Table Of Content

National Science Board SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS DIGEST NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD Ray M. Bowen. Chairman, President Emeritus, Texas A&M W. Carl Lineberger. Fellow of JILA, E.U. Condon Distinguished University and Visiting Distinguished Professor, Rice University Professor of Chemistry, University of Colorado Esin Gulari. Vice Chairman, Dean of Engineering and Science, G. P. (Bud) Peterson. President, Georgia Institute of Technology Clemson University Douglas D. Randall. Professor and Thomas Jefferson Fellow and Director, Interdisciplinary Plant Group, University of Missouri Mark R. Abbott. Dean and Professor, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University Arthur K. Reilly. Retired Senior Director, Strategic Technology Policy, Cisco Systems, Inc. Dan E. Arvizu. Director and Chief Executive, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Anneila I. Sargent. Benjamin M. Rosen Professor of Astronomy and Vice President for Student Affairs, California Institute of Technology Bonnie Bassler.* Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator and Squibb Professor of Molecular Biology, Princeton University Diane L. Souvaine. Professor of Computer Science, Tufts University Camilla P. Benbow. Patricia and Rodes Hart Dean of Education and Arnold F. Stancell. Emeritus Professor and Turner Leadership Human Development, Peabody College of Education and Human Chair, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Chemical and Development, Vanderbilt University Biomolecular Engineering John T. Bruer. President, The James S. McDonnell Foundation Claude M. Steele. Dean, School of Education, Stanford University France A. Córdova. President, Purdue University Thomas N. Taylor. Roy A. Roberts Distinguished Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Curator of Kelvin K. Droegemeier. Vice President for Research, Regents’ Paleobotany in the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Professor of Meteorology and Weathernews Chair Emeritus, Research Center, The University of Kansas University of Oklahoma Richard F. Thompson. Keck Professor of Psychology and Biological Patricia D. Galloway. Chief Executive Officer, Pegasus Global Sciences, University of Southern California Holdings, Inc. Robert J. Zimmer. President, University of Chicago José-Marie Griffiths. Vice President for Academic Affairs and University Professor, Bryant University MEMBER EX OFFICIO Louis J. Lanzerotti.* Distinguished Research Professor of Physics, Subra Suresh. Member ex officio, Director, National Science Foundation Center for Solar-Terrestrial Research, Department of Physics, New Jersey Institute of Technology Michael L. Van Woert. Executive Officer, National Science Board, and Director, National Science Board Office Alan I. Leshner. Chief Executive Officer, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Executive Publisher, Science *Board consultant National Science Board SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS DIGEST 2012 January 2012 NSB 12-02 PREFACE The National Science Board (Board) is required under This digest of major S&E indicators draws from the the National Science Foundation (NSF) Act, 42 U.S.C. § Board’s Science and Engineering Indicators 2012, the 1863 (j) (1) to prepare and transmit the biennial Science and 20th volume of this biennial series. The digest serves Engineering Indicators (SEI) report to the President and to draw attention to important trends and data points to the Congress by January 15 of every even-numbered from across SEI 2012 and to introduce readers to the year. The report is prepared by the NSF National Center data resources available in the report. Readers are for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) under invited to explore each of the major indicators presented the guidance of the Board. It is subject to extensive review here in more detail in the full report. To that end, each by Board members, outside experts, interested federal indicator presented in this digest is matched with the agencies, and NCSES internal reviewers for accuracy, SEI 2012 chapter or chapters from which it was drawn. coverage, and balance. The complete SEI 2012 report and related resources are available on the Web at www.nsf.gov/statistics/indicators/. Indicators are quantitative representations—summaries— of factors relevant to the scope, quality, and vitality of Readers may also be interested in resources associated the science and engineering (S&E) enterprise. SEI is with SEI 2012 which include the Board’s companion pieces the major authoritative source of these high-quality to SEI 2012. The section “SEI 2012 Online Resources” U.S. and international data. SEI is factual and policy- at the end of this digest provides a complete list and neutral; it neither offers policy options nor makes policy descriptions of these products and tools. The Board hopes recommendations. The indicators included in the report that readers will take advantage of these rich sources of are intended to contribute to the understanding of the information. current S&E environment. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Introduction 4 Global R&D: Measuring Commitment to Innovation (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:116)(cid:1)How much? (cid:116)(cid:1)Growth (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:116)(cid:1)Where? (cid:116)(cid:1)Intensity 6 U.S. R&D: Funding and Performance (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:116)(cid:1)Funding sources (cid:116)(cid:1)Academic R&D support (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:116)(cid:1)Types of R&D (cid:116)(cid:1)Performers 8 U.S. R&D: Federal Portfolio (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:116)(cid:1)Type of work (cid:116)(cid:1)Focus (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:116)(cid:1)Support for S&E fields (cid:116)(cid:1)Performers 10 STEM Education (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:116)(cid:1)K–12 mathematics and science (cid:116)(cid:1)U.S. bachelor’s degrees (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:116)(cid:1)International bachelor’s degrees (cid:116)(cid:1)International doctoral degrees 12 U.S. S&E Workforce: Trends and Composition (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:116)(cid:1)Workforce growth (cid:116)(cid:1)Women and underrepresented minorities (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:116)(cid:1)Unemployment (cid:116)(cid:1)Foreign-born scientists and engineers 14 Research Outputs: Publications and Patents (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:116)(cid:1)Publications (cid:116)(cid:1)Patents (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:116)(cid:1)Engineering articles (cid:116)(cid:1)Science-patent linkage (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:116)(cid:1)Citations to the literature 16 Geography of S&T: Globalization of Capabilities (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:116)(cid:1)Location of R&D (cid:116)(cid:1)High-technology manufacturing (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:116)(cid:1)Researchers (cid:116)(cid:1)High-technology exports (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:116)(cid:1)Cross-border R&D 18 Glossary and Key to Acronyms 19 Explore Further 20 SEI 2012 Online Resources Science and Engineering Indicators Digest 2012 1 INTRODUCTION The United States holds a preeminent position in science Many other nations, recognizing the economic and social and engineering (S&E) in the world, derived in large part benefits of such investment, have increased their R&D from its long history of public and private investment in and education spending. These trends are by now well- S&E research and development (R&D) and education. established and will challenge the world leadership role of Investment in R&D, science, technology, and education the United States. correlate strongly with economic growth, as well the development of a safe, healthy, and well-educated society. 2 www.nsf.gov/statistics/digest/ MAJOR S&E INDICATORS WHAT THESE INDICATORS TELL THE NATION The National Science Board has selected 30 S&E indicators By selecting a set of indicators, the Board seeks to for inclusion in this digest. These indicators have been contribute to the assessment of the state of U.S. grouped into seven topical areas. Although each stands science and engineering and to highlight issues of alone, collectively these seven themes are a snapshot of U.S. current opportunity or concern. These measures R&D capacity and outputs in the context of global trends address an emerging set of trends of particular interest affecting them. Exploration of areas that indicate capacity to planners and policymakers at all levels whose for innovation is a thread common to many of the themes decisions affect our national S&E enterprise. presented here. As economies worldwide grow increasingly knowledge-intensive and interdependent, capacity for innovation becomes ever more critical. Three themes provide a worldwide view, picturing R&D spending, research outputs, and science and technology capacities. Three others share a predominately domestic focus, providing indicators of U.S. R&D funding and performance, federal R&D support, STEM education, and the U.S. S&E workforce. Where possible, the Digest examines the effects of the recent global financial crisis and recession on strength and direction of the major trends that shape the global science, technology, and innovation system. These topical indicators may vary in successive volumes of the Science and Engineering Indicators series as different S&E policy issues emerge. Science and Engineering Indicators Digest 2012 3 GLOBAL R&D: MEASURING COMMITMENT TO INNOVATION WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? Innovation in the form of new goods, services, or processes builds on new knowledge and technologies, contributes to national competitiveness, and furthers social welfare. Investment in research and development, a major driver of innovation, is vital in knowledge-intensive economies. R&D expenditures indicate the priority given to advancing science and technology relative to other national goals. A. HOW MUCH? In contrast, China’s R&D expenditures rose sharply in 2009, at 28% well above its