
35 
30 
25 25 

20 
15 
10 
5 
0 35-44 45-54 55-64 
Age groups 

SOURCE: Bureau of the Census, Survey of Income and Program Participation 
See Table I-G. 

C--6 
54

Figure 3. 
Percent of Total Population with Work Disabilities, 
by Degree of Disability and Age 

Percent 

loo C'OO 

10 
'.'_~_'.'.'.'.'.~.~. ' '.'_~.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_ ' 

_................. ~..~...~~=~. z..~ . . . . . . . . . . . .. a . . ..~.~~.*...:.:.:,: :.:.:.~.:.:.~.:.:.:.:~~~.:~-~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:~~.:.:~ _ -.._.. -.._.... . .._...............__ _. .._. ._....... .._._.--................ -..-.._..... .._.__..__..-............... -16-
24 25-34 35-44 
Age Groups 
45-54 55-64 

SOURCE: Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey 
See Table I-C. 

c -7 
55

Figure 4. 
Percent of Scientists and Engineers by Degree of 
Functional Limitation and Age Group 

Pwcmt 

3 0 
2 5 
2 0 
1 5 

1 0 
5 
0 

2 5 

2 5 -2 9 3 0 -3 4 3 5 -3 9 4 0 -4 4 4 5 -4 9 5 0 -5 4 5 5 -5 9 6 0 -6 4 
Age group 

10 
5 
Great difficulty or 
unable to do 

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, National Survey of Natural and Social Scientists and Engineers 
See Table IV-B. 

C -8 
56

Figure 5. 
Effect of Functional Limitations on Selected Activities 

P;; ent COMPLETING EDUCATION 
16 F 
t 16 
t t 

2 
0 Total, with Seeing Hearing Walking 
limitations 

Percent FINDING EMPLOYMENT 
20 20 , 

t 16 16 
t t 

16 16 t 

14 14 
12 12 1 
10 10 t 
t 8 
Et 

4 4 
2 2 
0 0 Total, with Seeing Hearing 
limitations 

pertont ADVANCING IN CAREER 
1: 1:: 
16 
14 
12 
10 
6 
6 
4 
2 
0 

1 6 -1 
4 -1 
2 -1 
0 -6 

6 
4 
2 
0 Total, with Seeing 
limitations Hearing Walking 

20 
16 
q Some .' Problem l6 q psrrm 

14 
12 
10 
6 
6 

SOURCE: Natlonal Soionco Foundation, National Survey of Natural and Social 
Soiontists and Engineers 

Soa Table IV-C. 
57

3. TABLES 
I. U. S. 
I-A. 
I-B. I-C. 

I-D. 
I-E. 
I-F. 
I-G. 
II. YOUTH 

ADULT POPULATION 
Limitation of Activity Due to Chronic Conditions, by 
Age Prevalence of Chronic Conditions 

Severe and Non-Severe Work Disabilities, by Age: 1981-88 

Percent of Disabled in the Labor Force, by Gender: 1981-88 
Limitation of Work Activity Due to Chronic Conditions, by Education Level 
Functional Limitation Status, by Work Disability Status: 1984 
Degree of Functional Limitation, by Age Groups: 1984 

II-A. Limitation of Activity Due to Chronic Conditions Among Youth 
II-B. Prevalence of Chronic Conditions Among Youth II-C. Disability Status of Youth, by Age: 1984/ 85 
II-D. 6-17 Year-Olds Served Under Education of the Hand-icapped Act, by Handicapping Condition: School Year 
1987-88 
III. POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 
III-A. Postsecondary Students by Major Field of Study and Disability Status: Fall 1986 
III-B. Disabled Postsecondary Students, by Type of Disability: Fall 1986 
III-C. Postsecondary Students by Disability Status and Selected Characteristics: Fall 1986 

IV. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING POPULATION 
IV-A. Degree of Functional Limitation IV-B. Degree of Functional Limitation, by Age 
IV-C. Functional Limitation by Effect on Activity IV-D. Employment Status by Functional Limitation 
IV-E. Self-identified Physical Impairment by Type and Age IV-F. Self-identified Physical Impairments of S& E Graduates 
by Type and Degree Level 

c-10 c-10 
58

1 1 .. U .S . A D U L T P O P U L A T I O N U .S . A D U L T P O P U L A T I O N 
T a b l e I -A . T a b l e I -A . L i m i t a t i o n o f A c t i v i t y D u e t o C h r o n i c C o n d i t i o n s , b y A g e L i m i t a t i o n o f A c t i v i t y D u e t o C h r o n i c C o n d i t i o n s , b y A g e 
A g e g r o u p s : A g e g r o u p s : 1 8 -2 4 1 8 -2 4 
I 

I T o t a l p o p u l a t i o n (1 ,0 0 0 ): T o t a l p o p u l a t i o n (1 ,0 0 0 ): 2 8 ,0 0 6 2 8 ,0 0 6 N a t i o n a l N a t i o n a l H e a l t h H e a l t h I n t e r v i e w I n t e r v i e w 
I I Tote1 Tote1 with with rctivity rctivity limitation limitation I I 5 .8 5 .8 S u r v e y S u r v e y 
(1983-85) (1983-85) I I Unsble Unsble t o p e r f o r m m a j o r a c t i v i t y t o p e r f o r m m a j o r a c t i v i t y 1 .6 1 .6 

I I L i m i t e d i n L i m i t e d i n amwnt amwnt o r k i n d o f m a j o r a c t i v i t y o r k i n d o f m a j o r a c t i v i t y 2 .4 2 .4 
L i m i t e d i n n o n -m a j o r a c t i v i t y L i m i t e d i n n o n -m a j o r a c t i v i t y 1 .8 1 .8 I I 

T a b l e I -B : T a b l e I -B : P r e v a l e n c e o f C h r o n i c C o n d i t i o n s P r e v a l e n c e o f C h r o n i c C o n d i t i o n s 

25-44 25-44 
7 0 ,1 1 5 7 0 ,1 1 5 4 4 ,3 2 2 4 4 ,3 2 2 
(P e r c e n t ) (P e r c e n t ) 9 .7 9 .7 

2 .3 2 .3 
4 .3 4 .3 
3 .1 3 .1 

I A g e g r o u p s : A g e g r o u p s : 1844 1844 1 1 4 5 -6 4 4 5 -6 4 
I I T o t a l T o t a l population population (1,000): (1,000): 1 0 3 ,0 6 6 1 0 3 ,0 6 6 1 1 45,573 45,573 
N a t i o n a l N a t i o n a l H e a l t h H e a l t h I I C o n d i t i o n s C o n d i t i o n s I I (P e r c e n t ) (P e r c e n t ) 

11 . . : : nterview nterview survcv survcv I I I Visual Visual imwirment imwirment I I 
I 
(1988) (1988) I I Hearing Hearing in+ airment in+ airment ' ' A b s e n c e o f e x t r e m i t i e s A b s e n c e o f e x t r e m i t i e s I I 

I I 
P a r a l y s i s o f e x t r e m i t i e s P a r a l y s i s o f e x t r e m i t i e s 

I I 
0 .3 0 .3 D e f o r m i t y o r o r t h o p e d i c i m p a i r m e n t D e f o r m i t y o r o r t h o p e d i c i m p a i r m e n t 1 3 .1 1 3 .1 
I I 

14.8 14.8 0 .9 0 .9 
1 .0 1 .0 1 5 .1 1 5 .1 

45-u 45-u 
2 3 .7 2 3 .7 
8 .4 8 .4 
9 .5 9 .5 
5 .8 5 .8 

c-11 c-11 
59

1 . 1 . U .S . A D U L T P O P U L A T I O N U .S . A D U L T P O P U L A T I O N 
T a b l e I -C : T a b l e I -C : S e v e r e a n d N o n -S e v e r e U o r k D i s a b i l i t i e s , b y A g e : 1 9 8 1 -8 8 S e v e r e a n d N o n -S e v e r e U o r k D i s a b i l i t i e s , b y A g e : 1 9 8 1 -8 8 
I Ages: 1 6 -2 4 1 6 -2 4 2 5 -3 4 2 5 -3 4 35-44 35-44 45-54 45-54 55-64 55-64 I I 1 1 N o t N o t N o t N o t 1 1 N o t N o t 1 1 N o t N o t I I 
I S e v e r e S e v e r e I S e v e r e S e v e r e Severe Severe Severe Severe I I Severe Severe Severe Severe I I Severe Severe Severe Severe I I C u r r e n t C u r r e n t 
I -I I -I I I ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! P o p u l a t i o n P o p u l a t i o n 

