Analyzed the data: GJH WAH RH NK EAS PA PC DF BRF BL FM VO CVS GvB JCW EK. Wrote the paper: GJH WAH RH EAS EK. Made significant contributions to the interpretation of the results: NK PA PC DF BRF BL FM VO CVS GvB JCW. Helped decide the scope of the paper: NK PA PC DF BRF BL FM VO CVS GvB JCW. Suggested analysis to include: NK PA PC DF BRF FM CVS GvB JCW. Conceived of the analysis and directed the project: EK.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
To gauge the current commitment to scientific research in the United States of America (US), we compared federal research funding (FRF) with the US gross domestic product (GDP) and industry research spending during the past six decades. In order to address the recent globalization of scientific research, we also focused on four key indicators of research activities: research and development (R&D) funding, total science and engineering doctoral degrees, patents, and scientific publications. We compared these indicators across three major population and economic regions: the US, the European Union (EU) and the People's Republic of China (China) over the past decade. We discovered a number of interesting trends with direct relevance for science policy. The level of US FRF has varied between 0.2% and 0.6% of the GDP during the last six decades. Since the 1960s, the US FRF contribution has fallen from twice that of industrial research funding to roughly equal. Also, in the last two decades, the portion of the US government R&D spending devoted to research has increased. Although well below the US and the EU in overall funding, the current growth rate for R&D funding in China greatly exceeds that of both. Finally, the EU currently produces more science and engineering doctoral graduates and scientific publications than the US in absolute terms, but not per capita. This study's aim is to facilitate a serious discussion of key questions by the research community and federal policy makers. In particular, our results raise two questions with respect to: a) the increasing globalization of science: “What role is the US playing now, and what role will it play in the future of international science?”; and b) the ability to produce beneficial innovations for society: “How will the US continue to foster its strengths?”
Research in the US is widely believed to be essential to the country's economic growth, and the innovations derived from basic and applied research provide enormous benefits to society
In this study, we seek to provide an objective analysis of the state of scientific research: a) in the US since the 1960s and b) in comparison with two other major population and economic regions, the EU (specifically, the EU-27, which consists of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) and China since 1996. This study focuses only on the comparison between these three population (over 300 million people each) and economic (over half of the US GDP each) regions since they are the only regions with both this level of population and economic output.
The task of evaluating scientific output using quantitative measures has been widely discussed
Work involving scientific and technical innovation is often divided into basic research, applied research and development. According to the NSF, basic research is the study of phenomena without specific applications in mind, while applied research is study to gain knowledge necessary to determine how a specific need may be met
The relative research statuses of China, the EU, and the US in the world's scientific research community are popular topics in literature. China's increasing output is undeniable and its impact on the global landscape is widely discussed
Dataset | Source organization and reference | Figures | Table |
Federal funds for R & D | NSF |
1, 2, 3 | 3 |
Gross domestic product | Bureau of Economic Analysis |
1, 3 | |
Consumer price index | Bureau of Labor Statistics |
1, 2, 3 | |
Budget of the US government | OMB |
1, 3, 4 | |
National patterns of R&D resources | NSF |
5, 6 | |
Survey of industrial R&D | NSF |
2 | |
Science and technology tables | OECD |
7, 8 | |
Graduates by field of education | OECD |
9, 10 | |
Science and engineering indicators | NSF |
9, 10 | |
Triadic patents granted | OECD |
11, 12 | |
US population | US Census Bureau |
2, 8, 10, 12, 14 | |
EU-15 population | European Central Bank |
8, 10, 12, 14 |
From the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
We used multiple datasets made available from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) from 1996–2006 for China, the EU-27, and the US. These datasets included: R&D spending, R&D spending divided by GDP, R&D spending divided by population, and percent of R&D financed by government
To rule out the potential bias in domestic patents discussed at length in
For our analysis of doctoral degrees, we found the number of science and engineering doctorates awarded by institutions in China, the EU, and the US
We also analyzed the number of papers produced by authors in the US, the EU-27 and China
Datasets have been acquired from the best and most reliable sources available. However, there are some issues with regard to comparability across regions. In particular, the data do not measure the skill level of the doctoral graduates, the value of the patents granted or the originality of the papers published. These qualities may vary between the regions. Despite these potential limitations, the comparisons are illustrative in the present context.
Most of the datasets were directly amenable to statistical analysis, including, for example, the annual absolute and relative differentials. The OECD data had missing values for the fraction of R&D funded by the government in China for 2001 and 2002 therefore we estimated this using linear interpolation.
Adjusted for inflation and divided by the population, growth in the US FRF has been uneven, with large increases during some years and gradual reductions during other years (
FRF in constant dollars (A), as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP) (B), as a percent of federal spending (C), and as a percent of federal discretionary spending (D). Discretionary spending is money which is set aside each fiscal year by an annual spending bill on a non-mandatory basis.
FRF in inflation adjusted dollars per person.
Each point on the graph represents the difference in FRF between consecutive years. The change in FRF can be viewed in inflation adjusted dollars (A), as a percent of GDP (B), as a percent of federal spending (C), and as a percent of federal discretionary spending (D).
The two peaks can be explained mainly by the trends in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) budgets. The first peak is attributable to the burst of funding that NASA received during the space race, and the second peak to the period of regularly increased NIH funding on the “doubling curve” (
Budgets for NASA and NIH as a percent of US federal discretionary spending.