trend-line (1996–2007) average annual R&D expenditures worldwide are estimated to have exceeded growth of 22%. (Just-released data from China’s National $1.25 trillion in 2009, up from $641 billion a decade earlier. Bureau of Statistics indicate 2010 R&D growth of 22%). B. WHERE? Rapid R&D growth in Asia overall reflects private spending by domestic and foreign firms and increased public R&D U.S. R&D expenditures accounted for about 31% of the spending that is often focused on sectors deemed to be of worldwide total, down from 38% a decade earlier. strategic importance. The combined R&D expenditures of 10 Asian economies (China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South D. INTENSITY Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam) rose steadily to reach U.S. R&D intensity measures how much of a country’s economic levels in 2009, driven mostly by China, now the second largest activity (gross domestic product) its R&D investment R&D performing nation. represents. C. GROWTH Japan committed a higher share of its GDP to R&D than most other large economies but is likely to be surpassed by South R&D growth of Western and other countries slowed markedly Korea. China’s R&D intensity increased sharply, as growth in after 2008 in the face of adverse economic conditions. Singapore R&D outpaced a rapid expansion in GDP. and Japan experienced especially sharp contractions, and, after accounting for inflation, R&D growth was negative for both the The slight 2009 U.S. and EU increases reflect essentially flat United States and the EU. R&D expenditures in a year when GDP declined. 4 www.nsf.gov/statistics/digest/ A C Estimated R&D expenditures worldwide: 1996–2009 Average annual growth of R&D expenditures for United States, European Union, and Asia-10 economies: 2007–08 and 2008–09 1400 30 25 2007–08 2008–09 1200 20 1000 15 NS NT 10 BILLIO680000 PERCE 05 $ -5 400 -10 200 -15 019961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009 Singapore Japan UnitedStates EuropeanUnion Taiwan Asia-10 China SouthKorea NOTE: Asia-10=China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. SEI 2012: Global Patterns of R&D Expenditures, Chapter 4. SEI 2012: Global Patterns of R&D Expenditures, Chapter 4. B D R&D expenditures for the United States, European Union, R&D expenditures as share of economic output for selected and Asia-10 economies: 1996–2009 countries: 1996–2009 450 T UC 4.0 400 D O 3.5 $ BILLIONS122335050500000 United States EuropeaAn sUia-n1io0n OSS DOMESTIC PR 1223....5050 Japan South Korea UEunritoepde aSnt aUtension R G 15000 Rest of world NT OF 01..50 China E 019961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009 PERC 0.0 19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009 NOTE: Asia-10=China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. SEI 2012: Comparison of Country R&D Intensities, Chapter 4. SEI 2012: Global Patterns of R&D Expenditures, Chapter 4. Science and Engineering Indicators Digest 2012 5 U.S. R&D: FUNDING AND PERFORMANCE WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? Outcomes and benefits of R&D depend not only on the total resources devoted to it but also on the types of R&D these resources support—basic research, applied research, development—and on who performs it. A. FUNDING SOURCES C. ACADEMIC R&D SUPPORT Overall, U.S. R&D support from 2008 to 2009 remained nearly The bulk of academic R&D is basic research, amounting to level—a drop of about 1.7% in inflation-adjusted terms. more than half of the nation’s total basic research. Sources of support for academic R&D have been relatively stable for nearly Industry, long the nation’s largest supporter of R&D, reduced two decades: about 60% from the federal government, 20% its 2009 funding in the face of unfavorable business conditions from institutions’ own funds. Industry funding has gradually by nearly 4%. This drop was partially offset by a Recovery Act- declined from 7% to about 6%. enabled rise in federal R&D funding. B. TYPES OF R&D D. PERFORMERS The nature of R&D varies by performer. Industry is the Resources for applied research and development—work that aims at practical application, new products, or novel processes— dominant performer of the nation’s development and applied declined from 2008 to 2009. Propelled by a $7 billion drop in research; the federal government, academic institutions, and industry funding, the decline was partially countered by a $4 other nonprofit organizations combined perform less than 20% billion rise in federal government funds. of that total. Basic research is directed primarily toward increasing knowl- Universities and colleges are the prime performers of the na- edge or understanding and has long relied on federal govern- tion’s basic research, a role they uniquely combine with the ment support. Support from industry remained below that training of new researchers. Industry’s share of basic research from higher education and other nonprofit institutions, and performance has recently risen after years of decline; the federal federal support dropped from 62% of the total in 2004 to 56% government share has gradually diminished. in 2009. 6 www.nsf.gov/statistics/digest/