S u r v e y S u r v e y (1981-1988) (1981-1988) 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 1 I I 2 .1 2 .1 1 .4 1 .4 1 9 8 2 1 9 8 2 14 14 

1 9 8 3 1 9 8 3 I I ::: ::: 1: s 1: s 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 4 
1 9 8 5 1 9 8 5 I I :: s :: s 1 .2 1 .2 1 9 8 6 1 9 8 6 2 .1 2 .1 :*: :*: 
1 9 8 7 1 9 8 7 I I 1 .8 1 .8 117 117 1 9 8 8 1 9 8 8 I I 2 .1 2 .1 1 .7 1 .7 

I 2.9 2.3 2.9 2.3 f :5 I:: 
2.8 2.4 2.8 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.6 2.2 

5: X 5: X f f :i :i 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.7 

I I 5.8 6.5 5.8 6.5 
:: i :: i t:: t:: 
:: t :: t Z: f Z: f 
:: z :: z ::; ::; 4.3 6.0 4.3 6.0 

9 .2 9 .2 1 4 .4 1 4 .4 
X: i X: i 1 4 .6 1 4 .7 1 4 .6 1 4 .7 9 .0 9 .0 1 4 .5 1 4 .5 
1 0 .0 1 0 .0 1 3 .7 1 3 .7 8 .9 8 .9 1 4 .4 1 4 .4 

t:: t:: 1 3 .6 1 3 .6 1 4 .0 1 4 .0 

f a b l e I -D : f a b l e I -D : P e r c e n t o f D i s a b l e d P e r c e n t o f D i s a b l e d fn fn t h e t h e Labor Labor F o r c e , F o r c e , b y G e n d e r : 1 9 8 1 -8 8 b y G e n d e r : 1 9 8 1 -8 8 

C u r r e n t C u r r e n t P o p u l a t i o n P o p u l a t i o n 
S u r v e y S u r v e y (1 9 8 1 -1 9 8 8 ) (1 9 8 1 -1 9 8 8 ) 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 2 1 9 8 2 1 9 8 3 1 9 8 3 
1 9 8 4 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 5 1 9 8 5 
1 9 8 6 1 9 8 6 1 9 8 7 1 9 8 7 
1 9 8 8 1 9 8 8 

!n !n the the Enptoyed Enptoyed Labor Labor force force full full tim tim 
nrle nrle Female Female 1 1 Nale Nale Fanele Fanele (P e r c e n t ) (P e r c e n t ) 
4 1 .9 4 1 .9 2 3 .5 2 3 .5 2 9 .8 2 9 .8 1 1 .4 1 1 .4 4 1 .5 4 1 .5 2 3 .7 2 3 .7 I I 2 7 .4 2 7 .4 1 1 .9 1 1 .9 

4 1 .0 4 1 .0 2 4 .4 2 4 .4 I I 2 6 .2 2 6 .2 1 1 .2 1 1 .2 4 0 .3 4 0 .3 2 4 .4 2 4 .4 2 7 .1 2 7 .1 1 1 .4 1 1 .4 
3 8 .2 3 8 .2 2 5 .3 2 5 .3 2 5 .5 2 5 .5 1 2 .0 1 2 .0 3 8 .0 3 8 .0 2 5 .2 2 5 .2 2 5 .8 2 5 .8 1 1 .3 1 1 .3 
3 9 .7 3 9 .7 2 7 .1 2 7 .1 2 6 .3 2 6 .3 1 2 .7 1 2 .7 3 5 .7 3 5 .7 2 7 .5 2 7 .5 2 3 .4 2 3 .4 1 3 .1 1 3 .1 

I I 

c-12 c-12 
60

I. I. U .S . A D U L T P O P U L A T I O N U .S . A D U L T P O P U L A T I O N 
T a b l e I -E . T a b l e I -E . L i m i t a t i o n o f L i m i t a t i o n o f Uork Uork A c t i v i t y D u e t o C h r o n i c C o n d i t i o n s , b y E d u c a t i o n L e v e l A c t i v i t y D u e t o C h r o n i c C o n d i t i o n s , b y E d u c a t i o n L e v e l 

N a t i o n a l N a t i o n a l H e a l t h H e a l t h 
I n t e r v i e w I n t e r v i e w S u r v e y S u r v e y 
(1 9 8 3 -8 5 ) (1 9 8 3 -8 5 ) 

-I-I 

. -
E d u c a t i o n l e v e l : E d u c a t i o n l e v e l : 
Total Total population population (1,000): (1,000): 

"Limited in non-uork "Limited in non-uork aetivitp aetivitp 
Wnablc Wnablc t o t o work" work" 
"L i m i t e d i n a m o u n t o r k i n d o f "L i m i t e d i n a m o u n t o r k i n d o f uorkU uorkU 

8 8 y e a r s y e a r s o r l e s s o r l e s s 
I I 9 -1 1 y e a r s 9 -1 1 y e a r s 

1 3 ,3 2 5 1 3 ,3 2 5 I I 2 0 ,0 2 7 2 0 ,0 2 7 I I 

(p e r c e n t ) (p e r c e n t ) I I (p e r c e n t ) (p e r c e n t ) 4.7 4.7 I I 3.5 3.5 

2 2 .4 2 2 .4 I 1 0 .9 1 0 .9 
7 .6 7 .6 I 6 .3 6 .3 

I 1 3 -1 5 1 3 -1 5 16 or 16 or nwe nwe 1 2 y e a r s 1 2 y e a r s y e a r s y e a r s y e a r s y e a r s I I 6 1 ,3 4 1 6 1 ,3 4 1 j j 2 9 ,1 3 9 2 9 ,1 3 9 2 6 ,3 1 4 2 6 ,3 1 4 I I 
(p e r c e n t ) (p e r c e n t ) 1 1 (p e r c e n t ) (p e r c e n t ) I I (p e r c e n t (p e r c e n t 1 1 I I 
3 .0 3 .0 I 3 .2 3 .2 I 3 .7 3 .7 I 
5 .1 5 .1 I I 3 .3 3 .3 I 1 .9 1 .9 I 
4.7 4.7 I 4 .3 4 .3 I 3 .5 3 .5 I 

c-13 c-13 
61

1. U. S. ADULT U. S. ADULT POPULATfOW POPULATfOW 
I 
I I 
I I 
S u r v e y S u r v e y of I n c o m e I n c o m e and 

I I 
P r o g r a m P r o g r a m P a r t i c i p a t i o r P a r t i c i p a t i o r 

II 
(19Bc) (19Bc) 

I I I I 

--I 
I I S u r v e y o f S u r v e y o f 
I I 
I n c o m e a n d I n c o m e a n d P r o g r a m P r o g r a m 

I I 
P a r t i c i p a t i o r P a r t i c i p a t i o r (1986) (1986) 

I I 

T a b l e I -F : T a b l e I -F : Functional limitation Status, by Functional limitation Status, by York York Disability Disability Status: 1904 
W i t h a s e v e r e f u n c t i o n a l W i t h a s e v e r e f u n c t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n l i m i t a t i o n 
I I 
6 ,0 0 0 6 ,0 0 0 

With a non-severe With a non-severe functionaL functionaL tinitation tinitation 1 5 ,7 0 0 1 5 ,7 0 0 
Uith Uith n o f u n c t i o n a l [i m i t a t i o n n o f u n c t i o n a l [i m i t a t i o n 1 2 9 ,3 0 0 1 2 9 ,3 0 0 

