{"id":383,"date":"2017-12-01T12:25:40","date_gmt":"2017-12-01T17:25:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/?p=383"},"modified":"2017-12-02T09:56:54","modified_gmt":"2017-12-02T14:56:54","slug":"how-does-u-s-investment-in-science-compare-to-that-of-other-countries","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/2017\/12\/01\/how-does-u-s-investment-in-science-compare-to-that-of-other-countries\/","title":{"rendered":"How does U.S. investment in science compare to that of other countries?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

I know you\u2019ve been wondering.<\/p>\n

Federal investment in science supports the research of professors and graduate students at American universities, and funds our national laboratories. About half of U.S. basic research is conducted at universities and is funded by the federal government. However, the largest share of U.S. total \u201cresearch and development<\/a>\u201d (R&D) is development, and this is mainly performed by the business sector. The business sector also performs the majority of applied research. The R&D performed domestically by U.S. businesses occurs mainly in five business sectors<\/a>: chemicals manufacturing (particularly the pharmaceuticals industry); computer and electronic products manufacturing; transportation equipment manufacturing (particularly the automobiles and aerospace industries); information (particularly the software publishing industry); and professional, scientific, and technical services (particularly the computer systems design and scientific R&D services industries).<\/p>\n

The government-university-industry partnership dates to at least the Morrill Act<\/a> of 1862, and is ever-changing. As an example of this change, we remember that, in 1925, 4000 scientists and engineers were assigned to a newly created Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc.<\/a> to explore \u201cfundamental areas of science likely to shape the future of the industry\u201d. At a recent National Academies of Science convocation<\/a>, Jeannette Wing (Director of the Data Science Institute at Columbia University and Former Corporate Vice President of Microsoft Research) referred to this partnership as \u201cout of whack\u201d. Think of the 3-cycle:<\/p>\n

\"\"We could hope that government provides funds for universities to build talent and ideas and industries, in turn, take these ideas (and hire our students) and build upon them for the public good, at which point the economy grows and brings money back to the government.<\/p>\n

For a number of reasons, the public feels disconnected, even alienated, from this cycle. This is hurting our country. We \u2013 the scientific community \u2013 need to take responsibility for this alienation, at least in part. More on this in future blog posts. But, now, back to the topic of national investments in science.<\/p>\n

American investment in science has been relatively high, but countries that have not spent so much in the past are upping their game, to help secure their future economic stability and growth. According to a 2016 Nature article<\/a><\/em>, the U.S. ranks 11th<\/sup> in terms of its investment in research and development as a percentage of its gross domestic product. They report that the top 30 countries spend roughly 1.7% to 4.3% of GDP in this way.<\/p>\n

In case you are interested, the top 12 countries, in decreasing order of investment, are: South Korea, Israel, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Jamaica, U.S., and Fiji. Any surprises therein? When looking at the list, it struck me that Nepal and Democratic Republic of the Congo come in at #s 24 and 26, above both Norway (#28) and the United Kingdom (#29); could it be particularly small denominators? In any case (that was a slight digression), Israel and South Korea are the only two countries to invest over 4% and, for the past 3 or 4 years, they have gone back and forth in the #1 and #2 positions in this ranking.<\/p>\n

This ranking, though, hides interesting information about such comparisons. For example, 75% of the South Korean investments<\/a> are from industry. In the U.S., the majority had \u2013 for a long time \u2013 come from the federal government. In 2013 the federal government funds accounted for less than half of our funding for basic research for the first time since World War II. In the 1960s and 1970s, the federal contribution to this commitment was greater than 70%.<\/p>\n

Some questions are:<\/p>\n