Percentage of research (A) and R&D (B) spending derived from five different sources: 1. federal agencies, 2. industry, 3. universities and colleges, 4. nonprofit organizations, and 5. state and local governments.
The research portion of federal R&D spending in the US.
Category | Subcategory | Further subcategory | Percent |
Manufacturing | 69.8 | ||
Chemicals | 22.8 | ||
Pharmaceuticals and medicines | 19.6 | ||
Computer and electronic products | 20.5 | ||
Semiconductor and other electronic components | 7.5 | ||
Navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control instruments | 5.1 | ||
Transportation equipment | 12.8 | ||
Motor vehicles, trailers, and parts | 6.6 | ||
Aerospace products and parts | 5.5 | ||
Nonmanufacturing | 30.2 | ||
Information | 11.9 | ||
Publishing, including software | 8.6 | ||
Professional, scientific, and technical services | 13.6 | ||
Computer systems design and related services | 5.6 | ||
Scientific R&D services | 5.0 |
Only categories and subcategories that received at least 5% of the overall industry R&D spending are listed.
Agency | Subordinate agency | Percent |
Department of Defense | 49.9 | |
DARPA | 3.1 | |
Missile Defense Agency | 8.0 | |
Department of the Air Force | 10.3 | |
Department of the Army | 9.3 | |
Department of the Navy | 15.3 | |
Department of Education | 0.3 | |
Department of Energy | 7.1 | |
Department of Health and Human Services | 25.6 | |
National Institutes of Health | 24.5 | |
National Aeronautics and Space Administration | 7.2 | |
National Science Foundation | 3.6 |
Agencies that received at least 5% of the overall federal R&D spending are listed. In addition, we included the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
In contrast, 75.5% of federal R&D spending is captured by two categories: the Department of Defense (49.9%) and the NIH (24.5%) within the Department of Health and Human Services (
Government R&D spending adjusted for inflation (A). Government R&D spending normalized by adjusting for inflation and scaling to have unit spent equivalent to that country's R&D spending in 2000 (B). Government R&D as a percent of that nation's GDP (C).
Federal government spending on R&D per person, in inflation adjusted dollars, from 1996 to 2007 for the US, the EU-27 and China. Per capita figures were divided by the population of the region.
The solid lines show the number of doctoral degrees granted by institutions in each region. In addition, the dashed line shows the number of doctoral degrees granted by the US institutions to the US citizens and permanent residents.
The solid lines show the number of doctoral degrees granted per capita by institutions in the US, the EU-15 and China. In addition, the dashed line shows the number of doctoral degrees granted per capita by the US institutions to the US citizens and permanent residents. Per capita figures were divided by the population of the region.
We make three key observations from
The triadic patent data in
Triadic patents are patents which are valid with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the Japan Patent Office, and the European Patent Office. The blue, green, and red lines show the number of triadic patents granted to American (US), European (within the EU-27), and Chinese inventors, respectively.
The blue, green, and red lines show the number of triadic patents granted per capita to American (US), European (within the EU-27), and Chinese inventors, respectively. Per capita figures were divided by the population of the region.
Papers from journals included in the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index were enumerated. Each region received a fractional count based on the fraction of the institutions in the region.
Papers from journals included in the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index were enumerated. Each region received a fractional count based on the fraction of the institutions in the region. The number of papers was divided by the size of the population of each region.
Our findings can be summarized into eight key results.
Our world is an ever-changing environment, and it is naïve to think that any country can conduct business as it has been and expect that to be adequate for the future. While the US can pride itself on a legacy of remarkable advancements, it is time once again to reexamine what policies and resources are available for the future. We must examine the question: “What role is the US playing now, and what role will it play in the future of international science?” The US is facing increasing global competition in research and research related areas. Although our current comparisons are limited to China and the EU, it is clear that many regions throughout the world are investing in science and should be studied as well. These include other parts of Asia (specifically, India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, and South-West Asia), non-EU Europe (specifically, Russian Federation, Switzerland and Ukraine) and the Americas (specifically, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and Mexico).
In addition, given the results of our analysis, we must consider “How will the US continue to foster its scientific strengths?” These results illustrate that the US financial commitment to research has plateaued in recent years, although the federal government has shifted more of its funding towards basic and applied research, while industry continues to concentrate on development. As science is founded on rigor and quality, it will be a mistake to be distracted by sheer quantity. A point in its favor is that the US currently has a very strong system of university research. In fact, in the 2009 Academic Ranking of World Universities, 17 of the top 20 universities were in the US
Research (both basic and applied) translates into technological innovations that, in turn, transform into benefits for society and improvements in people's lives. Given that a substantial increase in funding is unlikely, the US government will have to find new innovative ways to increase the effectiveness of current funding. Similarly to post World War II, when Vannevar Bush helped to formulate new federal policy towards science
We would like to thank Andrew Bauman, Vicki Cohn, James Crawford, David Cullen, Kevin Finneran, Thomas Hansen, James Hendricks, Ronald Johnson, Evelyne Kolker, David Lipman, Brenton Louie, Andrew Lowe, Courtney MacNealy, Michael Portman, Peter Richardson, Richard Roberts, Richard Satava, Alex Shneider, Margaret Sedensky, Arnold Smith, and William Smith for their critical reading and insightful discussions.