Y i t h a u o r k Y i t h a u o r k d i s a b i l i t y d i s a b i l i t y 
Nunber Nunber P e r c e n t P e r c e n t (1 ,0 0 0 ) (1 ,0 0 0 ) 

5 ,0 0 0 5 ,0 0 0 83x 83x 
6 ,8 0 0 6 ,8 0 0 4 3 % 4 3 % 
6 ,0 0 0 6 ,0 0 0 5% 5% 

Uith Uith no work no work 1 1 d i s a b i l i t y d i s a b i l i t y 
I I Ntmtxr Ntmtxr P e r c e n t P e r c e n t J J 
(1 ,0 0 0 ) (1 ,0 0 0 ) I I 

I I 1 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 17 17 

8 ,9 0 0 8 ,9 0 0 SE1 SE1 
1 2 2 ,9 0 0 1 2 2 ,9 0 0 9 5 % 9 5 % 

T a b l e I -G : T a b l e I -G : Degrae Degrae of of furtional furtional Limitation, by Aga Limitation, by Aga Groups: Groups: 1984 1984 
I 
U i t h a f u n c t i o n a l L i m i t a t i o n U i t h a f u n c t i o n a l L i m i t a t i o n 
I I 

I I Total I I S e v e r e S e v e r e I I Not S e v e r e S e v e r e I I I I I I I I 
A g e G r o u p A g e G r o u p Total 
I I II 
Wulbw Wulbw Percant Percant 
I I 
Number Number P e r c e n t P e r c e n t 
I I 
Nunkr Nunkr P e r c e n t P e r c e n t 
I I I I I I I I I I I I 

Total persons (1 ,0 0 0 ) (1 ,0 0 0 ) I I 1 5 4 ,5 6 5 1 5 4 ,5 6 5 iI iI 21,839 21,839 1 4 .1 1 4 .1 5 ,9 9 7 5 ,9 9 7 3 .9 3 .9 1 1 1 5 ,8 4 2 1 5 ,8 4 2 1 0 .2 1 0 .2 1 1 

15-24 15-24 I I 3 9 ,2 9 7 3 9 ,2 9 7 II II 2 ,0 5 4 2 ,0 5 4 5 .2 5 .2 X6 X6 0 .9 0 .9 I I 1 ,7 0 8 1 ,7 0 8 6 .3 6 .3 I I 2 5 -X 2 5 -X 4 0 ,4 6 4 4 0 ,4 6 4 3,049 3,049 7 .5 7 .5 5 9 6 5 9 6 1 .5 1 .5 2 ,4 5 3 2 ,4 5 3 6 .1 6 .1 
35-U 35-U I I 3 0 ,4 8 0 3 0 ,4 8 0 I I 4 ,0 7 4 4 ,0 7 4 1 3 .4 1 3 .4 I I a 9 0 a 9 0 2 .9 2 .9 I I 3, lBL 3, lBL 1 0 .4 1 0 .4 I I 
4 5 -5 4 4 5 -5 4 I I 2 2 ,2 6 4 2 2 ,2 6 4 I I 5 ,1 1 0 5 ,1 1 0 2 3 .0 2 3 .0 1 ,4 3 1 1 ,4 3 1 6 .4 6 .4 3 ,6 7 9 3 ,6 7 9 1 6 .5 1 6 .5 5 5 -6 4 5 5 -6 4 2 2 ,0 6 0 2 2 ,0 6 0 7 ,5 5 2 7 ,5 5 2 X. 2 X. 2 I I 2, Tu 2, Tu 1 2 .4 1 2 .4 I I 4,818 4,818 2 1 .8 2 1 .8 I I 
I II I I-i 

c-14 c-14 
62

II. II. YWTH YWTH 
N a t i o n a l N a t i o n a l H e a l t h H e a l t h 
I n t e r v i e w I n t e r v i e w S u r v e y S u r v e y 
(1983-85) (1983-85) 

T a b l e I I -A . T a b l e I I -A . L i m i t a t i o n o f A c t i v i t y L i m i t a t i o n o f A c t i v i t y Due Due t o C h r o n i c C o n d i t i o n s t o C h r o n i c C o n d i t i o n s Amwg Amwg Y o u t h Y o u t h 
A g e g r o u p s : A g e g r o u p s : Under5 Under5 5-17 5-17 -1 -1 
T o t a l p o p u l a t i o n (1 ,0 0 0 ): T o t a l p o p u l a t i o n (1 ,0 0 0 ): 1 7 ,9 7 5 1 7 ,9 7 5 4 4 ,6 7 5 4 4 ,6 7 5 I I 
(P e r c e n t ) (P e r c e n t ) 1 1 (Percent) (Percent) I I 
With Limitation in major With Limitation in major activitp activitp 1 .6 1 .6 I I 4.4 4.4 

I I Wnable Wnable to carry on to carry on major major activity" activity" 
I I 
0 .5 0 .5 0 .4 0 .4 
I I "L i m i t e d i n "L i m i t e d i n amount amount o r k i n d o f m a j o r o r k i n d o f m a j o r 

II 
1 .1 1 .1 4.0 4.0 activityW activityW 
I I I I 

Table Table 11-B: 11-B: PrevrLcnce PrevrLcnce of Chronic Conditions of Chronic Conditions &mong &mong Youth Youth 
I I A g e g r o u p s : A g e g r o u p s : U n d e r 1 8 U n d e r 1 8 Tote1 Tote1 p o p u l a t i o n (1 ,0 0 0 ): p o p u l a t i o n (1 ,0 0 0 ): 6 3 ,5 6 9 6 3 ,5 6 9 Nationel Nationel I I H e a l t h H e a l t h C o n d i t i o n s C o n d i t i o n s (P e r c e n t ) (P e r c e n t ) 
I n t e r v i e w I n t e r v i e w II S u r v e y S u r v e y 
II 
Visual Visual imirment imirment 0 .9 0 .9 (1988) (1988) Hearing Hearing inpirment inpirment 1 .7 1 .7 

I I Deformity or orthopedic Deformity or orthopedic ipeirment ipeirment I I 2 .9 2 .9 II I I I I 

c-15 
63

II. YOUTH 
T a b l e I I -C : T a b l e I I -C : D i s a b i l i t y S t a t u s o f Y o u t h , b y A g e : D i s a b i l i t y S t a t u s o f Y o u t h , b y A g e : 1984/ 85 1984/ 85 

s u r v e y o f s u r v e y o f fncome fncome and and 
P r o g r a m P r o g r a m P a r t i c i p a t i o n P a r t i c i p a t i o n 
1984/ 85 1984/ 85 

T o t a l T o t a l (1 ,0 0 0 ) (1 ,0 0 0 ) 
U n d e r 1 8 U n d e r 1 8 6 2 ,4 4 5 6 2 ,4 4 5 
D -2 D -2 1 0 ,9 5 3 1 0 ,9 5 3 3 -5 3 -5 1 0 ,5 2 2 1 0 ,5 2 2 
6 -9 6 -9 1 2 ,8 9 3 1 2 ,8 9 3 10-14 10-14 1 7 ,2 7 5 1 7 ,2 7 5 
1 5 -1 7 1 5 -1 7 1 0 ,8 0 2 1 0 ,8 0 2 

uurkr uurkr P e r c e n t P e r c e n t 
1 ,9 1 6 1 ,9 1 6 3 .1 3 .1 
1 3 6 1 3 6 1 .2 1 .2 2 1 8 2 1 8 
4 4 3 4 4 3 52:: 52:: 699 
420 2:: 2:: 

U i t h a d i s a b i l i t y U i t h a d i s a b i l i t y 
I I 

I I 
M e n t a l o r M e n t a l o r P h y s i c a l o n l y P h y s i c a l o n l y e m o t i o n a l o n l y e m o t i o n a l o n l y 
I I 

Nunkr Nunkr P e r c e n t P e r c e n t I I Ncmkr Ncmkr P e r c e n t P e r c e n t I I 

1 ,2 4 1 1 ,2 4 1 2.0 I I 535 0.9 I I 
1 1 8 1 1 8 1 .1 1 .1 I I 8 0 .1 0 .1 I I 1 7 6 1 7 6 1 .7 1 .7 
287 
f f :: :: 
I I 
27 0.3 
1 2 2 1 2 2 0 .9 0 .9 I I 

4 1 8 4 1 8 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 .2 2 .2 I I 1 3 8 1 3 8 :: i :: i 
I I 

C-16 C-16 
64

I I . I I . Y O U T H Y O U T H 
Table Table II-D: II-D: 6 -1 7 6 -1 7 Year-Olds Year-Olds S e r v e d U n d e r E d u c a t i o n o f t h e H a n d i c a p p e d S e r v e d U n d e r E d u c a t i o n o f t h e H a n d i c a p p e d A c t , b y H a n d i c a p p i n g C o n d i t i o n : S c h o o l Y e a r A c t , b y H a n d i c a p p i n g C o n d i t i o n : S c h o o l Y e a r 198748 198748 
P e r c e n t a g e P e r c e n t a g e 1 1 P e r c e n t a g e P e r c e n t a g e 1 1 o f o f 
I I 
o f o f Nurkr Nurkr r e s i d e n t r e s i d e n t e s t i m a t e d e s t i m a t e d 
I I P e r c e n t P e r c e n t Handicapping Handicapping Cwdition Cwdition (1,000) (1,000) p o p u l a t i o n p o p u l a t i o n 

I I 
enrollment enrollment distributiol distributiol 
I I 

E d u c a t i o n E d u c a t i o n I I A L L c o n d i t i o n s A L L c o n d i t i o n s 4,118 4,118 I I 93 93 I I 1 0 .5 1 0 .5 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 o f t h e o f t h e 

H a n d i c a p p e d H a n d i c a p p e d I I L e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d L e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d 1 ,9 3 7 1 ,9 3 7 I I 4 .4 4 .4 I I 4 7 .0 4 7 .0 Act Act 
I I Speech Speech ispaired ispaired 9% 9% I I 2 .3 2 .3 1987/ 88 1987/ 88 M e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d M e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d I I 
:-ii :-ii 
1 .2 1 .2 114 114 I I 2 3 .2 2 3 .2 1 4 .5 1 4 .5 

I I 
EmotionalLy EmotionalLy disturbed disturbed :: :: H a r d o f h e a r i n g a n d d e a f H a r d o f h e a r i n g a n d d e a f 5 7 5 7 8:: 8:: I I 1 .0 1 .0 0 .1 0 .1 I I 9 .1 9 .1 1 .4 1 .4 

I I O r t h o p e d i c a l l y M u l t i -h a n d i c a p p e O r t h o p e d i c a l l y M u l t i -h a n d i c a p p e impeired ddimpeired 4747 7979 ;.; ;.; 0: r 0: r I I 0 .2 0 .1 0 .2 0 .1 I I 1 .9 1 .1 1 .9 1 .1 
I I 
Other health Other health inpaired inpaired V i s u a l l y h a n d i c a p p e d V i s u a l l y h a n d i c a p p e d z z 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 
I I 0 .1 0 .1 I I A::, A::, I I D e a f -b l i n d D e a f -b l i n d 11 0 .0 0 .0 I I 0 .0 0 .0 I I 0 .0 0 .0 

c-17 
65

III. POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 
T a b l e Ill-A: P o s t s e c o n d a r y S t u d e n t s b y P o s t s e c o n d a r y S t u d e n t s b y Fiajor Fiajor F i e l d o f S t u d y a n d D i s a b i l i t y S t a t u s : F a l l 1 9 8 6 F i e l d o f S t u d y a n d D i s a b i l i t y S t a t u s : F a l l 1 9 8 6 

N a t i o n a l N a t i o n a l C e n t e r f o r C e n t e r f o r 
E d u c a t i o n E d u c a t i o n S t a t i s t i c s S t a t i s t i c s 
(1 9 8 9 ) (1 9 8 9 ) 

)) Includes Includes Li Li 

Total ~ostsecondary F i e l d F i e l d 
S t u d e n t s S t u d e n t s o f s t u d y o f s t u d y 
'tiergraduate 'tiergraduate l1,213,432 l1,213,432 
I I 

A r t s A r t s L L h u n a n i t i e s h u n a n i t i e s B u s i n e s s B u s i n e s s 

E d u c a t i o n E d u c a t i o n 

I I 
E n g i n e e r i n g E n g i n e e r i n g H e a l t h H e a l t h 

I I 
G e n e r a l s t u d i e s G e n e r a l s t u d i e s N a t u r a l s c i e n c e s N a t u r a l s c i e n c e s (1) (1) 

1 1 
S o c i a l s c i e n c e s S o c i a l s c i e n c e s Trade/ industriaL Trade/ industriaL 

I I 
All other other 

G r a d u a t e G r a d u a t e I I 1,063. M 1,063. M 
I I 
I I 
Arts Arts L L hwnitics hwnitics B u s i n e s s B u s i n e s s 

I I 
E d u c a t i o n E d u c a t i o n E n g i n e e r i n g E n g i n e e r i n g 

Natural Natural sciences sciences S o c i a l s c i e n c e s S o c i a l s c i e n c e s 
All All other 

-I. I 

F i r s t F i r s t I I ,ofessional ,ofessional 
3 0 0 ,9 0 7 3 0 0 ,9 0 7 I I 

I I L a w L a w 
I I 
Fledicine Fledicine O t h e r m e d i c a l O t h e r m e d i c a l 

I I T h e o l o g y T h e o l o g y 

Nondisabled Nondisabled I I D i s a b l e d D i s a b l e d 
I I 
FF s t u d e n t s s t u d e n t s s t u d e n t s s t u d e n t s 
I I N& w N& w P e r c e n t P e r c e n t 
I I 
Nuder Nuder P e r c e n t P e r c e n t 
I I 

10,005,139 10,005,139 8 9 .2 I 8 9 .2 % %I 1,208,293 1,208,293 1 0 .8 % I 1 0 .8 % I 
6 4 0 ,3 2 9 6 4 0 ,3 2 9 6 .4 % 6 .4 % I 8 9 ,4 1 4 8 9 ,4 1 4 7 .4 7 .4 %% I 
2,811,444 2,811,444 8 6 0 ,4 4 2 8 6 0 ,4 4 2 2 8 .1 % 2 8 .1 % I 2 9 4 ,8 2 3 2 9 4 ,8 2 3 8.6% 112,371 8.6% 112,371 2 4 .4 % 2 4 .4 % I 9 .3 % 9 .3 % 
9 5 0 ,4 8 8 9 5 0 ,4 8 8 9 7 0 ,4 9 8 9 7 0 ,4 9 8 9 .5 % 9 .5 % I 1 1 8 ,4 1 3 1 1 8 ,4 1 3 9.7% 94,247 9.7% 94,247 9 .8 % 9 .8 % I 7 .8 % 7 .8 % 6 9 0 ,3 5 5 6 9 0 ,3 5 5 6.9% 88,205 6.9% 88,205 
1 0 .7 % 1 0 .7 % I 1 2 9 ,2 8 7 1 2 9 ,2 8 7 
7 .3 % 7 .3 % 
1,070,550 1,070,550 1 0 .7 % 1 0 .7 % I 7 3 0 ,3 7 5 7 3 0 ,3 7 5 7.3% 103,913 7.3% 103,913 8.6X/ 8.6X/ 

2 5 0 ,1 2 8 2 5 0 ,1 2 8 2 .5 % 2 .5 % I 3 8 ,6 6 5 3 8 ,6 6 5 3.2X1 3.2X1 

1,040,534 1,040,534 1 0 .4 % 1 0 .4 % I 1 3 7 ,7 4 5 1 3 7 ,7 4 5 1 1 .4 % 1 1 .4 % I 
I I 9 7 4 ,0 5 6 9 7 4 ,0 5 6 91.6% 91.6% 89,090 89,090 8 .4 % 8 .4 % I 9 3 ,5 0 9 9 3 ,5 0 9 9.6% 9,533 9.6% 9,533 1 0 .7 % 1 0 .7 % 

2 0 8 ,4 4 8 2 0 8 ,4 4 8 21.4% 12,116 21.4% 12,116 1 3 .6 % 1 3 .6 % I 
2 1 8 ,1 8 9 2 1 8 ,1 8 9 6 2 .3 4 0 6 2 .3 4 0 2 2 .4 % 2 2 .4 % I 2 2 ,6 2 9 2 2 ,6 2 9 6.4% 4,098 6.4% 4,098 2 5 .4 % 2 5 .4 % I 4 .6 % 4 .6 % 1 1 6 ,8 8 7 1 1 6 ,8 8 7 
9 2 ,5 3 5 9 2 ,5 3 5 12.0% 12.0% I 9,087 9,087 10.2X( 10.2X( 9.5% 8.820 9.5% 8.820 9.9q 9.9q 

1 8 2 ,1 4 8 1 8 2 ,1 4 8 18. tx 18. tx I 22,807 22,807 2 5 .6 % I 2 5 .6 % I 
I 

I I sciences, sciences, &ysical &ysical sciences, sciences, math& r math& r 
2 7 9 ,0 6 1 2 7 9 ,0 6 1 92.7% 21,846 92.7% 21,846 7 .3 % 7 .3 % 
1 0 8 ,5 5 5 1 0 8 ,5 5 5 I I 
I 38.9% 10,901 38.9% 10,901 4 9 .9 % I 4 9 .9 % I 1 0 7 ,7 1 8 1 0 7 ,7 1 8 

4 8 ,8 3 6 4 8 ,8 3 6 38.6% 38.6% I 5,549 5,549 17.5% 4,347 17.5% 4,347 25.4X1 25.4X1 19.9x1 19.9x1 
1 3 .6 7 4 1 3 .6 7 4 4.9% 1,049 4.9% 1,049 _ . _ I . 4 .8 % 4 .8 % I ICS, am compurer s c i e n c e s . s c i e n c e s . 

T a b l e I I I -E : T a b l e I I I -E : D i s a b l e d P o s t s e c o n d a r y S t u d e n t s , b y T y p e o f D i s a b i l i t y : F a l l 1 9 8 6 D i s a b l e d P o s t s e c o n d a r y S t u d e n t s , b y T y p e o f D i s a b i l i t y : F a l l 1 9 8 6 
I I 
I Prevatence Prevatence o f o f Type Type 
I D i s a b i l i t y D i s a b i l i t y o f D i s a b i l i t y o f D i s a b i l i t y N a t i o n a l N a t i o n a l C e n t e r f o r C e n t e r f o r I I I I 1,319,229 1,319,229 Total, any disability any disability E d u c a t i o n E d u c a t i o n 

S t a t i s t i c s S t a t i s t i c s I 1 6 0 ,8 7 8 1 6 0 ,8 7 8 I L e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y L e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y (1 9 8 9 ) (1 9 8 9 ) 5 1 4 ,6 8 1 5 1 4 ,6 8 1 
I V i s u a l h a n d i c a p V i s u a l h a n d i c a p 2 6 5 ,4 8 4 2 6 5 ,4 8 4 H a r d o f h e a r i n g H a r d o f h e a r i n g 8 0 ,9 1 0 8 0 ,9 1 0 D e a f n e s s D e a f n e s s 6 2 ,5 2 5 6 2 ,5 2 5 S p e e c h d i s a b i l i t y S p e e c h d i s a b i l i t y 2 3 1 ,4 9 1 2 3 1 ,4 9 1 O r t h o p e d i c h a n d i c a p O r t h o p e d i c h a n d i c a p 

3 2 0 ,2 7 2 3 2 0 ,2 7 2 Health Health impairment impairment 
1TE: ~Deteils ~Deteils do not add to total due to do not add to total due to nultipie nultipie 

C-18 

2 .1 % 2 .1 % 20.1x1 20.1x1 0 .6 X 0 .6 X 6 .1 % 6 .1 % 
0 .5 % 0 .5 % 4 .7 % 4 .7 % I 1 .8 % 1 .8 % 1 7 .6 % 1 7 .6 % 

2 .6 % 2 .6 % 2 4 .3 % 2 4 .3 % ! ! 
kilities. kilities. I I 
66

III. POSTSECDNDARY POSTSECDNDARY EDUCATIDN EDUCATIDN 
T a b l e I I I -C : T a b l e I I I -C : Portsccomdary Portsccomdary S t u d e n t s b y D i s a b i l i t y S t a t u s S t u d e n t s b y D i s a b i l i t y S t a t u s l d S e l e c t e d d S e l e c t e d Characteristics: Characteristics: Fall Fall 1986 1986 

I I N a t i o n a l N a t i o n a l 
I I 
C e n t e r f o r C e n t e r f o r E d u c a t i o n E d u c a t i o n 

I I 
S t a t i s t i c s S t a t i s t i c s (1 9 8 9 ) (1 9 8 9 ) 

I I 

N o n d i s a b l e d N o n d i s a b l e d D i s a b l e d D i s a b l e d s t u d e n t 8 s t u d e n t 8 s t u d e n t s s t u d e n t s 
S e l e c t e d S e l e c t e d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c C h a r a c t e r i s t i c NUlbM NUlbM P e r c e n t P e r c e n t NUd2W NUd2W P e r c e n t P e r c e n t 

I I 
T o t a l s t u d e n t s T o t a l s t u d e n t s 11,260,514 11,260,514 1,319,229 1,319,229 I I S e x S e x 

I I Male Male 5,033, CfO 5,033, CfO 44.7% 670,168 44.7% 670,168 
I I 
5 0 .8 % 5 0 .8 % female female 
6,227,064 6,227,064 55.3% 649,061 55.3% 649,061 4 9 .2 % I 4 9 .2 % I I I I I I I 

Age Age 
1 5 t o 2 3 1 5 t o 2 3 6,283,367 6,283,367 55.8X1 55.8X1 6 5 6 ,9 7 6 6 5 6 ,9 7 6 49.8%/ 49.8%/ 20 20 t o 2 9 t o 2 9 2,229,582 2,229,582 19.8% 230,865 19.8% 230,865 1 7 .5 % 1 7 .5 % 

3 0 o r o l d e r 3 0 o r o l d e r I I 2.747.565 2.747.565 24.4% 24.4% I 431,388 I 431,388 3 2 .7 % I 3 2 .7 % I 
D e p e n d e n c y S t a t u s D e p e n d e n c y S t a t u s I I 
D e p e n d e n t D e p e n d e n t I I 6,700,006 6,700,006 59.5% 59.5% TJ7,449 TJ7,449 5 5 .9 % 5 5 .9 % 

I n d e p e n d e n t I n d e p e n d e n t 4,560,508 4,560,508 60.5% 581,780 60.5% 581,780 4 4 .1 % I 4 4 .1 % I V e t e r a n S t a t u s V e t e r a n S t a t u s 

V e t e r a n V e t e r a n I I 6 7 5 ,6 3 1 6 7 5 ,6 3 1 6 .0 % 1 5 0 ,3 9 2 6 .0 % 1 5 0 ,3 9 2 11.4% 11.4% N o t v e t e r a n N o t v e t e r a n 10,584,883 94.0% 94.0% 1,168,837 1,168,837 8 8 .6 % 8 8 .6 % 
I I I I 

. . 
c-19 
67

I V . I V . SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING POPULATJDN POPULATJDN (N S F S U R V E Y S ) (N S F S U R V E Y S ) 
T a b l e I V -A . T a b l e I V -A . D e g r e e o f F u n c t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n D e g r e e o f F u n c t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n 

1 9 8 9 N A T J O N A L S U R V E Y 1 9 8 9 N A T J O N A L S U R V E Y O F N A T U R A L A N D O F N A T U R A L A N D 
S O C I A L S O C I A L S C I E N T I S T S S C I E N T I S T S A N D E N G I N E E R S ' A N D E N G I N E E R S ' 

D e g r e e o f D e g r e e o f Funstional Funstional 
L i m i t a t i o n L i m i t a t i o n I I 
FvrtionaL FvrtionaL Limitation Limitation 

I I T o t a l T o t a l S e e i n g S e e i n g H e a r i n g H e a r i n g ualking ualking 
T o t a l , w i t h l i m i t a t i o n s T o t a l , w i t h l i m i t a t i o n s 2 8 7 ,8 0 0 2 8 7 ,8 0 0 1 2 5 ,3 0 0 1 2 5 ,3 0 0 1 7 5 ,1 0 0 1 7 5 ,1 0 0 4 1 ,5 0 0 4 1 ,5 0 0 
(P e r c e n t o f t o t a l s c i e n t i s t s a n d e n g i n e e r s ) (P e r c e n t o f t o t a l s c i e n t i s t s a n d e n g i n e e r s ) T o t a l , w i t h L i m i t a t i o n s T o t a l , w i t h L i m i t a t i o n s 1 6 .4 1 6 .4 7 .1 7 .1 1 0 .0 1 0 .0 2 .4 2 .4 

G r e a t o r u n a b l e t o d o G r e a t o r u n a b l e t o d o 0 .8 0 .8 0 .2 0 .2 0 .2 0 .2 0 .3 0 .3 
S a n e d i f f i c u l t y S a n e d i f f i c u l t y 1 5 .7 1 5 .7 6 .9 6 .9 9 .8 9 .8 2 .0 2 .0 
. . . . . . . . . . s s . . _. _. . . . . T h e s e d a t a a r e T h e s e d a t a a r e for for t n e t n e experienceo experienceo poputarlon poputarlon or or scientists scientists a m a m engIneerr, engIneerr, I .e ., I .e ., rnose rnose 
p e r s o n s w h o r e p o r t e d p e r s o n s w h o r e p o r t e d a s c i e n c e o r e n g i n e e r i n g o c c u p a t i o n o n t h e 1 9 8 0 s c i e n c e o r e n g i n e e r i n g o c c u p a t i o n o n t h e 1 9 8 0 Decemial Decemial C e n s u s . C e n s u s . N O T E : D e t a i l m a y n o t a d d t o t o t a l s b e c a u s e o f r o u n d i n g . N O T E : D e t a i l m a y n o t a d d t o t o t a l s b e c a u s e o f r o u n d i n g . 

c-20 c-20 
68

I V . I V . SCIENCE AND SCIENCE AND ENCINEERlNG ENCINEERlNG PDPULATIOW PDPULATIOW (N S F S U R V E Y S ) (N S F S U R V E Y S ) 
T a b l e I V -g . D e g r e e o f T a b l e I V -g . D e g r e e o f Futctional Futctional l i m i t a t i o n , b y A g e l i m i t a t i o n , b y A g e 

I Fwctionat Fwctionat T o t a l , T o t a l , l i m i t a t i o n l i m i t a t i o n a l l a g e s a l l a g e s II Total Total S6E S6E 1,751, lDD 1,751, lDD 

I 1 9 8 9 N A T I O N A L 1 9 8 9 N A T I O N A L II S U R V E Y O F S U R V E Y O F N A T U R A L A N D N A T U R A L A N D 
I I S O C I A L S C I E N T I S T S S O C I A L S C I E N T I S T S A N D E N G I N E E R S * A N D E N G I N E E R S * 

I I 
I 
T O T A L , T O T A L , WTM LIMITATIWS LIMITATIWS Great or Great or unable unable to do to do 
S o m e d i f f i c u l t y S o m e d i f f i c u l t y 

II 
S E E I N G S E E I N G Great or Great or urablc urablc to do to do 
S o m e d i f f i c u l t y S o m e d i f f i c u l t y 

1 6 .4 1 6 .4 0 .8 0 .8 
1 5 .7 1 5 .7 
7 .1 7 .1 0 .2 0 .2 
6 .9 6 .9 
I 

I 
N E A R I N G N E A R I N G 1 0 .0 1 0 .0 Great or Great or tmable tmable to do to do 0 .2 0 .2 
S o m e d i f f i c u l t y S o m e d i f f i c u l t y 9 .8 9 .8 

I W A L K I N G W A L K I N G II 2 .3 2 .3 Great or Great or tmable tmable to do to do 0 .3 0 .3 !! S o m e d i f f i c u l t y S o m e d i f f i c u l t y 2 -O 2 -O 

i i .. .. II 
.. .. 
.. .. 
-r 

Age I 
2 5 -2 9 2 5 -2 9 3 0 -3 4 3 0 -3 4 3 5 -3 9 3 5 -3 9 40-44 4 5 -4 9 4 5 -4 9 S O -5 4 S O -5 4 5 5 -5 9 5 5 -5 9 60-64 

2 9 ,2 0 0 2 9 ,2 0 0 2 1 0 ,2 0 0 2 1 0 ,2 0 0 3 1 8 ,3 0 0 3 1 8 ,3 0 0 3 2 2 ,4 0 0 3 2 2 ,4 0 0 2 4 3 ,7 0 0 2 4 3 ,7 0 0 2 1 0 ,7 0 0 2 1 0 ,7 0 0 1 6 7 ,6 0 0 1 6 7 ,6 0 0 1 3 0 ,9 0 0 1 3 0 ,9 0 0 / 
(P e r c e n t o f t o t a l s c i e n t i s t s a n d e n g i n e e r s ) (P e r c e n t o f t o t a l s c i e n t i s t s a n d e n g i n e e r s ) 

3 .4 3 .4 6 .7 6 .7 1 0 .7 1 0 .7 1 5 .6 1 5 .6 1 8 .0 1 8 .0 1 9 .2 1 9 .2 2 1 .9 2 1 .9 2 2 .5 2 2 .5 
i:: 6: 4 6: 4 03 03 1::: 1 4 .6 1 4 .6 1 .0 1 .0 1 7 .3 0 .7 1 7 .3 0 .7 1X 1X 2 1 .4 2 1 .4 0 .5 0 .5 2 ::: 2 ::: 
1 .8 1 .8 2 .3 2 .3 4 .8 4 .8 9 .0 9 .0 1 0 .1 1 0 .1 8 .8 8 .8 7 .4 7 .4 6 .8 6 .8 . . .-0 .1 0 .1 0 .3 0 .3 0 .2 0 .2 0 .4 0 .4 
0 .1 0 .1 0 .2 0 .2 1 .8 1 .8 2 .3 2 .3 4 .7 4 .7 8 .7 8 .7 9 .9 9 .9 8 .4 8 .4 7 .3 7 .3 6 .6 6 .6 

2 .5 2 .5 4 .1 4 .1 3 :: 3 :: 7 .7 7 .7 9 .1 9 .1 1 2 .4 1 2 .4 1 4 .7 1 4 .7 1 5 .6 1 5 .6 . . 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .3 0 .3 0 .3 0 .3 
0 .1 0 .1 0 .2 0 .2 2 .5 2 .5 4 .0 4 .0 6 .8 6 .8 7 .6 7 .6 8 .8 8 .8 1 2 .1 1 2 .1 1 4 .6 1 4 .6 1 5 .4 1 5 .4 

0 .6 0 .6 i: P i: P 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5 1 .6 1 .6 1 .7 1 .7 3 .0 3 .0 4 .4 4 .4 
0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .7 0 .7 0 .2 0 .2 0 .2 0 .2 0 .4 0 .4 0 .5 0 .5 0 .8 0 .8 1 .4 1 .4 0 .8 0 .8 1 .4 1 .4 1 .5 1 .5 2 .6 2 .6 9:: 

I I a n d e n g i n e e r s , i .e ., t h o s e a n d e n g i n e e r s , i .e ., t h o s e I I *These data are for *These data are for t; e t; e experienced experienced population'of population'of scimti! scimti! _ _ .. 
persons who reported a science or persons who reported a science or engineerlw engineerlw occupation occupation on the on the 1980 1980 Decennial Census. Decennial Census. N O T E : D e t a i l m a y n o t a d d t o t o t a l s b e c a u s e O f r o u n d i n g . N O T E : D e t a i l m a y n o t a d d t o t o t a l s b e c a u s e O f r o u n d i n g . 
69

I V . S C I E N C E A N D E N G I N E E R I N G P O P U L A T I O N I V . S C I E N C E A N D E N G I N E E R I N G P O P U L A T I O N (NSF (NSF SURVEYS) SURVEYS) 
1 9 8 9 N A T I O N A L 1 9 8 9 N A T I O N A L S U R V E Y O F S U R V E Y O F 
N A T U R A L A N D N A T U R A L A N D S O C I A L S C I E N T I S T S S O C I A L S C I E N T I S T S 
A N D E N G I N E E R S * A N D E N G I N E E R S * 

Table Table IV-C. IV-C. F u n c t i o n a l L i m i t a t i o n b y E f f e c t o n A c t i v i t y F u n c t i o n a l L i m i t a t i o n b y E f f e c t o n A c t i v i t y 
1 1 CCMPLETING CCMPLETING EDUCAT1ON EDUCAT1ON 1 1 FINDING FINDING EHPLOYHENT EHPLOYHENT I I A D V A N C I N G I N C A R E E R A D V A N C I N G I N C A R E E R 
FunctionaL FunctionaL 
I I 
N o N o SOIN SOIN S e v e r e S e v e r e 1 1 N o N o Somh Somh S e v e r e S e v e r e I I N o N o SomC SomC S e v e r e S e v e r e L i m i t a t i o n L i m i t a t i o n Problem Problem Problem Problem Problem Problem 1 Problem 1Problem Problem Problem Problem Problem 1 1 Problem Problem Problem Problem Problem Problem 

I (P e r c e n t ) (P e r c e n t ) otal, otal, w i t h w i t h l i m i t a t i o n s I l i m i t a t i o n s I 8 5 .2 8 5 .2 3 .0 3 .0 0.5 0.5 I I 84.7 84.7 2 .4 2 .4 1 .1 1 .1 
S e e i n g S e e i n g 
H e a r i n g H e a r i n g II 
8 5 .3 8 5 .3 3 .2 3 .2 0 .3 0 .3 84.0 84.0 2 .6 2 .6 1.7 1.7 
8 6 .3 8 6 .3 3 .1 3 .1 0 .3 0 .3 8 7 .2 8 7 .2 1 .4 1 .4 0 .9 0 .9 
W a l k i n g I W a l k i n g I 8 3 .1 8 3 .1 5 .2 5 .2 2 .0 2 .0 I I 7 5 .3 7 5 .3 9 .4 9 .4 5 .1 5 .1 
I I I I ee experienced experienced p o p u l a t i o n o f s c i e n t i s t s a n d e n g i n e e r s , i .e ., t h o s e p o p u l a t i o n o f s c i e n t i s t s a n d e n g i n e e r s , i .e ., t h o s e 

II s c i e n c e o r e n g i n e e r i n g o c c u p a t i o n o n t h e 1 9 8 0 D e c e n n i a l C e n s u s . s c i e n c e o r e n g i n e e r i n g o c c u p a t i o n o n t h e 1 9 8 0 D e c e n n i a l C e n s u s . T h e s e d a t a a r e f o r T h e s e d a t a a r e f o r persons who persons who reporte reporte NOTE: NOTE: Row Row percents percents uill uill not add to 100 not add to 100 because because %o %o report" report" is omitted. is omitted. 

81.1 6.3 81.1 6.3 1 .2 1 .2 
80.8 80.8 6.4 6.4 1 .4 1 .4 
82.7 5.9 82.7 5.9 0 .9 0 .9 
7 3 .0 7 3 .0 1 0 .9 1 0 .9 6 .0 6 .0 

-1 I 
I -. 

c-22 c-22 
70

I V . I V . SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING WKJLATION WKJLATION (WSF (WSF S U R V E Y S ) S U R V E Y S ) 
f a b l e I V -D . f a b l e I V -D . Employment Employment Status Status by functional limitation by functional limitation 

1 9 8 9 N A T I O N A L 1 9 8 9 N A T I O N A L S U R V E Y O F S U R V E Y O F 
N A T U R A L A N D N A T U R A L A N D S O C I A L S C I E N T I S T S S O C I A L S C I E N T I S T S 
A N D E N G I N E E R S * A N D E N G I N E E R S * I I 

I I 
I I 

F u n c t i o n a l F u n c t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n l i m i t a t i o n 
Total Total S& E S& E 

T o t a l , w i t h l i m i t a t i o n s T o t a l , w i t h l i m i t a t i o n s 
S e e i n g S e e i n g 
H e a r i n g H e a r i n g 
W a l k i n g W a l k i n g 
I T 

I I I I 1 0 .0 1 0 .0 9.4 9.4 I I 7 .9 7 .9 2 .4 I 2 .4 I 1 .8 1 .8 1 1 ! ! 1 8 .0 1 8 .0 4.4 4.4 1 1 I I 9.4 9.4 1 1 

T h e s e d a t a a r e f o r T h e s e d a t a a r e f o r ;he ;he e x p e r i e n c e d p o p u l a t i o n o f e x p e r i e n c e d p o p u l a t i o n o f scient scient s t s a n d e n g i n e e r s , s t s a n d e n g i n e e r s , i. e., i. e., t h o s e t h o s e p e r s o n s w h o r e p o r t e d a s c i e n c e o r e n g i n e e r i n g p e r s o n s w h o r e p o r t e d a s c i e n c e o r e n g i n e e r i n g occupatio occupatio I on the 1980 Ion the 1980 Decemial Decemial Census. Census. 
NOTE: NOTE: Oetail Oetail msy msy not add to not add to totals because of rounding. of rounding. 

T o t a l T o t a l Popular Popular UncnplOY& I O u t s i d e O u t s i d e I I T o t a l T o t a l S e e k i n g S e e k i n g t h e L a b o r t h e L a b o r i o n i o n Ewloyed Ewloyed E m p l o y m e n t E m p l o y m e n t 
I I F o r c e F o r c e I I 

I I I I 
1,751,100 1,751,100 1,612, COO 1,612, COO I I 1 4 ,5 0 0 1 4 ,5 0 0 I I 1 2 4 ,2 0 0 1 2 4 ,2 0 0 I I (P e r c e n t o f t o t a l s c i e n t i s t s a n d e n g i n e e r s ) (P e r c e n t o f t o t a l s c i e n t i s t s a n d e n g i n e e r s ) 
I I 

I I I I I I I I 1 6 .4 1 6 .4 I I 1 5 .1 1 5 .1 I I 1 4 .8 1 4 .8 I I 2 9 .3 2 9 .3 1 1 

7 .2 7 .2 I I 7 .0 7 .0 I I 5 .8 5 .8 1 1 8 .8 8 .8 f f 

c-23 
71

Table Table IV-E. IV-E. S e l f -i d e n t i f i e d P h y s i c a l S e l f -i d e n t i f i e d P h y s i c a l fspaimnt fspaimnt b y T y p e a n d A g e b y T y p e a n d A g e 
I I S o u r c e S o u r c e I I 
P h y s i c a l P h y s i c a l T o t a l , T o t a l , U n d e r U n d e r 6 0 6 0 a n d a n d inpaiment inpaiment 
I I all all ages ages 3 0 3 0 30-39 30-39 40-49 40-49 S O -5 9 S O -5 9 o v e r o v e r 

1 9 8 6 U .S . S C I E N T I S T S 1 9 8 6 U .S . S C I E N T I S T S A N D E N G I N E E R S * A N D E N G I N E E R S * 

I 1 9 8 7 S U R V E Y O F 1 9 8 7 S U R V E Y O F D O C T O R A T E R E C I P I E N T S D O C T O R A T E R E C I P I E N T S 
I 

1 9 8 6 1 9 8 6 N A T I O N A L S U R V E Y N A T I O N A L S U R V E Y O F N A T U R A L A N D O F N A T U R A L A N D 
SOCIAL SOCIAL SClENTlSfS SClENTlSfS A N D E N G I N E E R S -A N D E N G I N E E R S -: 

l) :l) I n c l u d e s r e s p o n d e n I n c l u d e s r e s p o n d e n . . s s whose specific whose specific iwiment'was iwiment'was not not rep rep I iorted. iorted. *Data *Data from from t h i s s o u r c e w e r e g e n e r a t e d b y t h i s s o u r c e w e r e g e n e r a t e d b y combining combining s u r v e y r e s u l t s f o r e x p e r i e n c e d s c i e n t i s t s a n d e n g i n e e r s s u r v e y r e s u l t s f o r e x p e r i e n c e d s c i e n t i s t s a n d e n g i n e e r s 
a s a s well a s s u r v e y r e s u l t s f o r p e r s o n s w h o e n t e r e d t h e S L E w o r k f o r c e a f t e r t h e 1 9 8 0 D e c e n n i a l C e n s u s . a s s u r v e y r e s u l t s f o r p e r s o n s w h o e n t e r e d t h e S L E w o r k f o r c e a f t e r t h e 1 9 8 0 D e c e n n i a l C e n s u s . 

with impairments lotal,with impairments (1) (1) 1 0 0 ,1 0 0 1 0 0 ,1 0 0 5 ,3 0 0 5 ,3 0 0 1 3 ,7 0 0 1 3 ,7 0 0 1 9 ,3 0 0 1 9 ,3 0 0 2 1 ,4 0 0 2 1 ,4 0 0 4 0 ,3 0 0 4 0 ,3 0 0 
(P e r c e n t o f t o t a l s c i e n t i s t s (P e r c e n t o f t o t a l s c i e n t i s t s and e n g i n e e r s ) e n g i n e e r s ) T o t a l , T o t a l , u i t h u i t h inpairmcnts inpairmcnts 2 .0 2 .0 
0.5 1 .0 1 .0 1 .7 1 .7 2 .5 2 .5 6 .5 6 .5 

V i s u a l o n l y V i s u a l o n l y 0 .2 0 .2 oO: f oO: f 0 .5 0 .5 Auditory Auditory only 0 .1 0 .1 0.4 0.4 
At% ulatory At% ulatory only 0 .1 0 .1 0 .3 0 .3 0 .3 0 .3 0.4 0.4 1 .5 1 .5 Multiple Multiple imirmcnte imirmcnte .I .I -w -w .s .s 0 .3 0 .3 0 .9 0 .9 

I I 
Total, with with impairments impairments (1) (1) 1 1 ,1 0 0 1 1 ,1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 ,5 0 0 1 ,5 0 0 3 ,0 0 0 3 ,0 0 0 2 ,8 0 0 2 ,8 0 0 3 ,8 0 0 3 ,8 0 0 

I 
I (Percent of (Percent of total scientists scientists and engineers) engineers) 
Total, with with inprirmento inprirmento 2 .5 2 .5 1 .6 1 .6 1 .2 1 .2 1 .8 1 .8 3 .2 3 .2 5 .9 5 .9 I 
Visual only I 0 .5 0 .5 IS 0.4 0.4 0 .9 0 .9 I A u d i t o r y o n l y A u d i t o r y o n l y 

I I 0":: 0":: 
ss ss i-f 
A& xJlrtory A& xJlrtory only only oO: f oO: f 0 .3 0 .3 -e -e 0 .4 0 .4 0: 8 0: 8 Multiple Multiple impclirrwts impclirrwts 1 1 0 .2 0 .2 
-I -I 0 .1 0 .1 0 .3 0 .3 

Total, with Total, with i~ irtnents i~ irtnents (1) (1) 
I I 
3 7 ,6 0 0 3 7 ,6 0 0 

I I 
(P e r c e n t (P e r c e n t of of total 

I SE) Total, Total, uith uith imiriaents imiriaents ' ' 
I I 
2 .1 2 .1 

Visual Visual only 
I 
0.6 A u d i t o r y o n l y A u d i t o r y o n l y 

Arrkrlrtory Arrkrlrtory only only I I k?: k?: 

**T h e s e d a t a a r e f o r t h e e x p e r i e n c e d p o p u l a t i o n o f s c i e n t i s t s a n d e n g i n e e r s , i .e ., t h o s e **T h e s e d a t a a r e f o r t h e e x p e r i e n c e d p o p u l a t i o n o f s c i e n t i s t s a n d e n g i n e e r s , i .e ., t h o s e p e r s o n s w h o r e p o r t e d p e r s o n s w h o r e p o r t e d a s c i e n c e o r e n g i n e e r i n g o c c u p a t i o n o n t h e 1 9 8 0 s c i e n c e o r e n g i n e e r i n g o c c u p a t i o n o n t h e 1 9 8 0 Decemial Decemial C e n s u s . C e n s u s . 

C -2 4 
72

IV. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING IV. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING POPULATIOR POPULATIOR (N S F S U R V E Y S ) (N S F S U R V E Y S ) 
Table Table lV-F. lV-F. Self-identified Physical Self-identified Physical lnpairments lnpairments of of S& E S& E G r a d u a t e s G r a d u a t e s by T y p e a n d D e g r e e L e v e l T y p e a n d D e g r e e L e v e l 
I I 
P h y s i c a l P h y s i c a l I I S& E S& E S o u r c e S o u r c e impairment impairment 1 1 graduates graduates 

S U R V E Y O F S U R V E Y O F R E C E N T S C I E N C E R E C E N T S C I E N C E 
AND AND ENClNEERlNG ENClNEERlNG G R A D U A T E S G R A D U A T E S 
(1 9 8 6 -8 7 G R A D U A T E S (1 9 8 6 -8 7 G R A D U A T E S I N 1 9 8 8 ) I N 1 9 8 8 ) 

_ -I 
I I 
I I I 

B A C H E L O R ' S R E C I P I E N T S B A C H E L O R ' S R E C I P I E N T S 
I I 
6 2 8 ,0 0 0 6 2 8 ,0 0 0 
I I 

I I 
(P e r c e n t (P e r c e n t of of total) total) 
I I Total, with with itqxsirments itqxsirments (1) (1) 

I 1.0 I V i s u a l o n l y V i s u a l o n l y A u d i t o r y o n l y A u d i t o r y o n l y I iz I Atilatory Atilatory only only 0.3 

Multiple Multiple impairments impairments I .... I I 
C U S T E R ' S R E C I P I E N T S C U S T E R ' S R E C I P I E N T S 

Total, with Total, with inpairsmts inpairsmts (1) (1) 
visual visual only only A u d i t o r y o n l y A u d i t o r y o n l y 
Ambulatory Ambulatory onty onty Mutriple Mutriple iqksifments iqksifments 

1 1 4 ,2 0 0 1 1 4 ,2 0 0 I I 
(P e r c e n t (P e r c e n t I o f t o t a l ) o f t o t a l ) 
0 .4 0 .4 I 

0.1 I 0.1 
0 .1 0 .1 I _I I 

I I NEU NEU P H .D . R E C I P I E N T S P H .D . R E C I P I E N T S 1 1 39,600 39,600 1 1 
S U R V E Y O F S U R V E Y O F E A R N E D E A R N E D 
D O C T O R A T E S D O C T O R A T E S (1 9 8 7 A N D (1 9 8 7 A N D 1988 1988 
COnEINED) COnEINED) 

Total, with Total, with inprimtents inprimtents (1) (1) 
V i s u a l o n l y V i s u a l o n l y A u d i t o r y o n l y A u d i t o r y o n l y 
Amktlatory Amktlatory only only Vocal Vocal only 

(P e r c e n t (P e r c e n t of total) 
1.0 
0.3 
X:: .s 

i i I I (1) (1) I n c l u d e s r e s p o n d e n t s w h o s e s p e c i f i c I n c l u d e s r e s p o n d e n t s w h o s e s p e c i f i c impairment impairment w a s w a s .mt .mt r e p o r t e d . r e p o r t e d . 

C-25 
73