ScienceUSblog

Counts of scientific papers in the world’s leading journals are an important indicator of national S&T leadership.  For years I have been puzzled by the long term decline of America’s share of world papers, despite its huge and increasing investments in R&D–more than the next four or five countries put together.  I call this the American Paradox.  In 2006 I showed that after 1998 the decline was mainly due to China taking share away from the US, because of its more rapidly increasing R&D investments.   http://itri2.org/Apaper  I built a model that accounted for this, and, with Patricia Foland, used it in 2009 to forecast that China will soon overtake the US and EU to lead the world in scientific publications, because of its rapidly growing investments.  http://itri2.org/Rpaper/

I was still puzzled, though, about earlier events in this race for scientific paper leadership.  The EU passed the US in the mid-1990s to lead the world by sharply increasing its efficiency in papers per R&D dollar invested.  This was before China became a significant player.  I noticed that the EU and US had the same efficiency in 1990, but the two curves diverged rapidly in the 1990s with the EU rising much, and the US decreasing a bit.  By 1998 the EU was 60% more efficient than either the US or PRC.

In spring 2010 I finally analyzed this phenomenon by checking which components of efficiency account for the overall pattern.    The results are shown at http://itri2.org/Lpaper/  This paper was for a European audience, so it highlights changes there.  I am more concerned by loss of American leadership of S&T. 

Like a good mystery story, the answer is simple and logical once you see it.  Now if everyone will gather in the parlor… The US lost world leadership in scientific paper production in the 1990s because of its well-known shift from government funding of R&D to industrial funding.  In the early 90s these were about equal.  By the end of the 1990s they had shifted to 1/3 - 2/3.  In the Lpaper I did a multiple linear regression of the 1999 data from the 39 OECD countries, which showed that government R&D funding is vastly more effective at producing papers than industrial funding.  (Actually the industrial component is not even statistically significant.  This data is dominated by the US, so this is somewhat of a circular argument.  I need to remove the US as an outlier, and re do this calculation with some lags.)  It is no surprise that industrial funding tends to produce other outputs like patents and products, rather than research papers.  In 2006 I did a regression with similar results and also showed that industrial funding is much more effective in producing patents than government funding, which was not even statistically significant–pretty much the opposite result as for papers.

What’s new is the connection of that great disparity in effectiveness in paper production with the huge shift in the US toward industrial funding in the 1990s, leading to an actual decline in US paper production in some years (not just share), even as the Science Citation Index database increased about 3% per year.  The Lpaper has some charts that show an almost perfect match in the time series of government funding of R&D and of paper production, now obvious because of that close correlation from the regression.  This is the smoking gun that solves that mystery.

This shift also occured in the EU, but much less so, giving Europe an advantage.  These shifts toward industrial funding were not because businessmen had an epiphany about the benefits of R&D, but rather because of slowing of annual rises in government investment after the Cold War ended.  When the USSR collapsed in 1991, much of the motivation for government funding of R&D was suddenly removed.  There was talk in Congress and parliaments about the Peace Dividend, of beating swords into plowshares.  Annual increases in government R&D were reduced, which led to the industrial sector emerging as the main funder of R&D.  

The US also focuses its R&D investment on components that are less effective in producing papers. For example, it still spends more than 50% of its government R&D on military research; the EU less than 10%.  More importantly, despite lower overall GERD, the EU spends more on university research than the US; regression shows that this “HERD” component is five times as effective in producing papers than the “BERD” component in business that the US emphasizes.

So what?  Europeans have long worried about something they call the European Paradox–why don’t they reap the economic benefits of their leadership in papers?  I didn’t set out to explain that, but this analysis does so.  It is simply caused by their priorities on investments in basic research that results in papers, instead of investments that tend to produce outputs with more immediate economic benefits like patents. 

Americans tend to do the opposite.  And this analysis also explains the American Paradox as the opposite side of the same coin.  Americans focus on investments in activities that produce patents and other outputs instead of papers, resulting in that long decline in paper share despite huge and rapidly increasing overall investments.

Who knows which national S&T strategy produces the greatest good for the greatest number of its citizens?  But we do now know what is going on.  QED

R. D. Shelton

Thanks to a tip from Tracy Wilson, here is another take on what to do about globalization of S&T.

