2020
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
SCIENCE & ENGINEERING INDICATORS
The State of U.S. Science
& Engineering
National Science Board
Diane L. Souvaine, NSB Chair
Professor of Computer Science and Adjunct Professor
of Mathematics
Tufts University
Ellen Ochoa, NSB Vice Chair
Director (retired)
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
John L. Anderson
President
National Academy of Engineering
Roger N. Beachy
Professor Emeritus of Biology
Washington University, St. Louis
Arthur Bienenstock
Professor Emeritus of Photon Science
Stanford University
Vicki L. Chandler
Dean of Faculty
Minerva Schools at KGI
Maureen L. Condic
Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy
University of Utah, School of Medicine
W. Kent Fuchs
President
University of Florida
Suresh V. Garimella
President
University of Vermont
Robert M. Groves
Provost and Executive Vice President; Gerard J. Campbell,
S.J. Professor in the Math and Statistics Department;
Professor in the Sociology Department
Georgetown University
James S. Jackson
Daniel Katz Distinguished University Professor of Psychology;
Professor of Afro-American and African Studies; Research
Professor, Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for
Social Research
University of Michigan
Steven Leath
President (retired)
Iowa State University and Auburn University
W. Carl Lineberger
Fellow of JILA and E. U. Condon Distinguished Professor
of Chemistry
University of Colorado
Victor R. McCrary
Vice President for Research and Graduate Programs;
Professor of Chemistry
University of the District of Columbia
Emilio F. Moran
John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor of Global
Change Science
Michigan State University
Sethuraman Panchanathan
Executive Vice President and Chief Research and Innovation
Ocer of Knowledge Enterprise Development; Director of the
Center for Cognitive Ubiquitous Computing
Arizona State University
G. P. “Bud” Peterson
Professor, Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Julia M. Phillips
Executive Emeritus
Sandia National Laboratories
Daniel A. Reed
Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs (Provost)
University of Utah
Geraldine L. Richmond
Presidential Chair in Science and Professor of Chemistry
University of Oregon
Anneila I. Sargent
Ira S. Bowen Professor of Astronomy
California Institute of Technology
S. Alan Stern
Associate Vice President and Special Assistant to
the President
Southwest Research Institute
Stephen H. Willard
CEO
Cellphire, Inc.
Maria T. Zuber
Vice President for Research
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
France A. Córdova, Member ex ocio
Director
National Science Foundation
John J. Veysey, II, Executive Ocer
Board Oce Director
National Science Board
2020
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
SCIENCE & ENGINEERING INDICATORS
The State of U.S. Science
& Engineering
January 2020
NSB-2020-1
Preface
The National Science Board (Board) is required under the
National Science Foundation (NSF) Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1863 (j) (1)
to prepare and transmit the biennial Science and Engineering
Indicators (Indicators) report to the President and Congress
every even-numbered year. The report is prepared by the
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
(NCSES) within NSF under the guidance of the Board. It is
subject to extensive review by Board members, outside
experts, interested federal agencies, and NCSES internal
reviewers for accuracy, coverage, and balance.
Indicators provides information on the state of the U.S.
science and engineering (S&E) enterprise over time and within
a global context. Indicators is a factual and policy-neutral
source of high-quality U.S. and international data; it does
not offer policy options or make policy recommendations.
The indicators presented in the report are quantitative
representations relevant to the scope, quality, and vitality of
the S&E enterprise.
With the 2020 edition, Indicators is being redesigned to be
maximally useful and accessible to a wide audience while
maintaining the high quality of previous editions. It is being
transformed from a single, voluminous report into a series
of streamlined reports. Indicators 2020 will consist of nine
thematic reports produced and published beginning in
the fall of 2019. In addition, The State of U.S. Science and
Engineering, which highlights the key ndings from the
Indicators 2020 thematic reports, will be delivered to the
President and Congress on 15 January 2020 in fulllment of
the congressional mandate.
1https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...........................................................................2
Introduction ..................................................................................3
U.S. and Global Education ......................................................................4
K–12 Mathematics and Science
Degree Awards
Internationally Mobile Students and Stay Rates
U.S. S&E Workforce ...........................................................................6
Workforce Growth and Employment Sector
Women and Underrepresented Minorities
Foreign-Born Scientists and Engineers
Skilled Technical Workforce
Global R&D ....................................................................................8
Where
Growth
Intensity
U.S. R&D Performance and Funding ............................................................ 10
Performance and Funding Trends
Type of R&D
Federal R&D
Global Science and Technology Capabilities .................................................... 12
Research Publications
International Research Collaboration
Knowledge- and Technology-Intensive Industry Output
Invention, Innovation, and Perceptions of Science ..............................................14
Invention
Innovation
Americans’ Perceptions about Science
Conclusion ................................................................................... 16
Glossary ..................................................................................... 17
Denitions
Key to Acronyms and Abbreviations
References ..................................................................................20
Detailed Figure Notes .........................................................................22
Explore Further ..............................................................................24
Acknowledgments and Citation ...............................................................25
2 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2020
Executive Summary
The State of U.S. Science and Engineering shows that the
U.S. S&E enterprise continues to advance along several
dimensions. The United States continues to perform the
largest share of global research and development (R&D),
generate the largest share of R&D-intensive industry output
globally, award the largest number of S&E doctoral degrees,
and account for signicant shares of S&E research articles
and citations worldwide. However, other nations, particularly
China, are rapidly developing their science and technology
(S&T) capacity. The changing global landscape affects the
position of the United States relative to the other major global
players. For example, the United States has seen its relative
share of global S&T activity remain unchanged or shrink, even
as its absolute activity levels have continued to rise.
Although total U.S. R&D investment has grown, funding and
performance patterns have changed. Since 2000, the rise
in U.S. R&D was driven mainly by the business sector, which
continues to perform and fund most of the overall R&D in the
United States, as well as most of the applied research and
experimental development. During this period, the share of
U.S. R&D funded by the federal government has declined. This
decline is notable as federally funded R&D is an important
source of support, particularly for the higher education sector
and for the nation’s basic research enterprise.
The U.S. S&E workforce continues to grow overall. The
number of women and underrepresented minorities (URMs)—
blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians or Alaska Natives—
has grown. However, these groups remain underrepresented
in the S&E workforce relative to their overall presence in the
workforce and the population.
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
competencies in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary
schooling are an important component of the pathway to
an S&E-capable workforce. U.S. eighth graders continue to
rank in the middle of advanced economies in international
mathematics and science assessments. Similarly, U.S.
national assessments of mathematics show little to no
growth in scores over the past decade. At the same time, for
higher education, the United States remains the destination
for the largest number of internationally mobile students.
Foreign-born noncitizens make up a considerable proportion
of S&E doctorate recipients, including half or more of the
doctorate recipients in engineering, mathematics and
computer sciences, and economics. Many of these students
stay in the United States after graduation. As such, foreign-
born individuals account for a sizeable share of U.S. S&E
employment, particularly among workers with
graduate degrees.
Although The State of U.S. Science and Engineering does not
forecast future outcomes, the data clearly show the evolution
of the United States in the global S&E enterprise. Increasingly,
the United States is seen globally as an important leader
rather than the uncontested leader. Whether and how long the
current global trends continue is an important question that
will be affected by the overall S&E environment, along with
the economic, social, and political forces that shape the S&E
environment in the United States and around the world.
3https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/
Introduction
Contributions from and innovation in S&T over many decades
have resulted in dramatic improvements to American lives,
including enhanced living standards and life expectancy,
better access to information and connectivity across the
globe, and increased access to and affordability of consumer
goods (Baumol 1989; Cutler and McClellan 2001; Gordon
2012; Alston, Beddow, and Pardey 2009). Even though the
transformative nature of S&T is not free of risks (e.g., privacy
concerns, cyber security threats), most Americans believe
that the federal government has a role in funding scientic
research and that the benets of S&T justify its expense
(NSB 2018). Although the United States has long been a global
leader in the advancement, development, and production of
S&T, other countries are increasing their S&T investments
and activities. In addition, the U.S. S&E enterprise faces
competition from other national priorities for limited
resources. Growth of S&T capabilities in other nations has
outpaced that of the United States along several dimensions,
enabling some countries to converge with, or even to be
poised to overtake, the United States in developing specic
areas of S&E expertise. This has resulted in a regional shift
in S&T performance and capabilities from the United States,
Western Europe, and Japan to other parts of the world,
notably to China and other Southeast Asian economies.
The analysis in this report is based on data from Science and
Engineering Indicators 2020 (Indicators 2020), which has been
redesigned to ensure that the content is maximally useful
and accessible to a wide audience. Indicators 2020 consists
of nine thematic reports that provide a high-level overview
of the U.S. S&E enterprise, which includes elementary
and secondary science and mathematics education, S&E
higher education, S&E workforce, S&E publications, R&D
investment, academic R&D, R&D-intensive industries,
innovation, and public perceptions of S&T. These thematic
reports along with the detailed underlying data are available
online at https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/. This report,
The State of U.S. Science and Engineering, highlights the key
ndings and indicators from the Indicators 2020 thematic
reports. Detailed analysis of these key indicators, as well as
numerous important topics, are addressed in the individual
thematic reports and are summarized in the executive
summary of each report.
This report is organized in six topical sections. The report
begins with the topic of education, including performance of
K–12 students and S&E degrees awarded in the United States,
along with relevant international comparisons. The second
section describes the demographic composition of the U.S.
S&E workforce and employment trends, including trends in
the skilled technical workforce. The next two sections focus
on R&D, including the U.S. position within a global context
and the structure of U.S. R&D performance and funding.
The fth section examines trends in global S&T capabilities,
including S&E research publications and R&D-intensive
industry output. The sixth section focuses on innovation-
related indicators, as well as U.S. public attitudes toward
S&T. The report ends with concluding remarks, as well as
references and resources, such as a glossary of terms and
acronyms, detailed notes for gures, and information on the
other reports, including Indicators 2020 thematic reports that
provide the underlying analysis for each section.
4 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2020
U.S. and Global Education
U.S. eighth graders rank in the middle of advanced economies in international mathematics and science
assessments, and U.S. national assessments of mathematics show little to no growth in scores over the past
decade. The United States awards the most S&E doctoral degrees of any single country and receives the largest
number of internationally mobile students.
K–12 Mathematics and Science
Internationally, U.S. eighth graders ranked in the middle of
the advanced economies that participated in science and
mathematics assessments (Figure 1). Singapore was the
highest scoring country. While U.S. students’ mathematics
scores have improved since 1990 on national assessments,
improvements have slowed in the past decade (Figure 2).
Science literacy scores and technology and engineering
literacy scores improved 4 points and 2 points (out of a
maximum score of 300), respectively, during the period for
which comparable data are available.
Degree Awards
Community colleges play a key role in preparing Americans
to enter the workforce with associate’s degrees or
certicates or to transition to four-year educational
institutions. In 2017, the United States awarded 93,000
associate’s degrees in S&E elds and another 133,000 in
S&E technologies. Among U.S. students who earned S&E
bachelor’s degrees between 2010 and 2017, about half (47%)
had done some coursework at a community college and
nearly a fth (18%) earned associate’s degrees.
According to the most recent estimates, the United States
awarded nearly 800,000 S&E rst university degrees in 2016,
broadly equivalent to a bachelor’s degree. The 28 European
Union (EU) countries together produced nearly 1 million of
these degrees, with the top 6 EU countries accounting for
about 70% of the EU total (see Glossary for EU member
countries). China produced 1.7 million S&E rst university
degrees. The number of such degrees in China has doubled
over the past 10 years, while other large, degree-producing
countries have seen modest increases (Figure 3). Much of
China’s increase has been in engineering, which accounted for
nearly 70% of China’s S&E rst university degrees.
The United States awarded about 40,000 S&E doctorates in
2016 (Figure 4). The combined EU countries awarded about
77,000. Starting from a low base, China has seen a rapid
increase over time and in 2015 awarded about 34,000 S&E
doctoral degrees, predominantly in the natural sciences and
engineering. China surpassed the United States in 2007 as
Figure 1. Average TIMSS mathematics and science scores of students in
grade 8 among selected high-income countries and economies: 2015
NOTES: TIMSS is Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study.
Nineteen developed economies participated in grade 8 TIMSS. Of these, Canada,
England, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Norway, Slovenia, and Sweden had average
mathematics or science scores that were not statistically different from that of
the United States and therefore are not shown. Russia, an upper-middle income
economy, is included for comparison purposes. See p. 22.
SOURCE: NCSES, special tabulations (2018) of the 2015 TIMSS.
Indicators 2020: K–12 Education
Average score
800 600 400 200 0 200 400 600 800
ScienceMathematics
New Zealand
Italy
Malta
Australia
United States
Russia
Japan
Hong Kong
Taiwan
South Korea
Singapore
Figure 2. Average scores of U.S. students in grade 8 on the NAEP
mathematics, science, and TEL assessments: 1990–2018
NOTES: NAEP is National Assessment of Educational Progress; TEL is technology
and engineering literacy. Assessments are not scheduled for all years. See p. 22.
SOURCES: NCSES, special tabulations (2018) of the 1990–2018 NAEP
mathematics, TEL, and science assessments, NCES, ED.
Indicators 2020: K–12 Education
Average score
0
100
200
300
TEL (max score 300)
Science (max score 300)
Mathematics (max score 500)
20182014201020062002199819941990
5https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/
Figure 3. First university degrees in S&E, by selected region, country, or
economy: 2000–16
NOTES: EU top 6 is France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
Data are not available for all regions, countries, or economies for all years. See p. 22.
SOURCES: Educational statistics of OECD, Eurostat, MEXT (Japan), NBS (China),
and MOE (Taiwan).
Indicators 2020: Higher Education
Thousands
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
EU top 6
United States
Taiwan
South Korea
Mexico
JapanChina
201620142012201020082006200420022000
EU top 6
United States
Taiwan
South Korea
Mexico
JapanChina
Figure 4. Doctoral degrees in S&E, by selected region, country, or
economy: 2000–16
NOTES: EU top 6 is France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
Data are not available for all regions, countries, or economies for all years. See p. 22.
SOURCES: Educational statistics of OECD, Eurostat, MEXT (Japan), NBS (China),
and MOE (Taiwan).
Indicators 2020: Higher Education
Thousands
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
EU top 6
United States
India
Taiwan
South Korea
Japan
China
201620142012201020082006200420022000
Figure 5. International students enrolled in U.S. higher education
institutions, by broad area of study and year: 2016–18
NOTES: Undergraduate level includes associate’s and bachelor’s degrees.
Graduate level includes master’s and doctoral degrees. See p. 22.
SOURCE: DHS, ICE, special tabulations (2018), SEVIS database.
Indicators 2020: Higher Education
0 100 200 300 400 500
Non-S&EBusinessEngineeringScience
2018
2017
2016
Graduate
students
2018
2017
2016
Undergraduate
students
Thousands
the world’s largest producer of doctoral degrees in natural
sciences and engineering (excluding social and behavioral
sciences) and has remained in the lead ever since. In 2015,
China awarded 32,000 doctorates in these elds and the
United States awarded 30,000.
Internationally Mobile Students and Stay Rates
Understanding the relationship between degrees conferred
in a country and the capabilities of its workforce is
complicated as rising numbers of students receive higher
education outside their home countries. In the United
States, a substantial proportion of S&E doctoral degrees are
conferred to international students with temporary visas.
In 2017, temporary visa holders earned one-third (34%) of
S&E doctoral degrees, a relatively stable proportion over
time. They account for half or more of the doctoral degrees
awarded in engineering, mathematics and computer
sciences, and economics. Three Asian countries—China,
India, and South Korea—are the largest source countries
and accounted for just over half (54%) of all international
recipients of U.S. S&E research doctoral degrees since 2000.
By comparison, students on temporary visas earn a smaller
share (6% in 2017) of S&E bachelor’s degrees. However, the
number of these students has more than doubled over the
past 10 years.
A majority of the S&E doctorate recipients with temporary
visas—ranging between 64% and 71% between 2003 and 2017—
stayed in the United States ve years after obtaining their
degree. Those from China and India, however, saw a decline in
their respective “stay rates” from 93% and 90%, respectively, in
2003 to 84% and 85%, respectively, in 2013; the rates remained
stable from 2013 through 2017. The stay rate increased for
those from South Korea (from 36% in 2003 to 57% in 2017).
Stay rates also vary by eld of doctoral degree. Among S&E
doctorate recipients, social sciences (52%) has a lower stay
rate than the average across all elds (71% in 2017).
The United States is the destination for the largest number
of internationally mobile students worldwide (19% in 2016).
Other popular destinations include the United Kingdom,
Australia, France, Germany, and Russia. However, enrollment
of international students at U.S. institutions has declined
since 2016. Underlying this overall decline is a mixed picture
that varies by degree level and eld of study (Figure 5), as
well as by country of origin. Between 2016 and 2018, the
number of international students studying science rose
at the undergraduate level and declined slightly at the
graduate level; the number of those studying engineering
declined at both levels. Among the two largest source
countries, the number of Chinese S&E graduate students at
U.S. institutions increased during this period, whereas the
number of those from India declined.
6 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2020
Workforce Growth and Employment Sector
S&E employment in the United States—made up of
occupations like software developers, computer system
analysts, chemists, mathematicians, economists,
psychologists, and engineers—has grown more rapidly
than the workforce overall and now represents 5% (about 7
million) of all U.S. jobs. In 2017, the median annual salary in
S&E occupations (across workers at all education levels) was
$85,390, which is more than double the median for all U.S.
workers ($37,690). Individuals in S&E occupations work for a
variety of employers, including businesses (72%), educational
institutions (16%), and government (12%). Many others with
S&E training are employed in and apply their S&E knowledge
and skills in occupations not formally classied as S&E jobs.
Women and Underrepresented Minorities
Women account for about half (52%) of the college-educated
workforce (Figure 6), and between 2003 and 2017, the number
of women in S&E jobs rose from nearly 1.3 million to nearly 2.0
million. Despite this increase, women in 2017 accounted for
29% of S&E employment, compared with 26% in 2003. The
number of women grew in all broad S&E occupations (Figure
7). In addition, their presence varies across occupational
categories. In 2017, women accounted for nearly half or more
of the workforce in the life sciences and in psychology and
social sciences. In comparison, women accounted for 27% of
computer and mathematical scientists, 16% of engineers, and
29% of physical scientists.
Similarly, in 2017, there were 901,000 S&E workers from
URM groups, up from 432,000 in 2003. The proportion of
individuals from URM groups in S&E jobs, although up from
9% in 2003 to 13% in 2017, remains below their share of the
college-educated workforce (17%) (Figure 6). URMs also vary
in their presence across S&E, accounting for 10% to 22%
of the workforce in each broad S&E occupational category
U.S. S&E Workforce
Workers employing S&E and technological expertise in their occupations experience better labor market
outcomes than those in many other types of jobs. Women and certain racial and ethnic groups—blacks, Hispanics,
and American Indians or Alaska Natives—are underrepresented in S&E. However, their total numbers in S&E
occupations have increased. Foreign-born individuals account for a considerable share of S&E employment,
particularly among workers with graduate degrees. Both the number and proportion of foreign-born S&E workers
have risen over time.
Figure 6. Women, underrepresented minorities, blacks, and Hispanics in
S&E and all occupations: 2017
NOTES: Underrepresented minorities includes individuals who are black,
Hispanic, or American Indian or Alaska Native. The S&E and all occupations
data are for those with a bachelor’s degree and above. The U.S. residential
population data are for those at all education levels.
SOURCES: NCSES, 2017 NSCG; Census Bureau, 2017 ACS.
Indicators 2020: Labor Force
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
U.S. residential population
(21 and older)
All occupations
All S&E occupations
HispanicsBlacksUnderrepresented
minorities
Women
Percent share
Figure 7. Women in S&E occupations, by broad occupational category:
2003 and 2017
SOURCES: NCSES, 2003 SESTAT and 2017 NSCG.
Indicators 2020: Labor Force
Thousands
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Thousands
200320032003200320172003
Engineering Computer
sciences and
mathematics
Physical
sciences
Life
sciences
Psychology
and social
sciences
Percent share
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent share
2017201720172017
7https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/
(Figure 8). Representation varies further across minority
groups and within occupations. The share of Hispanics among
psychologists (15%), political scientists (33%), postsecondary
teachers in computer science (13%), and industrial
engineers (17%) is large relative to the Hispanic share of
S&E occupations overall (7%). The share of black individuals
among computer systems analysts (13%), computer support
specialists (14%), and network and computer systems
administrators (14%) is large relative to the share of black
individuals in S&E occupations overall (6%).
Foreign-Born Scientists and Engineers
Foreign-born workers—ranging from long-term U.S. residents
with strong roots in the United States to more recent
immigrants—account for 30% of workers in S&E occupations.
The number and proportion of the S&E workforce that
are foreign born has grown. In many of the broad S&E
occupational categories, the higher the degree level, the
greater the proportion of the workforce who are foreign
born. More than one-half of doctorate holders in engineering
and in computer science and mathematics occupations are
foreign born (Figure 9). In comparison, about 18% of the overall
population and 17% of the college graduate population in the
United States are foreign born.
Skilled Technical Workforce
According to the most recent estimates, the U.S. workforce
includes about 17 million skilled technical workers, that is,
those who are employed in occupations that require S&E
expertise and technical knowledge and whose educational
attainment is some high school or a high school diploma,
some college or an associate’s degree, or equivalent training.
These workers are concentrated in four broad occupational
categories: construction and extraction (21%), health care
(20%), installation, maintenance, and repair (20%), and
production (16%) (Figure 10).
Skilled technical occupations provide better career
opportunities than other occupations. In 2017, skilled
technical workers had a higher median salary ($45,000) and
a lower unemployment rate (3%) than did workers with less
than a bachelor’s degree in all other occupations ($29,000
and 5%). The skilled technical workforce is made up primarily
of men—only 28% are women. Although the racial and ethnic
distribution is largely similar to the overall workforce, Asians
account for a smaller share of this workforce (4% versus 6%
of the overall workforce), as do foreign-born individuals (16%
versus 18%).
Figure 8. Underrepresented minorities in S&E occupations, by broad
occupational category: 2003 and 2017
NOTE: Underrepresented minorities includes individuals who are black, Hispanic,
or American Indian or Alaska Native.
SOURCES: NCSES, 2003 SESTAT and 2017 NSCG.
Indicators 2020: Labor Force
Thousands
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Thousands
2017200320172003201720032017200320172003
Engineering Computer
sciences and
mathematics
Physical
sciences
Life
sciences
Psychology
and social
sciences
0
5
10
15
20
25
Percent share
Percent share
Percent share
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
DoctorateMaster’sBachelor’s
Psychology
and social
sciences
Life
sciences
Physical
sciences
Computer
sciences and
mathematics
EngineeringAll S&E
occupations
Figure 9. Foreign-born individuals in S&E occupations in the United
States, by level of degree and occupation: 2017
SOURCE: NCSES, 2017 NCSG.
Indicators 2020: Labor Force
All other
11%
Computer and
mathematical
8%
Architecture and
engineering
5%
Production
16%
Installation,
maintenance,
and repair
20%
Health care
practitioners
and technicians
20%
Construction
and extraction
21%
Figure 10. Skilled technical workers, by occupation: 2017
NOTE: Employment counts are of employed individuals with an educational
attainment of less than a bachelor’s degree.
SOURCE: Census Bureau, 2017 ACS.
Indicators 2020: Labor Force
8 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2020
Global R&D
The United States spent more on R&D than did any other country in 2017. However, its global share since 2000 fell
as R&D spending rose in many Asian countries, especially China. In R&D intensity (ratio of R&D to gross domestic
product [GDP]), the United States ranked 10th in 2017. The R&D-intensity level has risen modestly in the United
States since 2000, while China and South Korea have seen rapid increases.
Where
Total global R&D expenditures have risen substantially,
expanding threefold between 2000 ($722 billion) and 2017
($2.2 trillion). Global R&D activity remains concentrated in the
United States, EU, and the combination of East-Southeast
and South Asia regions (see Glossary for member countries of
each region).
Among individual countries, the United States was the
largest R&D performer in 2017, followed by China, whose R&D
spending now exceeds that of the EU (Figure 11). Together,
the United States (25%) and China (23%) accounted for nearly
half of the estimated global R&D total in 2017. Japan (8%)
and Germany (6%) are next, followed by South Korea (4%).
France, India, the United Kingdom, Russia, Brazil, Taiwan, Italy,
Canada, Spain, Turkey, and Australia account for about 1%–3%
each of the global total. Many other countries also conduct
R&D, with annual expenditures well below these top countries
and economies.
Growth
A notable trend over the past decade has been the growth in
R&D spending in the regions of East-Southeast and South
Asia, compared to the other major R&D-performing areas.
Asian countries, most notably China, have heavily contributed
to the overall increase in worldwide R&D expenditures, with
China accounting for almost one-third (32%) of the total global
growth between 2000 and 2017 (Figure 12). The United States
(20%) and the EU (17%) together accounted for over one-third
(37%) of the global growth.
Across countries, regions, and economies, the differential
growth rates have led to shifting global R&D shares. Despite
average annual growth in R&D spending of 4.3% in the United
States and 5.1% in the EU between 2000 and 2017 (Figure 13),
global R&D shares declined for the United States (37% to 25%)
and for the EU (25% to 20%) (Figure 14). At the same time,
the economies of East-Southeast and South Asia—including
Figure 11. Gross domestic expenditures on R&D, by selected region,
country, or economy: 2000–17
NOTES: PPP is purchasing power parity. Data are for the top eight R&D-
performing countries and the EU. Data are not available for all countries for
all years. The EU includes France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. See p. 22.
SOURCES: NCSES, National Patterns of R&D Resources; OECD, MSTI 2019/1;
UNESCO, UIS R&D.
Indicators 2020: R&D
Billions of PPP dollars
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
India
South Korea
Japan
China
United Kingdom
Germany
France
EU
United States
201720152013201120092007200520032000
India
South Korea
Japan
China
United Kingdom
Germany
France
EU
United States
Figure 12. Contributions to growth of worldwide R&D expenditures, by
selected region, country, or economy: 2000–17
NOTE: Other East-Southeast and South Asia include Cambodia, India, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka,
Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam.
SOURCES: NCSES, National Patterns of R&D Resources; OECD, MSTI 2019/1;
UNESCO, UIS R&D.
Indicators 2020: R&D
Rest of world
13%
Other East-
Southeast and
South Asia
8%
South Korea
and Japan
10%
China
32%
EU
17%
United States
20%
9https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/
China, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and
India—increased their combined global share from 25% to
42%, so this region now exceeds the respective U.S. and EU
R&D shares and leads in global R&D expenditures.
Intensity
Although the United States invests more in R&D than does
any other individual country, several other, smaller economies
have a greater “R&D intensity”—that is, a higher ratio of R&D
expenditures to GDP (Figure 15). South Korea has the highest
ratio at 4.6%. Over the past decade, U.S. R&D intensity has
uctuated within a relatively narrow range and remained
generally high relative to historic levels, although the global
U.S. rank in this indicator fell from 8th in 2009 to 10th in 2017.
Since 2000, the R&D-to-GDP ratio rose sharply for both South
Korea and China, although those countries started with a low
base, whereas R&D intensity rose gradually in the EU.
Many governments have limited direct control over achieving
a targeted R&D-to-GDP ratio since, for the most part, the
business sector is the predominant source of R&D funding
among the top R&D-performing countries. In 2017, the
business sector accounted for approximately three-quarters
of R&D funding in the leading Asian countries: Japan (78%),
China (76%), and South Korea (76%). The business share of
total R&D was lower but still signicant in the United States
(62%) as well as in leading European countries, with Germany
at 66%, France at 56%, and the United Kingdom at 52%. These
shares provide consistent cross-country comparisons of
R&D; the methodology differs from that of the U.S. R&D data
that follow in the next section.
Countries also vary in their relative focus on basic research,
applied research, and experimental development (see
Glossary for denitions). According to the most recent
estimates, the United States spends 17% and China
spends 6% of its annual R&D funds on basic research. In
comparison, this proportion was 21% for France. However,
this amounted to $13 billion of basic research performance
in France, smaller than the amounts spent in the United
States ($91 billion) and China ($27 billion). China spends 84%
of its R&D funds on experimental development, compared
to 63% in the United States.
Figure 13. Average annual growth rate of domestic R&D expenditures,
by selected region, country, or economy: 2000–17
NOTE: The EU includes France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
SOURCES: NCSES, National Patterns of R&D Resources; OECD, MSTI 2019/1;
UNESCO, UIS R&D.
Indicators 2020: R&D
Percent
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
ChinaSouth
Korea
India
(2000–15)
GermanyEUUnited
States
United
Kingdom
FranceJapan
Figure 14. Shares of worldwide R&D expenditures, by selected region,
country, or economy: 2000 and 2017
NOTE: East-Southeast and South Asia include Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia,
Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore,
South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam.
SOURCES: OECD, MSTI 2019/1; UNESCO, UIS R&D.
Indicators 2020: R&D
Percent share
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
20172000
Rest of worldEUUnited StatesEast-Southeast
and South Asia
Figure 15. R&D intensity, by selected region, country, or economy: 2000
and 2017
NOTES: Data are for the top eight R&D-performing countries and the EU. The EU
includes France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. See p. 22.
SOURCES: NCSES, National Patterns of R&D Resources; OECD, MSTI 2019/1;
UNESCO, UIS R&D.
Indicators 2020: R&D
Percent
0
1
2
3
4
5
20172000
India
(2015)
South
Korea
JapanChinaUnited
Kingdom
GermanyFranceEUUnited
States
10 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2020
U.S. R&D Performance and Funding
Businesses perform and fund most of the overall R&D in the United States as well as most of the applied research
and experimental development. Higher education is the second-largest performer of R&D and performs the largest
share of basic research; the federal government is the second-largest funder of R&D and funds the largest share
of basic research. While federal R&D funding of basic research has increased since 2000, the proportion of R&D
funded by the federal government has declined. Eight federal departments and agencies together account for most
of the federal R&D spending.
Performance and Funding Trends
The business sector performed most (73%) of the $548 billion
of U.S. R&D total in 2017. The next largest performers were
higher education (universities and colleges; 13%) and the
federal government (10%) (Figure 16). Many organizations
performing R&D receive outside funding; they may also
be signicant funders of R&D themselves. Mirroring its
predominant role in R&D performance, the business sector
is also the leading source of R&D funding (70%) in the United
States. However, nearly all (98%) of the business sector’s
R&D funding supported R&D performance by businesses,
either the same business that funded the R&D or another
business. The federal government, the second-largest source
of R&D funding (22%) (Figure 17), supports all R&D-performing
sectors. Federal support, however, varies by sector. In 2017,
federal funding supported half (51%) of all academic R&D
performance. Federal funds also supported R&D performance
by businesses (6%), nonprots (35%), and federally funded
research and development centers (FFRDCs) (98%).
Type of R&D
About 17% of the U.S. R&D performance is for basic research,
while the remainder, more than 80%, is for applied research
and experimental development. Organizations bring different
perspectives and approaches to R&D. The business sector,
with its focus on new and improved goods, services, and
processes, dominates both experimental development (90%
of performance and 85% of funding) and applied research
(57% of performance and 54% of funding). In comparison,
nearly half (48%) of U.S. basic research is performed by
higher education institutions, while 42% of funding for all
basic research is provided by the federal government (Figure
18). The role of higher education is not surprising given
the integration of advanced graduate education and R&D
performance. However, businesses are now funding more
basic research. Between 2000 and 2017, the share of basic
research funded by the business sector increased from 19%
to 29%.
Figure 16. U.S. R&D expenditures, by performing sector: 2000–17
SOURCE: NCSES, National Patterns of R&D Resources.
Indicators 2020: R&D and Academic R&D
Billions of dollars
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Nonfederal government
and other nonprofits
Federal government
Higher education
Business
201720152013201120092007200520032000
Nonfederal government
and other nonprofits
Federal government
Higher education
Business
Figure 17. U.S. R&D expenditures, by source of funds: 2000–17
SOURCE: NCSES, National Patterns of R&D Resources.
Indicators 2020: R&D and Academic R&D
Billions of dollars
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Higher education
Nonfederal government
and other nonprofits
Federal government
Business
201720152013201120092007200520032000
Higher education
Nonfederal government
and other nonprofits
Federal government
Business
11https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/
Federal R&D
Since 2000, the expansion in U.S. R&D has been driven
primarily by the business sector, notwithstanding the
temporary boost provided by the federal government in
the wake of the 2008 nancial crisis. Although the levels of
federal R&D funding rose across performing sectors between
2000 and 2017, the share of total U.S. R&D funded by the
federal government declined from 25% to 22%. This decline
was observed across performing sectors including higher
education institutions, other nonprot institutions, and
businesses (Figure 19). Among higher education institutions,
where the federal government is a major source of R&D
support, the share of federally funded R&D performance
declined from 57% in 2000 to 51% in 2017.
By type of R&D, the shares of federal government funding
for basic research and experimental development declined
since 2000 despite rising levels of funding (Figure 20). The
federal government is a major funder of basic research, and
between 2000 and 2017, the share of basic research funded by
the federal government declined from 58% to 42%. Federally
funded applied research was an exception during this period,
as both the level and share rose.
Eight federal departments and agencies together account
for most of the federal R&D spending. Defense has long been
a federal R&D budget priority, accounting for 44% of federal
R&D support in 2017. This R&D support comes mainly from the
Department of Defense but also from several other defense-
related agencies. Over half (56%) of the federal R&D budget is
devoted to nondefense. Health and environment account for
slightly more than one-half (56%) of federal nondefense R&D
budget. The other federal agencies with large R&D portfolios—
the Department of Health and Human Services, Department
of Energy, National Science Foundation, Department of
Agriculture, Department of Commerce, and Department
of Transportation—focus primarily in the areas of basic
and applied research. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration distributes its budget more evenly across the
different types of R&D, with about half going to basic and
applied research and half to experimental development.
Figure 18. U.S. R&D performance and funding, by type of R&D and
sector: 2017
SOURCE: NCSES, National Patterns of R&D Resources.
Indicators 2020: R&D and Academic R&D
Percent
0 20 40 60 80 100
Business
Federal government
Universities and colleges
Nonfederal government
and other nonprofits
Funding
Performance
Experimental development
Funding
Performance
Applied research
Funding
Performance
Basic research
Funding
Performance
Total R&D
Figure 19. R&D performance funded by the federal government, by
performing sector: 2000–17
NOTE: Percentages represent federal funding divided by total performance for
each sector.
SOURCE: NCSES, National Patterns of R&D Resources.
Indicators 2020: R&D and Academic R&D
Billions of dollars Percent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Other
nonprofits ($)
Higher
education ($)
Business ($)
201720152013201120092007200520032000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Other nonprofits (%)
Higher education (%)
Business (%)
Figure 20. R&D performance funded by the federal government, by type
of R&D: 2000–17
NOTE: Percentages represent federal funding divided by total performance for
each type.
SOURCE: NCSES, National Patterns of R&D Resources.
Indicators 2020: R&D and Academic R&D
Billions of dollars Percent
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Experimental development ($)
Applied research ($)
Basic
research ($)
201720152013201120092007200520032000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Experimental development (%)
Applied
research (%)
Basic research (%)
12 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2020
Global Science and Technology Capabilities
The 28 nations that make up the EU collectively have the highest output of S&E publications globally. China’s S&E
publication output ranks next, followed by the United States. The citation impact of China’s publications is rising
rapidly, although it is currently lower than that of the United States and the EU. With respect to industrial output
between 2003 and 2018, the U.S. share of worldwide value-added output declined for R&D-intensive industries even
though the U.S. level of output rose.
Research Publications
R&D produces new knowledge. The EU, China, United States,
India, Japan, and South Korea together produce more than
70% of the worldwide refereed S&E publications (Figure 21).
As with the worldwide trends for degrees awarded and R&D
spending, the output of peer-reviewed S&E publications
in recent years has grown more rapidly in middle-income
countries, especially China, than in high-income countries,
including the United States (see Glossary for denitions).
China’s S&E publication output has risen nearly tenfold since
2000, and as a result, China’s output in terms of absolute
quantity now exceeds that of the United States.
As measured by publication output, the subject-matter
emphasis of scientic research varies across countries and
regions. Among the largest producers in 2018, the United
States and the EU each produced more biomedical and health
sciences articles than did China. However, China surpassed
the United States and the EU individually in the production of
engineering articles and now produces more than twice as
many engineering articles as the United States.
Publications receiving more citations generally have more
impact on a particular scientic discipline. The relative
impact of an economy’s S&E research can be compared
through the representation of its articles among the world’s
top 1% of cited articles, normalized to account for the size
of each country’s pool of S&E publications. This normalized
value is referred to as an index and is similar to a standardized
score. For example, if a country’s global share of top articles
is the same as its global share of all publication output, the
index is 1.0. The U.S. index was 1.9 in 2016, meaning that its
share of the top 1% of cited articles was about twice the size
of its share of total S&E articles (Figure 22). Between 2000
and 2016, the EU index of highly cited articles grew from 1.0
to 1.3 while China’s index more than doubled, from 0.4 to 1.1,
indicating rising impact from both areas.
International Research Collaboration
U.S. research capacity, as well as that of other nations, is
enhanced through connection with researchers around
the world. The proportion of worldwide articles produced
Figure 21. S&E articles by selected region, country, or economy:
Selected years, 2000–18
NOTES: Articles are fractionally counted and classied by publication year and
assigned to a region, country, or economy by author’s institutional address(es).
Percentages shown represent share of global S&E articles. See p. 22.
SOURCE: NCSES, special tabulations (2019) of Elsevier’s Scopus database.
Indicators 2020: Publication Output
0
400
800
1,200
1,600
2,000
2,400
2,800
Rest of world
South Korea
Japan
India
China
EU
United States
2018201520122009200620032000
Thousands
20%
27%
3%
4%
5%
21%
24%
17%
1%
2%
34%
28%
5%
9%
Figure 22. Top 1% cited article index, by selected region, country, or
economy: 2000–16
NOTES: Citation counts for a year are the number of citations in the peer-
reviewed literature for articles published in that year. At least 2 years of data
after publication are needed for a meaningful measure. See p. 22.
SOURCE: NCSES, special tabulations (2019) of Elsevier’s Scopus database.
Indicators 2020: Publication Output
Index
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
South Korea
Japan
India
China
EU
United States
201620142012201020082006200420022000
13https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicator s/
with international collaboration—that is, by authors from at
least two countries—has grown from 14% in 2000 to 23% in
2018. Most of the large producers of S&E scholarly articles
in 2018 were highly collaborative (Figure 23): the UK (62%),
Australia (60%), France (59%), Canada (56%), Germany (53%),
Spain (53%), and Italy (50%) have relatively high international
collaboration rates. In 2018, 39% of U.S. articles were
developed through international collaboration, up from 19% in
2000. U.S. authors collaborated most frequently with authors
from China (about 26% of U.S. internationally coauthored
articles in 2018). Since 2000, international collaboration grew
for most of the top 15 largest producers of S&E articles.
Knowledge- and Technology-Intensive
Industry Output
Knowledge and technology intensity within an industry can be
measured in several ways, including an industry’s employment
of highly skilled workers and its R&D intensity. Using R&D
intensity as a measure, the most R&D-intensive industries
globally are manufacturing of aircraft; pharmaceuticals;
computer, electronic, and optical products; computer
software publishing; and scientic R&D. In these industries,
global value-added output in 2018 was more than $3.2
trillion. Between 2003 and 2018, U.S. output increased from
about $570 billion to $1.04 trillion, while the U.S. global share
declined from 38% to 32%. Over this period, the EU’s and
Japan’s global shares declined, whereas China’s share rose
rapidly (Figure 24). The collective share for several other Asian
countries and economies rose more moderately.
Industries with lower but still appreciable levels of R&D
intensity include chemicals (excluding pharmaceuticals),
transportation equipment (excluding aircraft), electrical and
other machinery and equipment, information technology
services, and scientic instruments. In these medium-high
R&D-intensive industries, global output in 2018 was nearly
$5.8 trillion. Although U.S. output increased from about $600
billion to $1.25 trillion between 2003 and 2018, its global share
decreased slightly (Figure 25). China, starting from a low base
in 2003, now produces 26% of the global output. The EU and
Japan saw declining shares.
Many knowledge- and technology-intensive industries depend
on powerful computers, known as supercomputers. They
are one contributor to S&T capacity, including the capacity
for developing articial intelligence (AI) technologies. China
is building its supercomputing capacity from a low base; its
share of the worldwide 100 most powerful computers rose
from 5% to 9% between 2010 and 2019. The United States had
the largest share in 2019 (37%). However, the U.S. share has
declined since 2010 (43%).
Figure 23. International collaboration on S&E articles, for the 15 largest
producers of S&E articles, by country or economy: 2018
NOTES: Articles are whole-counted and classied by publication year and as-
signed to a country or economy by listed institutional address(es). See p. 23.
SOURCE: NCSES, special tabulations (2019) of Elsevier’s Scopus database.
Indicators 2020: Publication Output
Thousands
0 200 400 600 800
International collaborationDomestic author(s) only
Iran
Brazil
South Korea
Spain
Australia
Canada
Russia
Italy
France
Japan
India
Germany
United Kingdom
United States
China
Billions of dollars
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Rest of world
Other selected Asia
China
Japan
EU
United States
201820152012200920062003
Rest of world
Other selected Asia
China
Japan
EU
United States
38%
25%
12%
8%
6%
11%
32%
19%
21%
12%
12%
5%
Figure 24. Value-added output of high R&D intensive industries by
selected region, country, or economy: Selected years, 2003–18
NOTES: Other selected Asia includes India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines,
Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. Percentages shown
represent share of global value-added output of high R&D intensive industries.
See p. 23.
SOURCE: IHS Markit, special tabulations (2019) of the Comparative
Industry Service.
Indicators 2020: Industry Activities
Billions of dollars
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Rest of world
Other selected Asia
Japan
China
EU
United States
201820152012200920062003
Rest of world
Other selected Asia
Japan
China
EU
United States
25%
32%
7%
6%
11%
19%
22%
23%
26%
10%
9%
11%
Figure 25. Value-added output of medium-high R&D intensive industries
by selected region, country, or economy: Selected years, 2003–18
NOTES: Other selected Asia includes India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines,
Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. Percentages shown
represent share of global value-added output of medium-high R&D intensive
industries. See p. 23.
SOURCE: IHS Markit, special tabulations (2019) of the Comparative
Industry Service.
Indicators 2020: Industry Activities
14 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2020
Invention, Innovation, and Perceptions of Science
Inventors from China, Japan, and South Korea receive the majority of patents for unique inventions across all
countries and regions, based on patent family statistics. Engineering-related inventions made up more than half of all
these global patent families in 2018. In the United States, industries producing digital and health-related products and
technologies report above-average innovation rates. Overall, Americans view S&T positively. Most Americans believe
that science creates more opportunities for the next generation and that the federal government should provide
funds for scientic research. However, a considerable share also think that science makes life change too fast.
Invention
Scientic discovery and R&D increase the storehouse
of knowledge, which then enables invention, innovation,
and societal and economic benets. Patents grant novel,
useful, and nonobvious inventions legal ownership rights
for a specied period. Utility patents are an internationally
comparable indicator of invention. However, they are
an incomplete indicator because not all inventions are
protected by patents. Many inventions are patented in
multiple international jurisdictions as inventors operate and
seek patent protection in these markets. Data on patent
families provide a broad unduplicated measure of such global
inventions. Based on these data, inventors in China accounted
for about half (49%) of such patent families in 2018 (Figure
26). Electrical and mechanical engineering-related patents
made up more than half (56%) of these patent families in 2018,
including those granted to inventors in the United States, the
EU, South Korea, Japan, and China (Figure 27).
In contrast, U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce (USPTO) patents
show the geographic distribution of inventions protected
in the U.S. market; high-income countries and regions
predominate. U.S. inventors receive nearly half of USPTO
patents (47%); considerable shares are also received by
Japan (16%), South Korea (6%), and the EU (15%), while China
receives 5%.
Innovation
While invention is the creation of something new and useful,
innovation is its implementation. Between 2014 and 2016,
approximately 17% of U.S. rms (with ve or more employees)
introduced an innovation—that is, a new or improved
product or process. Industries that produce products and
services for the digital economy through information and
communication technologies (ICT), both within and outside
of the manufacturing sector, have some of the highest
innovation rates. For example, innovations were reported by
61% of software publishing companies, 53% of computer and
electronic products manufacturing companies, and 47% of
Figure 26. Shares of worldwide patent families granted to inventors, by
selected region, country, or economy: 2018
NOTES: Patent families refer to groups of patents that have one unique invention
in common. See p. 23.
SOURCE: NCSES, special tabulations (2019) of PATSTAT, European Patent Oce.
Indicators 2020: Innovation
Percent share
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
United States
EU
South Korea
Japan
China
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Mechanical engineeringElectrical engineering
EU
South Korea
Japan
China
United States
World
Percent share
Figure 27. Engineering patent families granted to inventors as a share of
each selected region’s, country’s, or economy’s patent families: 2018
NOTES: Patent families refer to groups of patents that have one unique invention
in common. Electrical and mechanical engineering patents exclude patents in
civil engineering. See p. 23.
SOURCE: NCSES, special tabulations (2019) of PATSTAT, European Patent Oce.
Indicators 2020: Innovation
15https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Scientific R&D services
Computer systems
design & related
Medical equipment
& supplies
Semiconductor & other
electronic components
Chemicals
Physical, engineering,
& life sciences R&D
Electrical equipment
& components
Data processing,
hosting, & related
Computer &
electronic products
Software publishers
Percent
Figure 28. U.S. companies reporting product or process innovation, by
selected industry: 2014–16
NOTES: Electrical equipment includes appliances. Physical, engineering, and life
sciences R&D excludes biotechnology.
SOURCE: NCSES, 2016 BRDIS.
Indicators 2020: Innovation
Percent with a particular view of science
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Have a great deal of confidence in the scientific community
Agree that science makes life change too fast
Agree that government should fund basic scientific research
Agree that science generates opportunities for next generation
201820162014201220102008200620042001
Have a great deal of confidence in the scientific community
Agree that science makes life change too fast
Agree that government should fund basic scientific research
Agree that science generates opportunities for next generation
Figure 29. Americans’ views of science: Selected years, 2001–18
NOTES: Questions were not elded in all years. See p. 23.
SOURCES: NCSES, special tabulations (2019) of the 2001 S&T Public Attitudes
Survey, NCSES; the 2004 Survey of Consumer Attitudes, U. Michigan; and the
2006–16 General Social Survey, NORC at U. Chicago.
Indicators 2020: Public Attitudes and Understanding
Percent with a particular view of science
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Graduate or professional
Bachelor's degree
Some college
High school diploma
Less than high school diploma
Great deal of
confidence in the
scientific community
Science makes
life change
too fast
Government should
fund basic scientific
research
Science generates
opportunities for
next generation
Graduate or professional
Bachelor’s degree
Some college
High school diploma
Less than high school diploma
Figure 30. Americans’ views of science, by education level: 2018
NOTE: See p. 23.
SOURCE: NCSES, special tabulations (2019) of the 2018 General Social Survey,
NORC at U. Chicago.
Indicators 2020: Public Attitudes and Understanding
data processing and hosting companies (Figure 28). Industries
that produce health-related products and technologies also
report above-average innovation rates, including medical
equipment and supplies (44%), chemicals (45%), and
scientic R&D services (43%). Companies that produced
navigational, medical, and other instruments, under the
broader computer and electronic products industry category,
also report an above average innovation rate (60%).
Data on venture capital investment show emerging areas
where investors see potential commercial impacts. In 2018,
most of the global venture capital funds were received
by the United States (44%) and China (36%). In the United
States, venture capital is focused primarily in areas that
rely on software, including mobile technologies, AI, big
data, industrials, and nancial technology. Among these
technologies, AI investment grew the most since 2013. AI
technologies include machine learning, autonomous robotics
and vehicles, computable statistics, computer vision, language
processing, virtual agents, and neural networks. In China, ICT,
which includes software, accounted for slightly more than half
of total investment.
Americans’ Perceptions about Science
Public perceptions of S&T can inuence social acceptance of
innovations as well as the progress of science. For example,
such perceptions could inuence willingness to fund S&T
through public investment (Besley 2018; Miller, Pardo, and
Niwa 1997; Muñoz, Moreno, and Luján 2012), as well as young
people’s willingness to pursue S&E careers (Besley 2015;
Losh 2010). Americans overwhelmingly believe that science
creates more opportunities for the next generation (92% in
2018) and that the federal government should provide funds
for scientic research (84%) (Figure 29). Many Americans
continue to have a “great deal of condence” in the scientic
community (44%). This perception has remained stable since
1973 (37%) and is second only to condence in the military
(59%). A substantial percentage of Americans also think
science makes life change too fast (49%).
Attitudes toward science vary by level of education and
other demographic groups. Almost all Americans across all
education levels report that they believe science will benet
future generations and favor federal support for scientic
research (Figure 30). However, a “great deal of condence”
in the scientic community is higher among those with
more advanced education (68% of graduate degree holders,
compared with 29% of those with less than a high school
diploma) as well as among men (50%, compared with 39%
of women) and those with higher income (55% in the highest
income quartile, compared with 37% in the lowest income
quartile). About 68% of those with less than a high school
diploma agree that science makes life change too fast. For
those with a graduate degree, 45% share this view (Figure 30).
16 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2020
Conclusion
This report, The State of U.S. Science and Engineering,
describes trends in and the relative global position of the
U.S. S&E enterprise, including S&E education and workforce,
R&D, R&D-intensive commercial output, and innovation.
The data show mixed trends for the United States. Women,
blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians or Alaska Natives
are underrepresented in the U.S. S&E workforce compared
to their presence in the overall population, even though
their participation in absolute numbers has grown. In
international mathematics and science assessments,
U.S. eighth grade students rank in the middle of advanced
economies. Furthermore, U.S. eighth grade students’ average
mathematics scores have been relatively at over the past
decade. U.S. universities continue to award the most S&E
doctoral-level degrees in the world, as well as to receive
the largest number of internationally mobile students.
Foreign student enrollment in U.S. universities, however,
has declined since 2016. International students receive a
considerable proportion of U.S. S&E doctorates, and many
of these students remain in the United States for years
after graduating. As such, the U.S. S&E enterprise includes
not only domestic resources, but also the contributions
of international students and workers, international
collaborations in research, and global markets and trade in
R&D-intensive products.
Since the turn of the century, R&D expenditures have grown
more rapidly in several Asian economies, particularly China,
compared to more moderate growth in the United States
and the EU. In 2017, the economies of East-Southeast and
South Asia collectively accounted for 42% of global R&D
expenditures, higher than the United States (25%) and the EU
(20%). The United States continues to spend the most on R&D
of any single country. R&D funding and performance patterns
within the United States, however, have changed. The share
of U.S. R&D funded by the federal government has declined
since 2000. This decline is notable as federally funded R&D
is an important source of support, particularly for the higher
education sector and for the basic research enterprise of the
United States.
The United States is among the top global producers in R&D-
intensive industry output and S&E publications. However,
its global share has declined or stayed relatively at because
of faster growth in China as well as other middle-income
countries. The citation impact of China’s publications has also
risen rapidly, although it is lower than that of the United States
and the EU.
International collaborations in producing S&E publications
have risen since 2000. U.S. authors collaborate most
frequently with authors from China. The data in this report
also indicate region-specic focus or specialization in subject
matter, as well as highlight the importance of engineering,
ICT, and health-related technologies for innovation. For
example, the S&E publication data show that the United
States and the EU each lead in the production of biomedical
sciences articles, while China surpassed each individually
in the production of engineering articles and now produces
twice as many engineering articles as the United States.
Within the United States, industries that produce health-
related products and technologies as well as ICT industries
report above average innovation rates. Furthermore, more
than half of the international patents are engineering related.
Although this report does not forecast future outcomes, the
data show the evolution of the United States in the global
S&E enterprise. The United States continues to lead globally
in R&D expenditures, S&E doctoral-level degree awards,
and production of highly cited research publications. At
the same time, other nations, particularly China, are rapidly
developing their S&E capacity. As a result, the United States
has seen its relative share of global S&T activity atten or
shrink, even as its absolute activity levels kept rising. As
more countries around the world develop R&D and human
capital infrastructure to sustain and compete in a knowledge-
oriented economy, the United States is playing a less
dominant role in many areas of S&E activity.
17https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/
Glossary
Denitions
Applied research: Original investigation undertaken to
acquire new knowledge; directed primarily, however, toward a
specic, practical aim or objective (OECD 2015).
Basic research: Experimental or theoretical work undertaken
primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying
foundations of phenomena and observable facts, without any
particular application or use in view (OECD 2015).
Business sector: For the R&D sections of the report, the
business sector as dened by the 2015 Frascati manual
consists of both private enterprises (either publicly listed or
traded, or not) and government-controlled enterprises that
are engaged in market production of goods or services at
economically signicant prices. Nonprot entities such as
trade associations and industry-controlled research institutes
are also classied in the business sector (OECD 2015).
Development (or experimental development): Systematic
work, drawing on knowledge gained from research and
practical experience and producing additional knowledge,
which is directed to producing new products or processes or
to improving existing products or processes (OECD 2015).
East-Southeast Asia: The East-Southeast Asia region
includes China, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia,
Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam.
European Union (EU): The EU comprises 28 member nations:
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland,
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
and the United Kingdom. Unless otherwise noted, data on the
EU include all 28 nations.
Government sector: For the R&D sections of the report,
the government sector as dened by the 2015 Frascati
manual includes all federal, state, and local governments,
except those that provide higher education services, and
all non-market nonprot institutions that are controlled by
government entities that are not part of the higher education
sector. This sector excludes public corporations, even when
all the equity of such corporations is owned by government
entities. Public enterprises are included in the business sector
dened above (OECD 2015).
High- and middle-income countries: The World Bank denes
a high-income country as one with a gross national income
per capita of US$12,235 or more in 2018. Middle-income
countries are dened as lower middle-income economies
(those with a gross national income per capita between $1,006
and $3,955); and upper middle-income economies (those
with a gross national income per capita between $3,956 and
$12,235) in 2018. Examples of high-income countries include
the United States, Japan, United Kingdom, France, and Spain,
and examples of middle-income countries include China,
Vietnam, and India (see http://databank.worldbank.org/data/
download/site-content/CLASS.xls for a full list of countries in
each category).
Higher education sector: For the R&D sections of the report,
the higher education sector as dened by the 2015 Frascati
manual includes all universities; colleges of technology
and other institutions providing formal tertiary education
programs, whatever their source of nance or legal status;
and all research institutes, centers, experimental stations,
and clinics that have their R&D activities under the direct
control of, or are administered by, tertiary education
institutions (OECD 2015).
Information and communication technologies (ICT)
industries: The OECD (2017) denes ICT industries as
consisting of the following industries classied under the
International Standard Industrial Classication Revision Code
4 (ISIC Rev 4): 26 Computer, electronic, and optical products;
582 Software publishing; 61 Telecommunications; and 62-63
IT and other information services.
Internationally mobile students: Students who have crossed
a national or territorial border for purposes of education and
are now enrolled outside their countries of origin. This term
refers to degree mobility in data collected by the UNESCO
Institute for Statistics, OECD, and Eurostat, and it excludes
students who travel for credit mobility.
Index of highly cited articles: A country’s share of the top 1%
most-cited S&E publications divided by the country’s share
of all S&E publications. An index greater than 1.00 means
that a country contributed a larger share of highly cited
publications; an index less than 1.00 means a smaller share.
18 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2020
Invention: The development of something new that has
a practical bent—potentially useful, previously unknown,
and nonobvious.
Innovation: The implementation of a new or improved product
or business process that differs signicantly from previous
products or processes and that has been introduced in the
market or brought into use by the rm (OECD/Eurostat 2018).
Data presented in this report are based on an earlier standard
denition (OECD/Eurostat 2005).
Knowledge- and technology-intensive industries:
Industries classied by the OECD as high-R&D intensive and
medium-high R&D intensive industries. The OECD denes
R&D intensity as the ratio of an industry’s business R&D
expenditures to its value-added output.
Research and development (R&D): Research and
experimental development comprise creative and systematic
work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge—
including knowledge of humankind, culture, and society—
and its use to devise new applications of available knowledge.
R&D performance and funding estimates are expressed in
current dollars and at purchasing power parity for cross-
country comparisons.
R&D intensity: A measure of R&D expenditures relative to
size, production, nancial, or other characteristics for a
given R&D-performing unit (e.g., country, sector, company).
Examples include R&D-to-GDP ratio and R&D-to-value-added
output ratio.
Science and engineering (S&E) elds: Degree award
data cover degrees in the following S&E elds: astronomy,
chemistry, physics, atmospheric sciences, earth sciences,
ocean sciences, mathematics and statistics, computer
sciences, agricultural sciences, biological sciences,
psychology, social sciences, and engineering. At the
doctoral level, the medical and health sciences are included
under S&E because these data correspond to the doctor’s
research/scholarship degree level, which are research-
focused degrees.
Science and engineering (S&E) occupations: Biological,
agricultural, and environmental life scientists; computer and
mathematical scientists; physical scientists; social scientists;
and engineers, including postsecondary teachers in these
elds. S&E managers and technicians and health-related
occupations are categorized as S&E-related and are not
included in S&E.
Skilled technical workforce: Workers in occupations
that use signicant levels of S&E expertise and technical
knowledge and whose educational attainment is less than a
bachelor’s degree.
South Asia: The South Asia region includes Cambodia, India,
Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.
Stay rate: The proportion of foreign recipients of U.S. S&E
doctorates who stay in the United States after receiving their
doctorate. The 5-year stay rate is discussed in this report.
Underrepresented minorities (URM): This category
comprises three racial or ethnic minority groups (blacks or
African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, and American Indians
or Alaska Natives) whose representation in S&E education or
occupations is smaller than their representation in the
U.S. population.
Value-added output: A measure of industry production that
is the amount contributed by a country, rm, or other entity to
the value of the good or service. It excludes double-counting
of the country, industry, rm, or other entity purchases
of domestic and imported supplies and inputs from other
countries, industries, rms, and other entities.
19https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/
Key to Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACS: American Community Survey
AI: Articial intelligence
BRDIS: Business R&D and Innovation Survey
DHS: Department of Homeland Security
ED: Department of Education
EU: European Union
FFRDC: federally funded R&D center
GDP: gross domestic product
GSS: General Social Survey
ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ICT: information and communication technologies
IMF: International Monetary Fund
INPADOC: International Patent Documentation
NAEP: National Assessment of Educational Progress
NCES: National Center for Education Statistics
NCSES: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
NSCG: National Survey of College Graduates
NSF: National Science Foundation
OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development
PATSTAT: Patent Statistical Database of the European
Patent Oce
PPP: purchasing power parity
R&D: research and [experimental] development
ROW: rest of world
S&E: science and engineering
S&T: science and technology
SESTAT: Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System
SEVIS: Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
STEM: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
TIMSS: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientic and
Cultural Organization
UN: United Nations
URM: underrepresented minority
USPTO: U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce
20 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2020
References
Alston JM, Beddow JM, Pardey PG. 2009. Agricultural
Research, Productivity, and Food Prices in the Long Run.
Science 325 (5945):1209–10.
Baumol WJ. 1989. Is There a U.S. Productivity Crisis? Science
243 (4891):611–15.
Besley JC. 2015. Predictors of Perceptions of Scientists:
Comparing 2001 and 2012. Bulletin of Science, Technology &
Society 35 (1–2):3–15.
Besley JC. 2018. The National Science Foundation’s Science
and Technology Survey and Support for Science Funding,
2006–2014. Public Understanding of Science 27 (1):94–109.
Census Bureau. 2018. American Community Survey (ACS)
Public Use Microdata Sample, 2017. Available at https://
www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/pums.html.
Accessed 18 October 2018.
Cutler DM, McClellan M. 2001. Is Technological Change in
Medicine Worth It? Health Affairs 20 (5):11–29.
Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (DHS, ICE). Special tabulations (2018) of Student
and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) Database.
Eurostat. 2019. Education and Training Database. Available at
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/education-and-training/
data/database.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
(MEXT), Japan, Survey of Education (various years).
Gordon RJ. 2012. Is U.S. Economic Growth Over? Faltering
Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds. NBER Working
Paper No. 18315. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research.
IHS Markit. Special tabulations (2019) of the Comparative
Industry Service Forecast database.
Losh SC. 2010. Stereotypes about Scientists over Time among
U.S. Adults: 1983 and 2001. