Unesco Science Report 2010

UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2010The Current Status of Science around the World

UNESCO PublishingUnited Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organization

5

UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2010

Published in 2010 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France UNESCO 2010 All rights reserved ISBN: 978-92-3-104132-7 The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization. UNESCO Publishing: www.unesco.org/publishing; [email protected] Printed by DB Print in Belgium Design and pre-press production Baseline Arts Ltd, Oxford, United Kingdom

Cover photos: top image: microscopic image of a corn grain tissue; bottom image: microscopic image of the cross section of the root of a buttercup (crowfoot) plant, Ranunculus repens. The propeller shaped pattern in the centre is the vascular tissue for transporting water and nutrients up and down the plant. The circles are the individual cells. UNESCO

UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2010The Current Status of Science around the World

UNESCO PublishingUnited Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organization

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe UNESCO Science Report 2010 has been produced by the following team within the Division for Science Policy and Sustainable Development at UNESCO: Director of Publication: Editor: Susan Administrative Assistant: Lidia Brito, Director Schneegans Sarah Colautti

Every five years, the UNESCO Science Report series updates the status of science worldwide. Each edition is heavily reliant on the expertise of the authors invited to write about the main trends and developments in scientific research, innovation and higher education in the country or region from which they hail. We would thus like to take this opportunity to thank each of the 35 authors for their commitment to making this an authoritative report. The picture they have painted in the following pages is of a world that it is changing at a quickening pace. A greater number of chapters on individual countries have been included in the present report than in its predecessor to reflect the widening circle of countries emerging on the world scene. No doubt the UNESCO Science Report 2015, the next in the series, will have pursued its own mutation by 2015 to reflect the world it seeks to depict. We would like to thank the following staff from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics for contributing a vast amount of data to the report: Simon Ellis, Ernesto Fernndez Polcuch, Martin Schaaper, Rohan Pathirage, Zahia Salmi, Sirina Kerim-Dikeni and the Education Indicators team.

iv

CONTENTSList of illustrations Foreword Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 The growing role of knowledge in the global economy Hugo Hollanders and Luc Soete United States of America Thomas Ratchford and William A. Blanpied Canada Paul Dufour Latin America Mario Albornoz, Mariano Matos Macedo and Claudio Alfaraz Brazil Carlos Henrique de Brito Cruz and Hernan Chaimovich Cuba Ismael Clark Arxer The CARICOM countries Harold Ramkissoon and Ishenkumba Kahwa European Union Peter Tindemans Southeast Europe Slavo Radosevic Turkey Sirin Eli Russian Federation Leonid Gokhberg and Tatiana Kuznetsova Central Asia Ashiraf Mukhammadiev Arab States Adnan Badran and Moneef R. Zoubi Sub-Saharan Africa Kevin Urama, Nicholas Ozor, Ousmane Kane and Mohamed Hassan South Asia Tanveer Naim

PAGE vii xvii 1 29 61 77UNESCO Science Report 2010

103 123 133 147 183 201 215 235 251 279 323

v


CONTENTSChapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18 Chapter 19 Chapter 20 Chapter 21 Iran Kioomars Ashtarian India Sunil Mani China Mu Rongping Japan Yasushi Sato Republic of Korea Jang-Jae Lee Southeast Asia and Oceania Tim Turpin, Richard Woolley, Patarapong Intarakumnerd and Wasantha Amaradasa

PAGE 349 363 379 401 415 437

Annexes Annex I Annex II

Composition of regions and sub-regions Millennium Development Goals

465 466 471 473 474 478 482 490 498 502 510 514

Statistical Annex Table 1 GERD as a percentage of GDP, 20002008 Table 2 GERD in purchasing power parity dollars, 2002 and 2007 Table 3 GERD by performing sector and source of funds, 2002 and 2007 (%) Table 4 Total researchers and per million inhabitants, 2002 and 2007 Table 5 Scientic publications by country, 20002008 Table 6 Publications by major eld of science, 2002 and 2008 Table 7 Scientic publications in international collaboration, 20022008 Table 8 International trade in high-tech products, 2002 and 2007

vi


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSChapter 1 The growing role of knowledge in the global economy Table 1: Key indicators on world GDP, population and GERD, 2002 and 2007 Table 2: Key indicators on world researchers 2002 and 2007 Table 3: World shares of scientific publications, 2002 and 2008 Table 4: USPTO and Triadic patent families by inventor's region, 2002 and 2007 Table 5: Internet users per 100 population, 2002 and 2008 Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Chapter 2 World share of GDP and GERD for the G20, 2002 and 2007 (%) Global investment in R&D in absolute and relative terms, 2007 BERD/GDP ratio for selected countries, 20002007 (%) Scientific specialization of the Triad, BRIC countries and Africa, 2008 The systemic matching between key S&T indicators Industrial production in the BRIC countries, USA and Euro zone, 20062010

PAGE 1 2 8 10 13 14 4 6 7 9 15 16 29 36 37 40 42 33 34 35 40 43 44 46 47 49 49 51 52 31 46 48 61 63 63 61 62 64

United States of America Table 1: Federal R&D in the USA by major socio-economic objective, 20072009 Table 2: Basic research budget for the primary US federal agencies, 2003 and 2008 Table 3: Funding of industrial R&D in the USA by major industry, 2003, 2005 and 2007 Table 4: Top R&D spending corporations, 2003 and 2004 Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: GERD in the USA by type of research and source of funds, 2007 (%) GERD in the USA by source of funds, 19902007 Trends in GERD in the G8 countries, 19902006 Trade balance for high-tech goods in the USA, 19952008 Regional shares of R&D performed abroad by foreign affiliates of US multinationals, 19942004 (%) Figure 6: US trade receipts and payments for intellectual property, 19892005 Figure 7: Basic research in the USA by performing sector and source of funds, 2007 (%) Figure 8: University R&D in the USA by type of research and source of funds, 2006 (%) Figure 9: Share of doctorates awarded to female US citizens, 1985, 1995 and 2005 (%) Figure 10: Doctorates awarded to US citizens in science and engineering, by ethnic minority, 19852005 Figure 11: Bachelors degrees earned in selected S&T fields, 19852005 Figure 12: Doctoral degrees earned in the USA in selected S&T fields, 19852005 Breakthroughs of the year Basic research: a cornerstone of US science policy for 65 years Growing concern about conflict of interest in scientific journals

UNESCO Science Report 2010

Box 1: Box 2: Box 3: Chapter 3 Canada Table 1: Table 2:

Trends in GERD in Canada, 19992008 Trends in scientific publications in international collaboration for G8 countries, 2002 and 2008 Annual growth in GERD and GDP in Canada, 19672007 (%) GERD/GDP ratio for the G8 countries, 2008 Publications in Canada by major field of science, 2002 and 2008

Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3:

vii


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSFigure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Chapter 4 Scientific publications in the G8 countries and China, 2000 and 2008 GERD in Canada by performing sector and source of funds, 2002 and 2007 (%) GERD in Canada by source of funds, 2002 and 2007 Enrollment in scientific disciplines in Canada, 2002/2003 and 2006/2007 S&T labour force in Canada, 2006

PAGE 65 66 67 69 70 77 78 80 82 82 83 83 84 85 86 88 89 89 90 91 80 81 92 94 95 96 103 105 107 109 114 104 105 106 107 108 111 111 112 114 115

Latin America Figure 1: Distribution of GDP in Latin America, 2007 Figure 2: Sectors benefiting from FONCYTs Programme in Strategic Areas, 2008 Figure 3: GERD in Latin America, 19972007 Figure 4: GERD/GDP ratio in Latin America, 2007 (%) Figure 5: Distribution of GERD among Latin American countries, 2007 Figure 6: Share of GERD funded by the business sector in Latin America, 2007 Figure 7: Researchers in Latin America, 20002007 Figure 8: Distribution of scientists and engineers in Latin America, 2000 and 2007 Figure 9: PhDs awarded in Latin America, 2007 Figure 10: Scientific publications in Latin America, 19962007 Figure 11: Latin Americas presence in various bibliographic databases, 1997 and 2007 Figure 12: Evolution in patent applications in Latin America, 19972007 Figure 13: Patent applications in Latin America by residents and non-residents, 2007 Figure 14: Patents held by Latin Americans in international databases, 20002007 Box 1: Box 2: Box 3: Box 4: Box 5: Box 6: Promoting innovation in Argentina Public perception of science R&D technology business consortia in Chile Aeronautics in Brazil: the case of EMBRAER Argentinas technological showcase: the case of INVAP ICTs in Costa Rica

Chapter 5

Brazil Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4:

GERD in Brazil by source of funds, 2008 Brazilian state industries targeted by sectoral funds, 19992002 R&D tax laws and subsidies for business R&D in Brazil, 19912005 Scientific articles published by Brazils main research universities, 20002009

Trends in GERD in Brazil, 20002008 Government expenditure on R&D by socio-economic objective, 2000 and 2008 (%) GERD/GDP ratio in Brazil, 2008 (%) Evolution in Brazilian National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development (FNDCT), 19942009 Figure 5: The Brazilian State of So Paulos contribution to GERD, 2007 Figure 6: Researchers in Brazil, 2008 Figure 7: Researchers in Brazil by performing sector, 2008 (%) Figure 8: Scientic articles written by authors aliated to Brazilian institutions, 19922008 Figure 9: Scientific articles published in Brazilian journals, 2000 and 2008 Figure 10: USPTO patents awarded to Brazilian inventors, 20002009

viii


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSBox 1: Box 2: Box 3: Box 4: Chapter 6 Cuba Table 1: Table 2: Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Chapter 7 Procurement policies to develop essential vaccines Mapping biodiversity in So Paulo Bioenergy R&D in Brazil China and Brazil developing space technology together

PAGE 110 113 116 118 123 124 127 123 125 126 126 128 129UNESCO Science Report 2010

Cubas top 20 S&T research institutions Cubas National Research Programmes, 2009 Growth in Cubas GDP and per-capita GDP, 20032007 (%) Cuban expenditure on S&T and R&D, 20012007 (%) GERD in Cuba by source of funds, 20012007 GERD in Cuba by source of funds, 2001 and 2008 (%) Cuban visibility in international scientific publications, 20012007 Publications in Cuba by major field of science, 20002008

The CARICOM countries Table 1: Key socio-economic indicators for the CARICOM countries, 2008 Figure1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Box 1: Box 2: Box 3:

133 134

Undergraduate enrollment at the three campuses of the University of the West Indies, 20012006 134 Internet users per 100 population in the Caribbean, 2002 and 2008 136 Articles published in the basic sciences in the CARICOM countries, 20012007 139 Scientific publications in the CARICOM countries by broad discipline, 20012007 (%) 139 Cumulative number of scientific publications in the CARICOM countries, 20012007 140 Scientific publications by university in the CARICOM countries, 20012007 (%) 140 Patent applications in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, 20002007 141 A centre of excellence to safeguard food security in Jamaica Cariscience The Mokhele Report 135 138 142

Chapter 8

European Union 147 Table 1: Population and GDP in the EU, 2008 147 Table 2: Comparison between key US and European research universities, 2006 151 Table 3: Development contracts for Aarhus University in Denmark, 2006 and 2010 154 Table 4: International research organizations in Europe 157 Table 5: EUREKA projects, 2010 160 Table 6: Structure and budget of EUs 7th Framework Programme for Research, 20072013 162 Table 7: GERD in the EU-27, 2004 and 2007 (%) 166 Table 8: EU publications by major field of science, 2002 and 2008 168 Table 9: EU government expenditure on R&D by socio-economic objective, 2005 170 Table 10: Growth in R&D expenditure and PhDs in the 12 newest EU member states, 20032007 (%) 172 Table 11: Publicprivate co-publications in the 12 most recent EU countries, 2007 173 Table 12: Trends in GERD for the Triad and China, 2003 and 2007 178 Table 13: S&T personnel in the Triad and China, 2007 179

ix


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSTable 14: Publications in the Triad by major field of science, 2008 Number of top European and US universities Starting grants from European Research Council per million inhabitants, 2007 Share of women among European researchers, 2006 or latest available year (%) GERD in the EU by source of funds and performing sector, 2007 or latest available year (%) Figure 5: Summary Innovation Index for EU-27, 2007 or latest available year Figure 6: Performance of EU-27 countries for seven components of innovation, 2007 Figure 7: Regional Innovation Index for regions within EU-27 member states, 2005 or latest available year Figure 8: Professions trusted by the European public to explain the impact of S&T on society, 2005 (%) Figure 9: Triad patent families, 2003 and 2007 Figure 10: The EU Innovation gap with the USA and Japan, 20042008 (%) Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Box 1: Box 2: Chapter 9 The Bologna Process The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

PAGE 179 151 163 164 165 167 167 174 176 178 180 150 158 183 184 190 191 185 186 186 187 187 188 189 189 191 192 193 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204

Southeast Europe Table 1: Key socio-economic indicators for Southeast European economies, 2008 Table 2: R&D output in Southeast Europe, 2006 Table 3: Scientific publications in Southeast Europe, 2002 and 2008 Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Figure 11: Box 1: Box 2: Box 3: Drivers of growth: ranking of Southeast European economies, 2010 GERD/GDP ratio in Southeast Europe, 20002008 (%) GERD per capita in Southeast Europe, 2007 GERD in Southeast Europe by perfoming sector, 2008 (%) GERD in Southeast Europe by source of funds, 2008 (%) Growth in numbers of tertiary graduates in Southeast Europe, 20022008 (%) Growth in researchers (FTE) in Southeast Europe, 2002 and 2008 (%) Researchers (FTE) in Southeast Europe by sector of employment, 2008 (%) Scientific papers per million population in Southeast Europe, 2008 Publications in Southeast Europe by major field of science, 2008 (%) Internet users per 100 population in Southeast Europe, 2001 and 2008 The Lisbon Strategys elusive 3% target The Venice Process Measuring implementation of the Science Agenda

Chapter10

Turkey Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5:

Economic performance of key industries in Turkey, 20022007 GERD/GDP ratio in Turkey, 20022007 (%) R&D personnel in Turkey, 2003 and 2007 GERD in Turkey, 20022007 Government expenditure on R&D in Turkey by socio-economic objective, 20032007 (%)

x


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSGERD in Turkey by source of funds, 2002 and 2007 (%) Scientific publications in Turkey, 20022007 Scientific publications in Turkey by major field of science, 20002008 Figure 9: Patent applications in Turkey, 20022007 Figure 10: The Turkish STI system Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Box 1: Box 2: Box 3: Chapter 11 The Tale of a Turkish PhD Returnee Learning about innovation in Turkeys schools The Aegean Innovation Relay Centre

PAGE 205 207 207 208 210 206 209 211 215 215 225 217 218 220 221 223 225 226 216 219 227 235 236 237 237 238 238 235 238 238 241 243 246 248UNESCO Science Report 2010

Russian Federation Table 1: Major socio- economic indicators in Russia, 20052009 Table 2: Evolution of priority areas for R&D in Russia, 1996, 2002 and 2006 Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Box 1: Box 2: Box 3: GERD in Russia, 19902008 Government expenditure on R&D in Russia by socio-economic objective, 2004 and 2008 (%) Higher education system in Russia for scientific disciplines, 2009 Staffing levels at Russian public universities, 19962008 R&D units in Russia by type and breakdown of personnel, 2008 (%) Ranking of ICT areas by importance for Russia, 2008 (%) Level of Russian R&D in nanosystems and materials, 2008 (%) Russias inadequate facilities for research Higher education popular in Russia Modernizing Russias Academies of Science

Chapter 12

Central Asia Table 1: Socio-economic indicators for Central Asia, 2002 and 2008 or most recent year available Table 2: Investment trends in Central Asia, 2002 and 2008 Table 3: R&D institutions in Central Asia, 2009 Table 4: R&D personnel in Central Asia, 2009 or most recent year available Table 5: Age pyramid for Central Asian researchers, 2009 or most recent year available Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Box 1: Box 2: Composition of GDP in Central Asia by economic sector, 2009 (%) GERD by source of funds in Central Asia, 2009 or most recent year available (%) Distribution of research institutions in Central Asia, 2009 or most recent year available (%) Internet users per 100 population in Central Asia, 20002008 R&D in Central Asia by type of research, 2007 (%) The Big Solar Furnace A blue dye to the rescue of the Aral Sea Basin

xi


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSChapter 13 Arab States Table 1: Government bodies responsible for R&D policies and co-ordination in the Arab world, 2006 Table 2: Arab countries hosting a national or supranational academy of science, 2009 Table 3: Internet penetration in the Arab region, 2002 and 2009 Table 4: Arab universities in top 50 for Islamic countries Table 5: Public expenditure on education in the Arab world, 2002 and 2008 Table 6: Tertiary student enrollment in the Arab region, 2002 and 2008 Table 7: Postgraduate students at Arab universities, 2006 Population growth in the Arab region, 20022008 GDP per capita in the Arab region, 2002 and 2008 Military expenditure in selected Arab countries, 2002 and 2008 GERD/GDP ratio for Arab countries, 2007 or latest year available (%) Researchers per million population in the Arab world, 2007 Scientific publications per million population in the Arab world, 2002 and 2008 Scientific articles published in the Arab world, 2000 and 2008 Scientific co-publications in the Arab world, 2000 and 2008 USPTO patents granted to residents of Arab countries, 2003 and 2008 Share of Arab high-tech exports in total manufactured exports, 2002 and 2007 (%) Figure 11: Knowledge Economy Index for selected Arab countries, 2008 Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Box 1: Box 2: Box 3: Box 4: Box 5: Box 6: Box 7: Box 8: Box 9: Box 10: Chapter 14 The Islamic World Academy of Sciences The Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation The Middle East Science Fund The International Centre for Biosaline Agriculture The Regional Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency The SESAME Story The Bibliotheca Alexandrina Education City, Qatar The Masdar Institute of Science and Technology King Abdullah University of Science and Technology

PAGE 251 258 258 269 270 271 272 273 252 254 255 259 261 265 266 267 267 268 269 259 260 261 262 263 264 269 273 273 274 279 280 283 284 289 279 286 288 293 304 314

Sub-Saharan Africa Table 1: Investment in sub-Saharan Africa, 2008 or most recent year available Table 2: Education in sub-Saharan Africa, 2008 Table 3: Researchers in sub-Saharan Africa, 2007 or most recent year available Table 4: Patents awarded to African inventors by USPTO, 20052009 Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Poverty levels in sub-Saharan Africa, 1990, 1999 and 2005 (%) Scientific publications in sub-Saharan Africa, 20002008 Publications in Sub-Saharan Africa by major field of science, 2008 (%) Internet access per 100 population in sub-Saharan Africa, 2002 and 2007 Composition of GDP in sub-Saharan Africa by economic sector, 2009 (%) Breakdown of government expenditure on R&D in South Africa by field of research, 2006 (%)

xii


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSBox 1: Box 2: Box 3: Box 4: Box 5: Box 6: Box 7: Box 8: Box 9: Box 10: Chapter 15 SouthSouth co-operation on biofuels: the case of Sudan Songhai: an agricultural centre of excellence Science, ICTS and space, an EUAfrica partnership The Network of African Science Academies The African Science Academy Development Initiative Knowledge Management Africa Technology transfer in Cameroon Africa invests in biotech African Institutes of Science and Technology The largest telescope in the Southern Hemisphere

PAGE 290 291 292 294 298 298 301 308 310 315 323 324 327 327 328 329 330 333 344 324 325 330 332 332 338 341 326 331 333 336 339 342 342 344 349 350 351 352 352 354

South Asia Table 1: Socio-economic indicators for South Asia, 2000 and 2008 Table 2: Gross enrollment ratio in South Asia for secondary and tertiary education, 2007 (%) Table 3: Priorities for public spending in South Asia, 1990 and 2008 Table 4: Researchers and S&T enrollment in South Asia, 2007 Table 5: Scientific publications in South Asia, 20002008 Table 6: Patent applications in South Asia, 2008 or most recent year Table 7: Inward FDI Performance Index of South Asia, 20052007 Table 8: South Asias innovation capacity and competitiveness, 1995 and 2009 Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Box 1: Box 2: Box 3: Box 4: Box 5: Box 6: Box 7: Box 8: Composition of GDP in South Asia by economic sector, 2009 GERD/GDP ratio in South Asia, 20002007 (%) Scientific collaboration involving South Asian authors, 2007 (%) Internet users per 100 population in South Asia, 2003 and 2009 Royalties and license fees in Asia, 2007 Total outlay for Tenth Development Plan in Nepal, 20022007 (%) Distribution of project cost for higher education reform in Pakistan, 20072008 (%) Social research and the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission The story of CASE and CARE Two examples of e-networks for education and research The City Cluster Economic Development Initiative The Nepal Development Research Institute Pakistans research collaboration with China and the USA Initiatives to promote industry in Sialkot The Sri Lanka Institute of Nanotechnology


Chapter 16

Iran Table 1: Table 2:

Socio-economic indicators for Iran, 20002007 Socio-economic indicators for Iran and other South West Asian countries, 2000 and 2007 Share of oil revenue in Irans budget, 20002009 (%) Share of economic sectors in Iranian GDP, 20012007 (%) Public expenditure on education and GERD in Iran, 1999 and 2007 (%)

Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3:

xiii


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSFigure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Box 1: Box 2: Box 3: Chapter 17 India Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Box 1: Box 2: Chapter 18 China Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: GERD by source of funds in Iran, 2001 and 2006 (%) Female university students in Iran, 2000 and 2007 (%) Trends in university enrollment in Iran, 20002007 Articles published in international journals by Iranian scientists, 19972008 Share of scientific disciplines in Iranian publishing, 19932008 International scientific co-authorship in Iran, 19962008 Iranian attitudes toward towards success in life, 1975 and 2005 Biolarvicides and beauty products from biotechnology research Developing high-tech industries via IDRO The Iranian Fisheries Research Organization

PAGE 354 355 355 356 356 357 360 357 358 359 363 364 371 375 365 369 371 371 372 374 374 375 376 367 368 379 390 390 391 391 392 387 388 388 389 390 392 393 394 395

Share of knowledge-intensive production in India's GDP, 20052009 Trends in GERD in India, 19922008 Indias scientific publication record, 19992008 High-tech content of Indias manufactured exports, 19882008 (%) Average R&D expenditure per firm in Indias pharmaceutical industry, 19922008 Distribution of GERD in India by type of research, 2003 and 2006 (%) Government outlay for the major science agencies in India, 2006 (%) Distribution of GERD in India by industrial sector, 20002006 Stock of scientists and engineers engaged in R&D in India, 2005 Total scientific publications in India, 2002 and 2008 Focus of Indian publications by major field of science, 2002 and 2008 (%) Trends in the number of patents granted to Indian inventors in the USA, 19912008 A space odyssey The incredible feat of Indian pharma

GERD in China by performing sector, 20002008 Researchers in China, 20002008 Citation rate for Chinese scientific papers, 19982008 Chinas global share of publications by major field of science, 19992008 Domestic invention patent grants and PCT patent filings in China, 2007 Priorities of Chinas National Programme for High-tech R&D, 2008 (%) Priorities of Chinas National Programme for Key Technology R&D, 2008 (%) Priorities of Chinas National Programme for Key Basic R&D, 2008 (%) GERD/GDP ratio in China, 20002008 (%) GERD in China by type of research, 20002008 Growth in Chinese domestic resident invention patents, 20002008 Intramural expenditure on R&D of Chinas high-tech industries, 20032008 R&D personnel in Chinas high-tech industries, 20032008 Domestic patent applications by Chinese high-tech industries, 20032008394 Share of high-tech exports in manufactured exports in China, 20002008

xiv


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSFigure 11: Travel by Chinese and foreign scientists by type of project, 20012008 Figure 12: Chinas leading international research partners, 19992008 Box 1: Box 2: Box 3: Box 4: Box 5: Box 6: Chapter 19 Japan Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Accelerating development and use of renewable energies The worlds first photonic telephone network Chinas supercomputers The Shanghai Synchrotron Radiation Facility Milestones on the road to a national innovation system Chinas role in an international clean energy project

PAGE 396 397 380 381 381 382 384 397 401 402 404 408 409UNESCO Science Report 2010

Socio-economic indicators for Japan, 2003 and 2008 Collaboration between universities and industry in Japan, 2002 and 2007 International exchange of Japanese and foreign-born researchers, 2001 and 2006 Japans world share of scientific publications, 2007 (%) Japanese patent applications and grants in Japan, USA, Europe and China, in thousands, 2002 and 2007 GERD and government R&D expenditure in Japan, 2002 and 2007 GERD in Japan by performing sector and source of funds, 2002 and 2007 (%) Government spending on R&D by major field of science, 2002 and 2007 (%) Numbers of researchers in Japan, 2003 and 2008 Trends in enrollment and graduation in higher education in Japan, 19992008 Single authorship and co-authorship in Japan and the world, 2002 and 2007 (%) Share of other countries in Japans internationally co-authored scientific publications, in thousands 2002 and 2007 (%) Patent activity of Japanese universities, 2002 and 2007

410 405 405 406 406 407 409 410 411 415 416 420 423 428 419 421 421 426 427 427 429 429 430 430 431 431

Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Chapter 20

Republic of Korea Table 1: R&D indicators for the Republic of Korea, 2001 and 2007, and targets for 2012 Table 2: Trends in GERD in the Republic of Korea, 20032008 Table 3: Key achievements of Korean policy for S&T human resources, 20022008 Table 4: R&D expenditure and industrial sales in the Republic of Korea, 2007 and 2008 GERD in the Republic of Korea by socio-economic objective, 2008 Trends in R&D investment in the Republic of Korea, 19942008 International comparison of R&D intensity in the Republic of Korea, 2008 Level of interest in S&T among Koreans 2006 (%) GERD in the Republic of Korea by type of research, 19942008 R&D budget of Korean small and medium-sized venture enterprises, 20032006 Number of FTE researchers in the Republic of Korea, 2008 Trends in patent registrations for the Republic of Korea, 19942007 Triadic patent family registrations and patent productivity in the Republic of Korea, 19932005 Figure 10: Volume of Korean technology trade and revenue and expenditure ratio, 19932007 Figure 11: Korean scientific articles, 19932008 Figure 12: Korean publications by major field of science, 2003 and 2007 (%) Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9:

xv


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSFigure 13: Volume of Korean publications by major field of science, 2008 Figure 14: Changes in the Republic of Koreas competitiveness ranking in S&T, 19942009 Box 1: Box 2: Box 3: Chapter 21 Preparing for the future with innovation Brain Korea 21 The Global Research Laboratory

PAGE 432 432 422 423 425 437 438 439 441 442 443 444 444 440 443 445 458

Southeast Asia and Oceania Table 1: Socio-economic and R&D input indicators for Southeast Asia and Oceania, 2009 or most recent year available Table 2: Knowledge Economy Index and Knowledge Index for Southeast Asia and Oceania, 2009 Table 3: English-language scientific articles by authors from Southeast Asia and Oceania, 19982008 Table 4: English-language scientific articles by authors from Pacific islands, 19982008 Table 5: Top three countries for international co-authorship with Southeast Asia and Oceania, 19982008 Table 6: Scientific papers and citations of authors from Southeast Asia and Oceania, 19992009 Table 7: USPTO registered patents from Southeast Asia and Oceania, 20002007 Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Box 1: Internet users per 100 population in Southeast Asia and Oceania, 2001 and 2008 Publications in Southeast Asia and Oceania by major field of science, 2008 (%) High-tech exports from Southeast Asia and Oceania, 2008 (%) The Secretariat of the Pacific Community

xvi


FOREWORDThe UNESCO Science Report 2010 holds a mirror to the evolving status of science in the five years since its predecessor was published in 2005. It shows in particular how, while the disparities between countries and regions remain huge, the proliferation of digital information and communication technologies is increasingly modifying the global picture. By making codified information accessible worldwide, it is having a dramatic effect on the creation, accumulation and dissemination of knowledge, while at the same time providing specialized platforms for networking by scientific communities operating at a global level. The distribution of research and development (R&D) efforts between North and South has changed with the emergence of new players in the global economy. A bipolar world in which science and technology (S&T) were dominated by the Triad made up of the European Union, Japan and the USA is gradually giving way to a multipolar world, with an increasing number of public and private research hubs spreading across North and South. Early and more recent newcomers to the S&T arena, including the Republic of Korea, Brazil, China or India, are creating a more competitive global environment by developing their capacities in the industrial, scientific and technological spheres. One consequence is greater competition between countries to attract scientific personnel from abroad and to retain or recall their best researchers and graduates living abroad. One encouraging finding of the report is that R&D funding has continued to expand globally as the result of greater recognition by governments worldwide of the crucial importance of science for socio-economic development. Those developing countries that have progressed fastest in recent years are the ones that have adopted policies to promote science, technology and innovation. Although Africa still lags behind other regions, signs of progress can be found in some countries on the continent, which today represents a growing contributor to the global R&D effort. The continents mounting contribution to the global stock of knowledge comes as good news all the more so since Africa is a priority for UNESCO. This progression shows that deliberate, well-targeted policies can make a difference when implemented with commitment and dedication even in difficult circumstances. However, the report also points to persistent disparities between countries and, in particular, the marginal contribution that the least developed countries (LDCs) make to global science. This situation calls for all stakeholders, including UNESCO, to renew their support to LDCs for investing in science, transforming the policy environment and making the necessary institutional adjustments in other words, for enabling S&T to realize its potential as a prime lever for development. This is a vast and complex task that can only be met through a major policy mobilization for science. Mobilizing policy for science remains critical to building the human and institutional capacities needed to overcome the knowledge gap and empower developing countries to build appropriate scientific research capabilities so as to address national and global challenges. We have a moral imperative to make science globally inclusive. There are two possible scenarios for the way in which the geopolitics of science will shape the future. One is based on partnership and co-operation, and the other on efforts towards national supremacy. I am convinced that, more than ever, regional and international scientific co-operation is crucial to addressing the interrelated, complex and growing global challenges with which we are confronted. Increasingly, international diplomacy will take the form of science diplomacy in the years to come. In this respect, UNESCO must and will pursue its efforts to strengthen international partnerships and co-operation, in particular SouthSouth cooperation. This science dimension of diplomacy was one of the original reasons for including science in UNESCOs mandate. It has fundamental significance for UNESCO nowadays, at a time when science has tremendous power to shape the future of humanity and when it no longer makes much sense to design science policy in purely national terms. This is most vividly evident in issues relating to global climate change and how societies will address it through green economies. In line with my intention to place science at the centre of UNESCOs efforts to eradicate extreme poverty and foster social inclusion and sustainable development, I am confident that the UNESCO Science Report 2010 will prove a useful tool in the necessary redefinition of the science policy agenda at national, regional and global levels and will provide valuable insights into the prospects for science and related policy challenges in the years ahead.


Irina Bokova Director-General of UNESCO

xvii

Policies for science and technology must always be a mixture of realism and idealism.Chris Freeman (19212010) father of the national innovation system concept

1 . The growing role of knowledge in the global economyHugo Hollanders and Luc Soete

THE GLOBAL PICTUREThe UNESCO Science Report 2010 takes up from where its predecessor left off five years ago. The aim of this first chapter is to provide a global overview of developments over the past five years. We shall pay particular attention to new, less known, or unexpected features revealed by the data and the chapters that follow. We shall begin by briefly reviewing the state of the support system for science against the backdrop of the long, historically unique period of rapid global economic growth from 1996 to 2007. This growth spurt has been driven by new digital technologies and by the emergence of a number of large countries on the world stage. It was brought to a sudden and somewhat brutal halt by the global economic recession triggered by the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the USA in the third quarter of 2008. What impact has this global economic recession had on investment in knowledge? Before we endeavour to answer this question, let us take a closer look at some of the broad trends that have characterized the past decade. First and foremost, cheap and easy access to new digital technologies such as broadband, Internet and mobile phones have accelerated the diffusion of best-practice technologies, revolutionized the internal and external organization of research and facilitated the implantation abroad of companies research and development (R&D) centres (David and Foray, 2002). However, it is not only the spread of digital information and communication technologies (ICTs) that has shifted the balance in favour of a more transparent and more level playing field1. The growing membership and further development of global institutional frameworks like the World Trade Organization (WTO) governing international knowledge flows in trade, investment and intellectual property rights have also sped up access to critical knowledge. China, for example, only became a member of WTO in December 2001. The playing field now includes a wide variety of capital- and organization-embedded forms of technology transfer which include foreign direct investment (FDI), licenses and other forms of formal and informal knowledge diffusion. Secondly, countries have been catching up rapidly in terms of both economic growth and investment in knowledge,1. This does not mean that each player has an equal chance of success but rather that a greater number are playing by the same set of rules.

as expressed by investment in tertiary education and R&D. This can be observed in the burgeoning number of graduates in science and engineering. India, for example, has opted to establish 30 new universities to raise student enrollment from less than 15 million in 2007 to 21 million by 2012. Large emerging developing countries such as Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa are also spending more on R&D than before. This trend can also be observed in the transition economies of the Russian Federation (Russia) and some other Eastern and Central European countries which are gradually climbing back to the levels of investment under the Soviet Union. In some cases, the rise in gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) has been a corollary of strong economic growth rather than the reflection of greater R&D intensity. In Brazil and India, for example, the GERD/GDP ratio has remained stable, whereas in China it has climbed by 50% since 2002 to 1.54% (2008). Similarly, if the GERD/GDP ratio has declined in some African countries, this is not symptomatic of a weaker commitment to R&D. It simply reflects an acceleration in economic growth thanks to oil extraction (in Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, etc) and other nonR&D-intensive sectors. If each country has different priorities, the urge to catch up rapidly is irrepressible and has, in turn, driven economic growth worldwide to the highest level in recorded history. Thirdly, the impact of the global recession on a post-2008 world is not yet reflected in the R&D data but it is evident that the recession has, for the first time, challenged the old NorthSouth technology-based trade and growth models (Krugman, 1970; Soete, 1981; Dosi et al., 1990). Increasingly, the global economic recession appears to be challenging Western scientific and technological (S&T) dominance. Whereas Europe and the USA are struggling to free themselves from the grips of the recession, firms from emerging economies like Brazil, China, India and South Africa are witnessing sustained domestic growth and moving upstream in the value chain. Whereas these emerging economies once served as a repository for the outsourcing of manufacturing activities, they have now moved on to autonomous process technology development, product development, design and applied research. China, India and a few other Asian countries, together with some Arab Gulf states, have combined a national targeted technology policy with the aggressive and successful pursuit of better academic research within a short space of time. To this end, they have made astute use of both monetary and non-monetary incentives, as well as

The Earth at night, showing human population centres Photo: Evirgen/ iStockphoto

Introduction

1


institutional reforms. Although data are not easy to come by, it is well-known that many academic leaders in American, Australian and European universities have, in the past five years, been offered positions and large research budgets in fast-growing universities in East Asian countries. In short, achieving knowledge-intensive growth is no longer the sole prerogative of the highly developed nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Nor is it the sole prerogative of national policymaking. Value creation depends increasingly on a better use of knowledge, whatever the level of development, whatever its form and whatever its origin: new product and process technologies developed domestically, or the re-use and novel combination of knowledge developed elsewhere. This applies to manufacturing, agriculture and services in both the public and private sectors. Yet, at the same time, there is striking evidence of the persistence expansion even in the uneven distribution of research and innovation at the global level. Here, we are no longer comparing countries but regions within countries. Investment in R&D appears to remain concentrated in a relatively small number of locations within a given country2. In Brazil, for example, 40% of GERD is spent in the So Paulo region. The proportion is as high as 51% in South Africas Gauteng Province.

Table 1: Key indicators on world GDP, population and GERD, 2002 and 2007GDP (PPP$ billions) 2002 2007 World Developed countries Developing countries Least developed countries Americas North America Latin America and the Caribbean Europe European Union Commonwealth of Independent States in Europe Central, Eastern and Other Europe Africa South Africa Other sub-Saharan countries (excl. South Africa) Arab States in Africa Asia Japan China Israel India Commonwealth of Independent States in Asia Newly Industrialised Economies in Asia Arab States in Asia Other in Asia (excl. Japan, China, Israel, India) Oceania Other groupings Arab States all Commonwealth of Independent States all OECD European Free Trade Association Sub-Saharan Africa (incl. South Africa) Selected countries Argentina Brazil Canada Cuba Egypt France Germany Iran (Islamic Republic of ) Mexico Republic of Korea Russian Federation Turkey United Kingdom United States of America 46 272.6 29 341.1 16 364.4 567.1 15 156.8 11 415.7 3 741.2 14 403.4 11 703.6 1 544.8 1 155.0 1 674.0 323.8 639.6 710.6 14 345.3 3 417.2 3 663.5 154.6 1 756.4 204.7 2 769.9 847.3 1 531.5 693.1 66 293.7 38 557.1 26 810.1 926.4 20 730.9 15 090.4 5 640.5 19 194.9 14 905.7 2 546.8 1 742.4 2 552.6 467.8 1 023.1 1 061.7 22 878.9 4 297.5 7 103.4 192.4 3 099.8 396.4 4 063.1 1 325.1 2 401.1 936.4

PRE-RECESSION FACTS AND FIGURESEconomic trends: a unique growth spurt Historically, global economic growth in the years bridging the Millennia has been unique. Over the period 19962007, real GDP per capita increased at an average annual rate of 1.88%3. At the broad continental level, the highest per-capita growth was witnessed by East Asia and the Pacific (5.85%), Europe and Central Asia (4.87%) and South Asia (4.61%). The figure was 2.42% for the Middle East and North Africa, 2.00% for North America, 1.80% for Latin American and the Caribbean and 1.64% for sub-Saharan Africa. The greatest divergence in growth rates occurred in sub-Saharan Africa: in 28 countries, GDP per capita grew by more than 5% but more than half of the 16 countries which witnessed negative per-capita growth rates were also in sub-Saharan Africa (Table 1).2. For a more detailed analysis of specialization at the regional level within countries, see the World Knowledge Report (forthcoming) published by UNU-Merit. 3. Growth rates reported in this section reflect the average annual increase between 1996 and 2007 of per capita GDP in constant US$ 2 000 from World Bank data.

1 557.9 1 749.5 29 771.3 424.5 963.4

2 386.8 2 943.2 39 019.4 580.5 1 490.9

298.1 1 322.5 937.8 273.7 1 711.2 2 275.4 503.7 956.3 936.0 1 278.9 572.1 1 713.7 10 417.6

523.4 1 842.9 1 270.1 404.1 2 071.8 2 846.9 778.8 1 493.2 1 287.7 2 095.3 938.7 2 134.0 13 741.6

Note: Dollar amounts are in constant prices. The sum of GERD for some regions does not correspond to the total because of changes in the reference year. Furthermore, in numerous developing countries, data do not cover all sectors of the economy. Therefore, the data presented here for developing countries can be considered a lower bound of their real R&D eort. For the list of countries encompassed by the groupings in this chapter, see Annex I.

2

The growing role of knowledge in the global economy

Introduction

World GDP (%) 2002 2007 100.0 100.0 63.4 58.2 35.4 40.4 1.2 1.4 32.8 31.3 24.7 22.8 8.1 8.5 31.1 29.0 25.3 22.5 3.3 3.8 2.5 2.6 3.6 3.9 0.7 0.7 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 31.0 34.5 7.4 6.5 7.9 10.7 0.3 0.3 3.8 4.7 0.4 0.6 6.0 6.1 1.8 2.0 3.3 3.6 1.5 1.4

Population (millions) World population (%) 2002 2007 2002 2007 6 274.3 6 670.8 1 203.4 1 225.0 4 360.5 4 647.3 710.4 798.5 861.2 911.4 325.3 341.6 535.9 569.8 796.5 804.8 484.2 493.2 207.3 201.6 105.0 109.9 858.9 964.7 46.2 49.2 623.5 709.2 189.3 206.3 3 725.6 3 955.5 127.1 127.4 1 286.0 1 329.1 6.3 6.9 1 078.1 1 164.7 72.3 75.4 373.7 399.3 107.0 122.9 675.0 729.7 32.1 34.5 100.0 100.0 19.2 18.4 69.5 69.7 11.3 12.0 13.7 13.7 5.2 5.1 8.5 8.5 12.7 12.1 7.7 7.4 3.3 3.0 1.7 1.6 13.7 14.5 0.7 0.7 9.9 10.6 3.0 3.1 59.4 59.3 2.0 1.9 20.5 19.9 0.1 0.1 17.2 17.5 1.2 1.1 6.0 6.0 1.7 1.8 10.8 10.9 0.5 0.5

GERD (PPP$ billions) 2002 2007 790.3 1 145.7 653.0 873.2 136.2 271.0 1.1 1.5 319.9 433.9 297.8 399.3 22.1 34.6 238.5 314.0 206.2 264.9 18.3 27.4 13.9 21.7 6.9 10.2 2.3-1 4.4 1.8 2.6 2.5 3.3 213.9 369.3 108.2 147.9 39.2 102.4 7.1 9.2 12.9 24.8 0.5 0.8 40.1 72.3 1.1 1.4 4.8 10.4 11.2 18.3

World GERD (%) 2002 2007 100.0 100.0 82.6 76.2 17.2 23.7 0.1 0.1 40.5 37.9 37.7 34.9 2.8 3.0 30.2 27.4 26.1 23.1 2.3 2.4 1.8 1.9 0.9 0.9 0.3 e 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 27.1 32.2 13.7 12.9 5.0 8.9 0.9 0.8 1.6 2.2 0.1 0.1 5.1 6.3 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.6

GERD as % of GDP 2002 2007 1.7 2.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 2.1 2.6 0.6 0.6 1.7 1.8 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.4-1

GERD per capita (PPP$) 2002 2007 126.0 171.7 542.7 712.8 31.2 58.3 1.5 1.9 371.4 476.1 915.3 1 168.8 41.2 60.8 299.4 390.2 425.8 537.0 88.5 136.1 132.6 197.2 8.0 10.6 -1 88.6 2.9 3.7 13.4 15.9 57.4 93.4 851.0 1 161.3 30.5 77.1 1 121.4 1 321.3 12.0 21.3 7.0 10.2 107.3 181.1 10.0 11.8 7.1 14.3 349.9 529.7

1.7 2.3 1.0 2.1 2.6 1.6 1.8

0.4 0.9 49.5

0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.5 3.2 3.4 1.1 4.6 4.8 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.2 1.4 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.6

1.6 1.4

1.9

3.4 3.6 3.8 4.4 64.3 58.9 0.9 0.9 2.1 2.2

296.3 279.6 1 149.6 12.1 669.7

329.2 277.0 1 189.0 12.6 758.4

4.7 4.9 4.5 4.2 18.3 17.8 0.2 0.2 10.7 11.4

3.6 18.9 661.3 9.8 4.3

4.7 28.2 894.7 13.6 7.0

0.5 0.4 2.4 2.5 83.7 78.1 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.6

0.2 0.2 1.1 1.0 2.2 2.3 2.3 0.4 0.5

2.3

12.2 67.4 575.2 804.5 6.4

14.3 101.9 752.5 1 082.8 9.2

0.6 0.8 2.9 2.8 2.0 1.9 0.6 0.6 3.7 3.1 4.9 4.3 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.3 2.0 1.9 2.8 3.2 1.2 1.4 3.7 3.2 22.5 20.7

37.7 179.1 31.3 11.1 72.9 59.8 82.2 68.5 102.0 46.9 145.3 68.4 59.4 294.0

39.5 190.1 32.9 11.2 80.1 61.7 82.3 72.4 107.5 48.0 141.9 73.0 60.9 308.7

0.6 0.6 2.9 2.9 0.5 0.2 0.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.6 0.7 0.7 2.3 2.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.9 4.7

0.5

4.6

1.2 13.0 19.1 0.5-2 38.2 56.7 2.8 4.2 22.5 15.9 3.0 30.6 277.1

2.7 20.2 24.1 0.9 42.3 72.2 4.7-1 5.6 41.3 23.5 6.8 38.7 373.1

0.1 0.2 1.6 1.8 2.4 2.1 0.1 e 0.1 0.2 4.8 3.7 7.2 6.3 e 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.8 3.6 2.0 2.0 0.4 0.6 3.9 3.4 35.1 32.6

0.4 0.5 1.0 1.1 2.0 0.5 0.4-2

1.9 0.2 6.8

30.8 72.7 611.4 -2

2.2 2.0 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.4 2.4 3.2 1.2 1.1 0.5 0.7 1.8 1.8 2.7

-1

2.7

637.7 689.0 40.3 40.9 479.4 109.7 44.0 515.8 942.4

67.3 106.4 732.3 11.4 685.5 877.3 65.6-1 52.1 861.9 165.4 92.9 636.1 1 208.7

-n = data refer to n years before reference year e = UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimation based on extrapolations and interpolations Source: for GERD: UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimations, June 2010; For GDP and PPP conversion factor: World Bank, World Development Indicators, May 2010, and UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimations; for population: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Aairs (2009) World Population Prospects: the 2008 Revision, and UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimations

3

35.1 26.1 25.3

32.6

423.1 22.5 12.9 13.7 3.2 2.8 2.0 2.0 6.3 7.2 10.7 4.3 4.9 3.4 3.9 3.2 3.7

Figure 1: World share of GDP and GERD for the G20, 2002 and 2007 (%)

13 742

Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics

22.5

USA

20.7

2.1 2.4

1.9 2.0 4.8 3.7 3.1 3.7

Canada UK Germany France2.8 3.3 0.6 0.4 1.4 1.2

Russian Federation7.9

8.9 3.6 2.8 5.0 1.9 2.0

7.4 6.5

European Union Turkey3.8 0.8 0.8 0.02 0.03

Italy

1.9 2.2

Rep. of Korea4.7

China2.2 1.6

Japan

2.3 2.1 2.8 2.9

Mexico

0.5 0.5

Saudi Arabia

India0.04 0.03

Indonesia0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3

1.3 1.2

Brazil

1.8 1.6

1.4 1.3 1.2 1.3

South Africa

Australia0.2 0.1 0.8 World share of GDP, 2002 World share of GDP, 2007 World share of GERD, 2002 World share of GERD, 2007

Argentina

0.6


Figure 1 presents the 20 largest economic powers in the world. This list includes the Triad4 and the newly industrializing countries of Mexico and the Republic of Korea, some of the most populated countries in the world such as China, India, Brazil, Russia and Indonesia, and a second layer of emerging economies that include Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Argentina and South Africa. With their newfound economic weight, these countries are challenging many of the rules, regulations and standards that governed the G7 and the Triad with respect to international trade and investment5. As we shall now see, they are also challenging the traditional dominance of the Triad when it comes to investment in R&D. Trends in GERD: a shift in global influence The world devoted 1.7% of GDP to R&D in 2007, a share that has remained stable since 2002. In monetary terms, however, this translates into US$ 1 146 billion6, an increase of 45% over 2002 (Table 1). This is slightly higher than the rise in GDP over the same period (43%). Moreover, behind this increase lies a shift in global influence. Driven largely by China, India and the Republic of Korea, Asias world share has risen from 27% to 32%, to the detriment of the Triad. Most of the drop in the European Union (EU) can be attributed to its three biggest members: France, Germany and the United Kingdom (UK). Meanwhile, the shares of Africa and the Arab States are low but stable and Oceania has progressed slightly. We can see from Figure 1 that Chinas share of world GERD is approaching its world share of GDP, unlike Brazil or India which still contribute much more to global GDP than to global GERD. Of note is that the situation is reversed for the Triad, even though the disparity is very small for the EU. The Republic of Korea is an interesting case in point, in that it follows the pattern of the Triad. Koreas world share of GERD is even double its world share of GDP. One of Koreas top priorities is to raise its GERD/GDP ratio to as much as 5% by 2012.

Figure 2 correlates the density of both R&D and researchers for a number of key countries and regions. From this figure, we can see that Russia still has a much greater number of researchers than financial resources in its R&D system. Three large newcomers can be seen emerging in the bottom left-hand side of the picture, namely China, Brazil and India, together with Iran and Turkey. Even Africa, as a continent, today represents a sizeable contributor to the global R&D effort. The R&D intensity of these economies or their human capital might still be low but their contribution to the stock of world knowledge is actually rising rapidly. By contrast, the group of least developed countries the smallest circle in the figure still plays a marginal role. Catching up in business R&D It is the trends in business investment in R&D (BERD) which best illustrate the rapid geographical changes taking place worldwide in privately funded R&D centres. Increasingly, multinational companies are decentralizing their research activities to parts of both the developed and developing worlds within a strategy to internalize R&D at the global level (Zanatta and Queiroz, 2007). For multinationals, this strategy reduces labour costs and gives companies easier access to markets, local human capital and knowledge, as well as to the host countrys natural resources. The favoured destinations are the so-called Asian tigers, the old newly industrialized countries in Asia, and, secondly, Brazil, India and China. However, this is no longer a one-way traffic: firms from emerging economies are now also buying up large firms in developed countries and thereby acquiring the firms knowledge capital overnight, as the chapter on India neatly illustrates. As a consequence, the global distribution of R&D effort between North and South is shifting rapidly. In 1990, more than 95% of R&D was being carried out in the developed world and just seven OECD economies accounted for more than 92% of world R&D (Coe et al., 1997). By 2002, developed countries accounted for less than 83% of the total and by 2007 for 76%. Furthermore, as the chapters on South Asia and subSaharan Africa underscore, a number of countries not generally considered to be R&D-intensive are developing particular sectors like light engineering as a strategy for import substitution, among them Bangladesh. From 2002 to 2007, the share of BERD in GDP rose sharply in Japan, China and Singapore, with a particularly steep curve in the Republic of Korea. The ratio remained more or

Introduction

4. Composed of the European Union, Japan and USA 5. The great majority of the standards governing, for instance, trade in manufactured goods, agriculture and services are based on USAEU norms. 6. All US$ in the present chapter are purchasing power parity dollars.

5


Figure 2: Global investment in R&D in absolute and relative terms, 2007 For selected countries and regions6 000

Researchers per million population

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

USA Japan China Germany France Rep. of Korea UK India Russia Brazil Africa Turkey Iran Least developed countries

0 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

GERD as % of GDPNote: The size of the circle reflects the size of GERD for the country or grouping. Source: UNUMERIT based on data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics and World Bank

less constant in Brazil, the USA and the EU and even declined in Russia. As a result, by 2007, the Republic of Korea was challenging Japan for the title of technological leader, Singapore had nearly caught up to the USA and China was rubbing shoulders with the EU. Notwithstanding this, the BERD/GDP ratio still remains much lower in India and Brazil than in the Triad. Trends in human capital: China soon to count the most researchers Here, we focus on another core area of R&D input: trends with regard to researchers. As Table 2 highlights, China is on the verge of overtaking both the USA and the EU in terms of sheer numbers of researchers. These three giants each represent about 20% of the worlds stock of researchers. If we add Japans share (10%) and that of Russia (7%), this highlights the extreme concentration of researchers: the Big Five account for about 35% of the world population but three-quarters of all researchers. By contrast, a populous country like India still represents only 2.2% of the world total and the entire continents of Latin America and Africa just 3.5% and 2.2% respectively.

Although the share of researchers in the developing world has grown from 30% in 2002 to 38% in 2007, two-thirds of this growth can be attributed to China alone. Countries are training many more scientists and engineers than before but graduates are having trouble finding qualified positions or attractive working conditions at home. As a result, migration of highly qualified researchers from South to North has become the characteristic feature of the past decade. A 2008 report by the UK Parliamentary Office cited OECD data indicating that, of the 59 million migrants living in OECD countries, 20 million were highly skilled. Brain drain preoccupies developing countries Despite voluminous literature on migration, it is almost impossible to draw a systematic, quantitative picture of long-term migration of the highly skilled worldwide. Moreover, not everyone perceives the phenomenon in the same way. Some refer to brain drain, others prefer the term brain strain or brain circulation. Whatever the preferred terminology, several chapters in the present report among them those on India, South Asia, Turkey and subSaharan Africa highlight the serious issue that brain drain

6


Figure 3: BERD/GDP ratio for slected countries, 20002007 (%)Introduction

3.0 2.68 2.65 2.5 2.16 2.05 1.77 1.73 1.5 1.34 1.18 1.11 0.91 0.54 0.47 0.14 0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Japan Rep. of Korea USA Germany Singapore France UK China Russia Brazil India

2.0

1.93 1.77 1.74 1.29 1.15 1.08 0.80 0.50 0.37

1.0

0.5

Source: UNU-MERIT based on data from UNESCO Institute for Statistics

has become and the barriers that this flow of knowledge out of countries creates for domestic R&D. For instance, a national survey by the Sri Lankan National Science Foundation found that the number of economically active scientists in Sri Lanka had dropped from 13 286 to 7 907 between 1996 and 2006. Meanwhile, FDI flowing into India is creating internal brain drain, as domestic firms cannot compete with the attractive compensation packages offered to personnel by foreign firms based in India. SouthSouth and SouthNorth migration data are not systematically covered by international statistical institutes but can be approximated by combining OECD data on migration of the highly skilled with UNESCO data on bilateral flows of international students (Dunnewijk, 2008). These data reveal that South to North and North to North are dominant directions for migration but that, overall, a much more varied array of destinations is emerging: South Africa, Russia, Ukraine, Malaysia and Jordan have also become attractive destinations for the highly skilled. The diaspora that has settled in South Africa originated from Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and Lesotho; in Russia, from Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus; in Ukraine, from Brunei Darussalam; in the former Czechoslovakia from Iran; in Malaysia from China and India; in Romania from Moldova; in Jordan from the

Palestinian Autonomous Territories; in Tajikistan from Uzbekistan; and in Bulgaria from Greece. A second factor is that the diaspora acts as a useful departure point for the design of policies for more effective technology transfer and knowledge spillovers. This phenomenon motivates countries to elaborate policies to lure highly skilled expatriates back home. This was the case in the Republic of Korea in the past and can be seen in China and elsewhere today. The aim is to encourage the diaspora to use the skills acquired abroad to bring about structural change at home. Moreover, the diaspora may be invited to participate from a distance, if the prospect of a permanent return home is unlikely. In Nigeria, Parliament approved the establishment of the Nigerians in the Diaspora Commission in 2010, the aim of which is to identify Nigerian specialists living abroad and encourage them to participate in Nigerian policy and project formulation. Trends in publications: a new Triad dominates The number of scientific publications recorded in Thomson Reuters Science Citation Index (SCI) is the most commonly used indicator for scientific output. It is particularly valuable, in that it allows both for international comparisons at the aggregate level and for

7


Table 2: Key indicators on world researchers, 2002 and 2007Researchers World share of Researchers per GERD per researcher

World Developed countries Developing countries Least developed countries Americas North America Latin America and the Caribbean Europe European Union Commonwealth of Independent States in Europe Central, Eastern and Other Europe Africa South Africa Other sub-Saharan countries (excl. South Africa) Arab States in Africa Asia Japan China Israel India Commonwealth of Independent States in Asia Newly Industrialized Economies in Asia Arab States in Asia Other in Asia (excl. Japan, China, India, Israel) Oceania Other groupings Arab States all Commonwealth of Independent States all OECD European Free Trade Association Sub-Saharan Africa (incl. South Africa) Selected countries Argentina Brazil Canada Cuba Egypt France Germany Iran (Islamic Republic of ) Mexico Republic of Korea Russian Federation Turkey United Kingdom United States of America

(thousands) 2002 2007 5 810.7 7 209.7 4 047.5 4 478.3 1 734.4 2 696.7 28.7 34.7 1 628.4 1 831.9 1 458.5 1 579.8 169.9 252.1 1 870.7 2 123.6 1 197.9 1 448.3 579.6 551.5 93.2 123.8 129.0 158.5 14.2-1 19.3 30.8 40.8 84.1 98.4 2 064.6 2 950.6 646.5 710.0 810.5 1 423.4 154.8-2 115.9-2 41.4 39.7 295.8 434.3 21.1 24.4 93.2 127.1 118.0 145.1

researchers (%) 2002 2007 100.0 100.0 69.7 62.1 29.8 37.4 0.5 0.5 28.0 25.4 25.1 21.9 2.9 3.5 32.2 29.5 20.6 20.1 10.0 7.6 1.6 1.7 2.2 2.2 0.2e 0.3 0.5 0.6 1.4 1.4 35.5 40.9 11.1 9.8 13.9 19.7 2.3e 2.2e 0.7 0.6 5.1 6.0 0.4 0.3 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.0

million inhabitants 2002 2007 926.1 1 080.8 3 363.5 3 655.8 397.8 580.3 40.5 43.4 1 890.9 2 010.1 4 483.2 4 624.4 317.1 442.5 2 348.5 2 638.7 2 473.9 2 936.4 2 796.1 2 735.3 887.2 1 125.9 150.2 164.3 311.4-1 392.9 49.4 57.5 444.1 477.1 554.2 745.9 5 087.0 5 573.0 630.3 1 070.9 111.2-2 136.9-2 572.5 525.8 791.4 1 087.4 197.1 198.7 138.1 174.2 3 677.6 4 208.7

(PPP$ thousands ) 2002 2007 136.0 158.9 161.3 195.0 78.5 100.5 37.6 43.8 196.4 236.9 204.2 252.8 130.0 137.4 127.5 147.9 172.1 182.9 31.7 49.8 149.4 175.1 53.1 64.6 158.9-1 225.6 59.5 63.8 30.2 33.3 103.6 125.2 167.3 208.4 48.4 72.0 102.6-2 126.7-2 12.3 19.4 135.6 166.6 50.5 59.3 51.6 81.8 95.1 125.9

105.2 621.0 3 588.1 48.3 45.0

122.8 591.2 4 152.9 52.9 60.1

1.8 10.7 61.7 0.8 0.8

1.7 8.2 57.6 0.7 0.8

354.9 2 221.1 3 121.2 3 976.6 67.1

373.2 2 133.8 3 492.8 4 209.1 79.2

34.3 30.4 184.3 202.3 96.0

38.4 47.7 215.5 257.3 115.8

26.1 71.8 116.0 186.4 265.8 31.1 141.9 491.9 24.0 198.2 1 342.5

38.7 124.9 139.0-1 49.4 215.8 290.9 50.5-1 37.9 221.9 469.1 49.7 254.6 1 425.6-1

0.4 1.2 2.0 3.2 4.6 0.5 2.4 8.5 0.4 3.4 23.1

0.5 1.7 1.9e 0.7 3.0 4.0 0.7e 0.5 3.1 6.5 0.7 3.5 20.0e

692.3 400.9 3 705.3 3 115.7 3 232.5 305.1 3 022.8 3 384.8 350.8 3 336.5 4 566.0

979.5 656.9 4 260.4-1 616.6 3 496.0 3 532.2 706.1-1 352.9 4 627.2 3 304.7 680.3 4 180.7 4 663.3-1

44.4 181.4 165.0 204.7 213.1 134.0 158.6 32.4 125.4 154.6 206.4

68.7 162.1 170.7-1 18.5 196.1 248.4 93.0-1 147.6 186.3 50.1 136.5 152.2 243.9-1

-n = data refer to n years before reference year e = UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimation based on extrapolations and interpolations Note: Researchers are full-time equivalents. The sum of researchers and the world share do not correspond to the total for some regions because of changes in the reference year or the unavailability of data for some countries. Source: for researchers: UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimations, June 2010; for PPP conversion factor: World Bank, World Development Indicators, May 2010, and UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimations; for population: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Aairs (2009) World Population Prospects: the 2008 Revision, and UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimations

8


more detailed assessments of particular scientific fields. We begin with the aggregate analysis of scientific publications. As Table 3 highlights, the USA is still the country which leads the world when it comes to scientific output in absolute terms. However, its world share (28%) has fallen more than any other country over the past six years. The leading region for this indicator, the EU, has also seen its share dip by four percentage points to less than 37%. By contrast, Chinas share has more than doubled in just six years and now represents more than 10% of the world total, second only to the USA, even if the citation rate for Chinese articles remains much lower than for the Triad. Next come Japan and Germany. They are now on a par at just under 8%, Japans world share having fallen farther than Germanys. As for the BRIC7 countries, their share of world publications has shown impressive growth, with the exception of Russia, which saw its share decline from 3.5% in 2002 to 2.7% in 2008. At the continental level,

Latin Americas share leapt from 3.8% to 4.9% but this was mostly thanks to Brazil. Growth in the Arab world remained sluggish. Africas share of publications in the SCI made a bound of 25% between 2002 and 2008 from a very low starting point to attain 2.0% of the world total. Here, the rise was most noticeable in South Africa and the Maghreb but every African country saw the number of its articles recorded in the SCI progress. At the global level, scientific publishing is today dominated by a new triad: the USA, Europe and Asia. Given the size of Asias population, one would expect it to become the dominant scientific continent in the coming years. In terms of the relative specialization of countries in specific scientific disciplines, Figure 4 points to wide disparities. The first spiders web focuses on the traditionally dominant scientific countries. The black octagon represents the average, so the lines outside this octagon indicate a better-than-average performance in a given field. Of note is Frances specialization in mathematics, recently confirmed by the award of the Abel Prize the mathematical equivalent of the Nobel Prize to two French mathematicians in 2010.

Introduction

7. Brazil, Russian Federation, India and China

Figure 4: Scientific specialization of the Triad, BRIC countries and Africa, 2008

Biology0.15

Biology Biomedical research Physics0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7

Physics

0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.05 -0.10 -0.15 -0.20 -0.25

Biomedical research

Mathematics

Chemistry

Mathematics

Chemistry

Engineering and technology Earth and space

Clinical medicine

Engineering and technology Earth and space Average

Clinical medicine

USA Japan Germany

France United Kingdom

Brazil China India

Russian Federation Africa

Source: UNU-MERIT based on data from Thomson Reuters (Scientific) Inc. Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded), compiled for UNESCO by the Canadian Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, May 2010

9


Table 3: World shares of scientific publications, 2002 and 2008Total publications 2002 2008 Change (%) 2002 2008 34.5 20.1 105.9 82.0 27.0 22.2 76.5 25.8 24.1 8.6 66.2 66.9 48.3 84.1 72.6 70.6 1.6 174.7 10.2 91.7 24.6 86.2 60.3 143.4 42.2 World share of publications (%) 2002 2008 Biomedical research 2002 2008

Biology 2002 2008

World Developed countries Developing countries Least developed countries Americas North America Latin America and the Caribbean Europe European Union Commonwealth of Independent States in Europe Central, Eastern and Other Europe Africa South Africa Other sub-Saharan countries (excl. South Africa) Arab States in Africa Asia Japan China Israel India Commonwealth of Independent States in Asia Newly Industrialized Economies in Asia Arab States in Asia Other in Asia (excl. Japan, China, Israel, India) Oceania Other groupings Arab States all Commonwealth of Independent States all OECD European Free Trade Association Sub-Saharan Africa (incl. South Africa) Selected countries Argentina Brazil Canada Cuba Egypt France Germany Iran (Islamic Republic of ) Mexico Republic of Korea Russian Federation Turkey United Kingdom United States of America

733 305 617 879 153 367 2 069 274 209 250 993 27 650 333 317 290 184 30 118 29 195 11 776 3 538 3 399 4 988 177 743 73 429 38 206 9 136 18 911 1 413 33 765 3 348 16 579 23 246

986 099 742 256 315 742 3 766 348 180 306 676 48 791 419 454 359 991 32 710 48 526 19 650 5 248 6 256 8 607 303 147 74 618 104 968 10 069 36 261 1 761 62 855 5 366 40 358 33 060

100.0 84.3 20.9 0.3 37.4 34.2 3.8 45.5 39.6 4.1 4.0 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 24.2 10.0 5.2 1.2 2.6 0.2 4.6 0.5 2.3 3.2

100.0 75.3 32.0 0.4 35.3 31.1 4.9 42.5 36.5 3.3 4.9 2.0 0.5 0.6 0.9 30.7 7.6 10.6 1.0 3.7 0.2 6.4 0.5 4.1 3.4

58 478 49 315 13 158 477 23 868 20 234 4 321 24 133 21 522 1 153 2 274 2 255 828 1 072 406 10 796 4 682 1 716 643 1 579 41 1 730 200 1 301 4 014

84 102 62 744 29 394 839 33 785 24 976 10 232 33 809 29 516 1 447 4 348 3 366 1 163 1 575 746 20 062 5 479 5 672 662 3 339 57 3 364 355 3 203 5 034

99 805 89 927 14 493 226 47 500 44 700 3 426 43 037 39 261 2 052 3 524 1 122 481 381 281 19 022 9 723 2 682 1 264 1 901 66 3 240 239 1 313 3 120

123 316 100 424 32 091 471 54 671 49 590 6 216 50 464 45 815 2 054 5 014 2 397 690 1 110 655 31 895 9 771 9 098 1 411 3 821 88 6 795 447 3 651 4 353

8 186 31 294 616 214 18 223 6 819

13 574 34 217 753 619 25 380 11 142

65.8 9.3 22.3 39.3 63.4

1.1 4.3 84.0 2.5 0.9

1.4 3.5 76.4 2.6 1.1

600 1 189 49 509 1 523 1 860

1 078 1 497 64 020 2 262 2 636

510 2 110 90 365 2 760 844

1 063 2 128 102 634 3 349 1 751

4 719 12 573 30 310 583 2 569 47 219 65 500 2 102 5 239 17 072 25 493 8 608 61 073 226 894

6 197 26 482 43 539 775 3 963 57 133 76 368 10 894 8 262 32 781 27 083 17 787 71 302 272 879

31.3 110.6 43.6 32.9 54.3 21.0 16.6 418.3 57.7 92.0 6.2 106.6 16.7 20.3

0.6 1.7 4.1 0.1 0.4 6.4 8.9 0.3 0.7 2.3 3.5 1.2 8.3 30.9

0.6 2.7 4.4 0.1 0.4 5.8 7.7 1.1 0.8 3.3 2.7 1.8 7.2 27.7

826 1 572 3 351 129 156 192 2 975 3 838 150 874 617 1 050 546 4 515 17 349

1 287 5 526 4 571 259 3 865 5 155 772 1 669 1 755 1 317 1 435 4 975 21 234

664 1 583 4 779 65 146 6 563 8 742 129 558 1 893 1 851 532 9 586 41 135

883 3 467 6 018 81 295 7 169 10 006 681 911 3 824 1 835 1 155 10 789 45 125

Note: The sum of the numbers for the various regions exceeds the total number because papers with multiple authors from different regions contribute fully to each of these regions. Source: data from Thomson Reuters (Scientific) Inc. Web of Science, (Science Citation Index Expanded), compiled for UNESCO by the Canadian Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, May 2010

10


Publications by eld of science Chemistry 2002 2008 Clinical medicine 2002 2008 Earth and space 2002 2008 Engineering & technology 2002 2008 Mathematics 2002 2008 Physics 2002 2008

Introduction

88 310 114 206 66 585 72 185 26 002 49 155 76 132 928 22 342 25 803 19 378 21 690 3 181 4 401 40 404 44 644 33 183 36 221 6 117 6 357 2 874 4 239 1 535 2 012 307 410 841 117 183 1 116 1 438 30 017 50 501 9 908 9 809 9 499 23 032 694 706 4 552 7 163 279 322 4 590 7 334 323 463 2 449 5 314 1 552 2 038

229 092 203 298 32 772 95 140 89 495 6 751 104 060 93 939 1 771 11 172 3 075 1 323 953 40 557 21 426 3 863 3 134 3 367 95 6 748 1 302 4 134 7 528

307 043 251 857 70 921 1 635 126 471 114 674 14 030 135 042 119 230 2 115 18 623 5 640 1 453 2 417 1 931 65 957 21 729 13 595 3 357 7 514 124 14 468 1 934 9 991 11 598

41 691 36 644 8 497 138 18 611 17 123 2 122 21 202 18 091 2 647 2 054 918 434 245 260 7 456 2 505 2 036 372 1 160 145 1 218 143 765 2 126

60 979 50 320 17 330 318 24 883 22 533 3 228 30 763 26 095 3 205 3 924 1 486 520 477 527 15 001 3 552 5 746 506 2 306 168 130 2 540 303 1 983 3 323

96 194 139 257 73 868 91 320 28 019 59 180 103 177 29 465 37 841 27 183 33 763 2 646 4 535 39 625 53 069 33 845 44 182 4 108 4 772 3 091 6 284 1 306 2 358 294 467 122 226 892 1 688 32 946 58 754 10 633 10 194 8 734 22 800 1 011 1 143 2 980 6 108 166 9 075 16 140 721 1 090 3 685 9 219 2 497 3 403

23 142 19 251 5 829 27 8 355 7 573 925 11 834 10 190 1 474 671 494 127 44 325 5 544 1 300 1 850 524 506 125 204 1 102 154 561 716

37 397 27 961 12 938 52 12 114 10 765 1 570 18 064 15 239 2 066 1 541 893 227 114 563 11 614 1 661 5 384 754 974 1 905 326 1 603 985

96 593 78 991 24 597 94 28 928 25 307 4 278 49 022 40 153 10 796 3 535 1 071 226 95 755 31 405 13 252 7 826 1 494 2 866 532 6 062 266 2 371 1 693

119 799 85 445 44 733 142 32 612 28 685 4 579 53 599 43 693 10 694 4 553 1 498 318 154 1 059 49 363 12 423 19 641 1 530 5 036 632 10 309 448 5 394 2 326

1 405 6 358 63 801 1 618 420

1 840 6 645 71 003 2 021 582

2 227 1 856 208 163 6 328 2 135

3 758 2 230 262 587 9 072 3 746

399 2 761 35 655 1 501 658

808 3 333 49 492 2 600 962

1 580 4 224 74 606 1 548 415

2 711 4 910 94 262 2 507 675

469 1 589 18 435 387 170

855 2 266 26 842 656 335

996 11 207 75 680 2 558 317

1 461 11 208 82 779 2 913 455

536 669 1 656 2 390 2 306 3 022 71 96 672 861 478 5 401 6 090 7 399 8 344 645 2 198 474 716 2 545 4 006 5 240 5 308 844 1 639 5 469 5 352 17 334 18 984

1 078 3 243 9 761 151 13 069 20 781 369 994 3 017 1 599 4 243 22 007 81 871

1 316 8 799 14 683 214 992 16 034 24 708 2 626 1 749 7 610 1 914 7 978 26 754 103 835

407 657 2 620 18 111 3 457 4 256 57 484 539 2 468 450 4 678 15 206

631 1 028 3 877 33 57 205 4 899 5 978 433 739 1 160 2 981 1 025 6 079 19 819

362 1 259 3 763

487 2 209 5 971 90

510 714 5 260 7 123 7 059 7 746 390 2 484 610 996 4 526 8 004 3 144 3 329 1 223 2 910 6 715 7 612 23 939 28 572

118 398 1 102 14 26 121 2 399 1 903 97 219 497 1 251 162 1 383 6 724

229 708 1 763 167 3 113 2 725 554 322 895 1 584 559 2 197 9 356

728 2 205 2 628 78 339 8 095 11 522 265 1 026 3 438 8 890 608 6 720 23 336

695 2 355 3 634 79 470 8 840 11 706 1 146 1 160 5 527 8 815 1 086 7 544 25 954

11


France also specializes in Earth and space sciences, like Germany. As for Japan, it has several strengths: physics, chemistry, engineering and technology. Interestingly, both the USA and UK specialize in biomedical research, clinical medicine and Earth and space. The second spiders web focuses on the BRIC countries and Africa. Here, too, we observe some striking differences between countries in their scientific specialization. Russia shows a strong specialization in physics, mathematics and Earth and space sciences. Typically, China specializes heavily in physics, chemistry, mathematics and engineering and technology. By contrast, Africa and Brazil are strong in biology and India excels in chemistry. These differences in scientific specialization are mirrored in the different country profiles that follow this first chapter. Countries appear to choose areas for scientific knowledge creation based on their own needs (clinical medicine), geographical opportunities (Earth and space sciences and biology) but also based on cultural affinities (mathematics, physics) and expertise born of industrial growth (chemistry). Trends in scientific output: inequality in private knowledge creation The fourth indicator on which we focus in this first chapter reflects the success of countries and regions in privately appropriating knowledge through, for example, the number of patents filed with the Triad patent offices, namely: the US Patents and Trademark Office (USPTO), European Patent Office and Japanese Patent Office. Patents filed with these three patent offices are generally considered to be of a high quality. As a technological indicator, patents are a good reflection of the strong cumulative and tacit character of knowledge, embedded as they are in a formally recognized, long-lasting intellectual property right. It is this characteristic which makes it costly to transfer knowledge from one setting to another. The overall dominance of the USA is striking. This highlights the US technology markets role as the worlds leading private market for technology licenses. Japan, Germany and the Republic of Korea are the other countries with the most patent-holders. Indias share amounts to barely 0.2% of all Triadic patents, a share comparable to that of Brazil (0.1%) and Russia (0.2%). Table 4 illustrates the extreme concentration of patent

applications in North America, Asia and Europe; the rest of the world barely accounts for 2% of the total stock of patents. Most of Africa, Asia and Latin America play no role at all. Indias patents tend to be in chemistry-related fields. Interestingly, the chapter on India considers that the introduction of the Indian Patent Act in 2005 to bring India into compliance with the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has not had a negative effect on the countrys pharmaceutical industry. In support of this argument, the author cites the strong growth in R&D investment since 2000, which was continuing unabated in 2008. However, he also observes that most of these patents are being granted to foreign companies located in India, based on R&D projects carried out in India, in a growing trend. Of all the indicators used in the UNESCO Science Report, it is the patent indicator which points most strikingly to the inequality of knowledge creation at the global level. The following trend helps to explain the huge volume of patents among OECD economies. In high-income countries, the lifespan of high-tech products is shortening, obliging companies to come up with new products more quickly than before. This can be seen in the rate at which new computers, software, video games and mobile phones, for instance, are appearing on the market. High-tech firms are themselves largely responsible for this phenomenon, as they have deliberately set out to create new consumer needs by bringing out more sophisticated versions of their products every six months or so. This strategy is also a way of keeping ahead of the competition, wherever it may be. As a consequence, patents that used to be economically valid for several years now have a shorter lifespan. Developing new products and registering new patents every six months or so is an extremely labour- and investment-intensive exercise which obliges companies to innovate at a frenetic rate. With the global recession, companies are finding it harder to maintain this pace. Knowledge appropriation versus knowledge diffusion We now take a look at the opposite variable to patents, the number of Internet users. This variable should enable us to gauge whether easier access to information and knowledge has provided opportunities for a more rapid diffusion of S&T. The data on Internet usage in Table 5 paint

12


Table 4: USPTO and Triadic patent families by inventor's region, 2002 and 2007Total World Developed countries Developing countries Least developed countries Americas North America Latin America and the Caribbean Europe European Union Commonwealth of Independent States in Europe Central, Eastern and Other Europe Africa South Africa Other sub-Saharan countries (excl. South Africa) Arab States in Africa Asia Japan China Israel India Commonwealth of Independent States in Asia Newly Industrialized Economies in Asia Arab States in Asia Other in Asia (excl. Japan, China, Israel, India) Oceania Other groupings Arab States all Commonwealth of Independent States all OECD European Free Trade Association Sub-Saharan Africa (incl. South Africa) Selected countries Argentina Brazil Canada Cuba Egypt France Germany Iran (Islamic Republic of ) Mexico Republic of Korea Russian Federation Turkey United Kingdom United States of America 2002 167 399 155 712 12 846 13 92 579 92 245 450 31 046 29 178 350 2 120 151 124 15 12 47 512 35 360 5 935 1 151 323 6 4 740 46 80 1 139 USPTO patents World share (%) 2007 2002 2007 156 667 100.0 100.0 141 183 93.0 90.1 17 344 7.7 11.1 13 0.0 0.0 85 155 55.3 54.4 84 913 55.1 54.2 355 0.3 0.2 25 387 18.5 16.2 23 850 17.4 15.2 332 0.2 0.2 1 708 1.3 1.1 134 0.1 0.1 92 0.1 0.1 16 0.0 0.0 26 0.0 0.0 50 313 28.4 32.1 33 572 21.1 21.4 7 362 3.5 4.7 1 248 0.7 0.8 741 0.2 0.5 9 0.0 0.0 7 465 2.8 4.8 58 0.0 0.0 48 0.0 0.0 1 516 0.7 1.0 Triadic patents* Total World share (%) 2006 2002 2006 47 574 100.0 100.0 45 923 97.9 96.5 2 125 2.8 4.5 1 0.0 0.0 20 562 45.6 43.2 20 496 45.5 43.1 101 0.2 0.2 13 249 30.3 27.8 12 540 28.6 26.4 97 0.3 0.2 958 2.1 2.0 48 0.1 0.1 37 0.1 0.1 3 0.0 0.0 9 0.0 0.0 15 197 27.3 31.9 13 264 24.9 27.9 259 0.3 0.5 411 0.8 0.9 96 0.1 0.2 1 0.0 0.0 1 173 1.2 2.5 18 0.0 0.0 18 0.0 0.0 834 1.0 1.8Introduction

2002 56 654 55 456 1 579 4 25 847 25 768 115 17 148 16 185 151 1 203 47 38 3 6 15 463 14 085 160 476 58 3 689 15 19 549

56 356 159 320 2 064 139

84 340 147 240 1 640 108

0.0 0.2 95.2 1.2 0.1

0.1 0.2 94.0 1.0 0.1

20 154 55 863 1 180 41

27 98 46 855 935 39

0.0 0.3 98.6 2.1 0.1

0.1 0.2 98.5 2.0 0.1

59 134 3 895 9 8 4 507 12 258 11 134 3 868 346 21 4 506 88 999

56 124 3 806 3 22 3 631 9 713 7 81 6 424 286 32 4 007 81 811

0.0 0.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 7.3 0.0 0.1 2.3 0.2 0.0 2.7 53.2

0.0 0.1 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.3 6.2 0.0 0.1 4.1 0.2 0.0 2.6 52.2

12 46 962 5 3 2 833 6 515 1 26 523 149 9 2 441 25 034

17 46 830 0 4 2 208 4 947 3 16 1 037 84 10 2 033 19 883

0.0 0.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 5.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.0 4.3 44.2

0.0 0.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 4.6 10.4 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.2 0.0 4.3 41.8

*Data for 2006 are incomplete and should be interpreted with caution. Note: The sum of the numbers, and percentages, for the various regions exceeds the total number, or 100%, because patents with multiple inventors from different regions contribute fully to each of these regions. Source: data from United States Patents and Trademark Office (USPTO) and OECD, compiled for UNESCO by the Canadian Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, February 2009

13


a very different picture to that for patents. We find that the BRIC countries and numerous developing countries are catching up quickly to the USA, Japan and major European countries for this indicator. This shows the crucial importance of the emergence of digital communications like Internet on the world distribution of S&T and, more broadly, knowledge generation. The rapid diffusion of Internet in the South is one of the most promising new trends of this Millennium, as it is likely to bring about a greater convergence in access to S&T over time. A systemic perspective on the congruence of S&T indicators The concept of a national innovation system was coined by the late Christopher Freeman in the late 1980s to describe the much broader congruence in Japanese society between all sorts of institutional networks in both private and public sectors whose activities and interactions initiate, import, modify and diffuse new technologies (Freeman, 1987). The set of indicators described above shed light on some features of each countrys national system of innovation. One should bear in mind, however, that science, technology and innovation (STI) indicators that were relevant in the past may be less relevant today and even misleading (Freeman and Soete, 2009). Developing countries should not simply rely on adopting STI indicators developed by, and for, OECD countries but rather develop their own STI indicators (Tijssen and Hollanders, 2006). Africa is currently implementing a project to develop, adopt and use common indicators to survey the continents progress in S&T via the periodic publication of an African Innovation Outlook (see page 299). Figure 5 illustrates visually the different biases in countries national innovation systems by matching four indicators. At first sight, the US system appears to be the most balanced: the US circles appear each time in the middle of the figure. However, its position with respect to human capital is weak and out of line with the trend in other highly developed countries: only 24.5% of the US population holds a tertiary degree, whereas in France, Germany or Japan, for instance,the proportion is close to, or greater than, 30%. One would expect the USA to perform better on the tertiary education axis, given its performance for the indicators on the other axes. It is true that the USA has some of the best universities in the world but rankings like that of Shanghai Jiao Tong University focus on research performance rather than the

quality of education. In sum, the USA is reliant on a vast inflow of foreign researchers and other highly skilled people to drive the economy. Table 5: Internet users per 100 population, 2002 and 2008World Developed countries Developing countries Less-developed countries Americas North America Latin America and the Caribbean Europe European Union Commonwealth of Independent States in Europe Central, Eastern and Other Europe Africa South Africa Other Sub-Saharan countries (excl. South Africa) Arab States in Africa Asia Japan China Israel India Commonwealth of Independent States in Asia Newly Industrialized Economies in Asia Arab States in Asia Other in Asia (excl. Japan, China, Israel, India) Oceania Other groupings Arab States all Commonwealth of Independent States all OECD European Free Trade Association Sub-Saharan Africa (incl. South Africa) Selected countries Argentina Brazil Canada Cuba Egypt France Germany Iran (Islamic Republic of ) Mexico Republic of Korea Russian Federation Turkey United Kingdom United States of America 2002 2008 10.77 23.69 37.99 62.09 5.03 17.41 0.26 2.06 27.68 45.50 59.06 74.14 8.63 28.34 24.95 52.59 35.29 64.58 3.83 29.77 18.28 40.40 1.20 8.14 6.71 8.43 0.52 5.68 2.11 16.61 5.79 16.41 46.59 71.42 4.60 22.28 17.76 49.64 1.54 4.38 1.72 12.30 15.05 23.47 4.05 15.93 2.19 11.51 43.62 54.04

2.81 16.35 3.28 24.97 42.25 64.03 66.08 78.17 0.94 5.86

10.88 28.11 9.15 37.52 61.59 75.53 3.77 12.94 2.72 16.65 30.18 70.68 48.82 77.91 4.63 31.37 10.50 21.43 59.80 81.00 4.13 32.11 11.38 34.37 56.48 78.39 58.79 74.00

Source: International Telecommunications Union, World telecommunications / ICT indicators database, June 2010, and UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimations; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2009) World Population Prospects: the 2008 Revision, and UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimations

14


Japan provides a contrast. It clearly lags behind other highly developed countries in terms of scientific publications and GDP per capita. Its innovation system app

Documents

Unesco Science Report 2010