 The Scientific Century: Securing Our National Prosperity

“It distils two urgent messages. The first is the need to place science and innovation at the heart of the UK’s long-term strategy for economic growth. The second is the fierce competitive challenge we face from countries which are investing at a scale and speed that we may struggle to match. Put science and innovation at the heart if a strategy for long-term economic growth;

1. Prioritise investment in excellent people;
2. Strengthen Government’s use of science;
3. Reinforce the UK’s position as a hub for global science and innovation;
4. Better align science and innovation with global challenges;
5. Revitalise science and mathematics education. “

http://royalsociety.org/the-scientific-century/

R. D. Shelton

Here is a clip from the FYI newsletter coverage of the hearing on the NSF budget before the House Appropriations subcommittee this week.

“Wolf [ranking minority member from N. Va.] started his round of questioning by asking for Bement’s reaction to several worrisome trends appearing on page 14 of a summary digest of “Science and Engineering Indicators 2010″ comparing the United States to China and other Asian countries. Bement responded that the world is in a period of rapid change in which U.S. S&T leadership is being challenged by other nations. He described how other countries, “as a matter of national will” are rapidly and successfully increasing their S&T spending. “That’s what keeps me awake at night” he told Wolf. Bement spoke about the importance of international scientific cooperation, saying “this is the way of the world.” When asked to look ahead twenty years, Bement predicted that the U.S. will need to more effectively collaborate to compete. Otherwise, he warned, American researchers will get blind-sided, resulting in the United States being a follower instead of a leader.”

This is becoming a drumbeat of concern.  Whether anyone can do much about this problem is another matter.   I agree with Dr. Bement that more cooperation with other nations can help (see previous post).  WTEC can also help by gathering information on the details of this issue abroad.

R. D. Shelton

Baring a paradigm shift in the PRC, the US will soon trail China in S&T.  There really is not much the US can do to stop this trend.  In theory it could match the PRC’s annual increases in R&D investment, but it’s not politically feasible here where S&T is a marginal issue, not even on the list of most leaders’ priorities.

So what is to be done to mitigate this failure of U.S. S&T policy?  I’m no expert, but don’t know anyone else who is contemplating this almost certain future.  For whatever it is worth…

1. Strengthen alliances. The US has good allies in Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere.  While China will soon pass the US, it cannot pass the combined resources of the US and its allies in the foreseeable future.  Diplomacy can strengthen these alliances and not just in S&T.  However, it is not so certain that these allies will be so resolute.  Japan, in particular, must face the reality that its neighbor is now the 400 lb. gorilla, not the US.  In S&T allied governments can create incentives for its high tech industry to form joint ventures in the face of Chinese competititon.  Scientists could encouraged to collaborate with allies.  While not now an ally, India could be cultivated.  As the world’s largest democracy it has much in common with the West, including a suspicion of Chinese intentions.

2. Promote English. One of the West’s greatest advantages is that English is the lingua franca of science.  Imagine how difficult it would be to compete if the world’s best science was reported in Chinese or some other language that takes a lifetime to learn.  The French have long had international programs that promote their language, which could be emulated.

3. Keep international graduates here. American universities are still a magnet for grad students.  Most pix of US research groups look like a UN caucus, but with few US delegates.  It is just crazy to force these grads to leave the US.  More would stay with a bit of encouragement, and the assurance that they are welcome.

4. Demand reform of the exchange rate.  The engine that drives PRC progress is an artificial exchange rate that makes it impossible for others to compete, brings in vast amounts of dollars and euros, which then pay for huge R&D investments and investments in science education–and advanced weapons systems that are clearly intended to kill Americans.

There are others, but note that none of these are very expensive.  They just require some understanding of the problem by national leaders and the will to do something about them.

R. D. Shelton

The National Science Board was apparently so alarmed by the findings in the latest SEI2010 that it has released a companion report calling for remedial action–Globalization of Science and Engineering Research.    The last paragraph of the letter of transmittal from Chair Steven Beering says, “We urge Federal attention and action to sustain U.S. world leadership in S&E in response to growing S&E capacity around the world.  Our nation’s future prosperity and security depend on a strong and unwavering Federal committment to this goal.”

One of three major recommendations calls for OSTP to engage all Federal research agencies to: (a) develop means to assess or continue to assess the quality of their agency’s supported research against international activities, and (b) to identify and as appropriate make adjustments necessary to ensure that their agency’s research is world-leading.”

NSF/ENG is already doing a good deal of this through the WTEC program, and other international activities.  I wonder if the NSB knows.

Of course, I have been saying much the same thing for years in this blog and elsewhere.  It’s gratifying to have others come to the same realization.

R. D. Shelton

In July I presented a paper in Rio that predicted that the Chinese would soon pass the US and EU to lead the world in S&T: The Race for World Leadership for Science and Technology: Status and Forecasts, by R. D. Shelton and P. Foland.  This paper got little notice at the Rio conference and later in the US, but in China, people are paying more attention.  At their request, it was translated into Chinese by their Academy of Sciences and published in their journal, Science Focus in February, 2010.  All the versions of the paper are posted at http://itri2.org/Rpaper/

R. D. Shelton

I got a free copy of the Feb. 12 issue via email from the editor, Richard McCormack.  I haven’t been subscribing to this newsletter,  since I was too cheap to spring for the $495 per year.  This issue convinces me that I have to subscribe, since it covers “Innovation, Globalization, and Industrial Competitiveness,”  much the same scope as this blog.  For example, some of the articles this time were:

1. US Becomes a Bit Player in Global Semiconductor Industry. 

2. Obama Puts International Comparison Program on Chopping Block

3. NIST’s Chief Economist: US Needs a New Direction

4. US Government Finds Thousands of Fake Parts in DOD Supply Chains

5. First Time Ever: [DOD] QDR Addresses Decline of US Industrial Base

All of these articles document decline of American S&T.  For example the first one reports the shocking statistic that in 2009 the US started construction of one (1) semiconductor fabrication (fab) plant in 2009.  The PRC started six (6), Taiwan five (5), then next was the EU, Korea, Japan, and the US, all with one (1) each.  Further, China considers Taiwan to also be its turf, and they are already de facto one and the same in the IT sector.   Thus Greater China started more than twice as many fabs as the rest of the world put together–and eleven times that of the US alone, which invented this business, of course.

http://www.manufacturingnews.com

R. D. Shelton

Despite his call for cuts in discretionary spending, President Obama has proposed substantial increases in the research budgets of some S&T agencies.  These increases based on the regular FY2010 budget are:

NSF +8.2% to $6.02 billion

DOE Office of Science +4.4% to $5.12 billion

NIST +13.5% to $0.58 billion

DOD basic (6.1) +6.2% to $2.00 billion

DOD applied (6.2) research -11.6% to $4.48 billion

I got these bottom line figures from the FYI newsletter from the American Physical Society.

The AAAS will track the R&D budget as it goes through a maze of Congressional actions.  The Congress has its own ideas, and along about October 1, 2010 when the budget is supposed to take effect, they will send a final budget bill to the President to sign (or veto).

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/fy2011/

R. D. Shelton

On the occasion of my centennial article, I thought I would ruminate on my experience with this on-line medium.  Besides, I’m snowbound and have run out of things to do.

From 1998 to 2003 I put out 60 monthly issues of ITRInews, until my toddlers took over my play time to play with them. I prepared the e-letter in HTML to post with color and pix, and then dumbed it down to pure text to push a headlines version out via an email list-serve.  Now that my kids can entertain themselves with their own PCs, I tried out the blog medium a year ago, and love it.  With the help of Patricia Foland and Kevin O’Mara, I use WordPress, a free application that makes it easy.  In principle, readers can get new postings pushed to them via email or RSS feeds.  In practice this blog, like many others, doesn’t seem to get much attention, at least as measured by comments posted on articles.  Actually search engines quickly index blog posts, and Web host logs reveal a fair number of hits, particularly to older posts.  If you want traffic, apparently your blog needs to be controversial, and then you may get more rants than you want, including battling rants from two or more weirdos, quite unrelated to the original post.

Blogs are fun to write, more fun than to read.  Writers immemorial have been advised to keep a journal of ideas, snatches of writing, and factoids, so that they could eventually compile them into a product like the Great American Novel.  Blogs are just the latest incarnation, except that other people were never expected to read your journal.  Now many bloggers are disappointed unless they get a lot of comments.  It’s probably just as well, though.  Much Web discourse is really offensive.  People constantly write things that would get them a punch in the nose if they uttered them in public.

I went to the Washington Post site yesterday, thinking that I would chide them in an old-fashioned letter to the editor about their series of scurrilous articles on Jack Murtha who passed away on Monday.  Their front page obituary had continued the same attack, but at least he won’t be troubled by them anymore.  Instead I got diverted by their on-line forum commenting on the obit.  What crap!  Most of the postings made the Post’s attacks seem genteel.  These online forums are so vicious that it is little wonder they have driven people to suicide.

The Internet and its Web application are wondrous things.  They have made our lives so much richer with information resources unimaginable only a few years ago. They have eliminated the gatekeepers who kept artists like writers and musicians from their audiences.  They bring the world’s best products to our home, no matter how arcane they are.  But, the Internet has its dark side: spam, porn, phishing, viruses (and anti-virus programs that are worse), predators of all kinds preying on the weak and ignorant, hackers who seem to be too sophisticated to not have national governments behind them, and more.  But my peeve is that Web anonymity encourages excesses in language that have made acceptable a level of mindless hate that is poisoning our culture.  Maybe talk radio inspired this earlier, and the Web is just catching up.  Or is ancient email flaming the antecedent of all this vitriol?  And now we see this trend moving from the virtual world to the real world of town hall meetings and the floor of the Congress.

I think hate is the most powerful emotion, way ahead of love.   For example I believe the great success of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions is more due to Hell than Heaven.  Heaven sounds like Sunday church services, only longer.  But Hell is a place where your enemies will roast forever!  Thus, I think the best way to motivate people to your side is not to convince them how great your ideas are, because they probably wouldn’t like them.  Instead it’s much easer to get them to hate your opponent.  Any kind of charges will do, truth, or even plausibility, is not necessary.  Americans will believe anything, if you repeat it enough.

You don’t believe me? Consider this.  To convince the American public to support the invasion of Iraq, Bush Administration spokesmen would emphatically pronounce sentences like this, “Saddam Hussain (here insert 1-2 dozen impressive sounding and patriotic words, always including at least one “freedom”) 9/11 attacks on America.”  The words in between most assuredly did not actually say that Hussain was behind the attacks, which could be easily refuted since it wasn’t true.  Instead, by putting the two unrelated concepts in the same sentence, one after another, they just gave the impression that one caused the other.  Having taken a high school English course, I could parse the sentences to see what mischief was afoot.  This sort of thing convinced me at the time that the Administration’s case for war was weak, because if they had facts they certainly would have used them.    After hearing this propaganda for months, however, more than half of Americans surveyed believed that Hussain was behind 9/11.

The failure of the 2009 health care initiative had nothing to do with health care.  It was a wedge issue that could allow Obama’s opponents to defeat and cripple him.  And the way they did it was to incite enough people to hate him.  He’s been called a nazi, communist, socialist, and at the recent CPAC, a monarchist!  I just hope the Secret Service has had a competence implant after the state dinner fiasco.  I had attended an Obama event a month earlier and had commented at the time on how lax the security was.

But I digress, as old professors do. Blogging is great, you should try it.   If not, you could make a blogger happy by commenting on his or her article.  Just keep it civil.

R. D. Shelton

From the DARPA website: 

 ”DARPA’s original mission, inspired by the Soviet Union beating the United States into space with Sputnik, was to prevent technological surprise. This mission has evolved over time. Today, DARPA’s mission is to prevent technological surprise for us and to create technological surprise for our adversaries.

DARPA’s main tactic for executing its strategy is to constantly search worldwide for revolutionary high-payoff ideas and then sponsor projects bridging the gap between fundamental discoveries and the provision of new military capabilities.”

http://www.darpa.mil/stratvision.html

R. D. Shelton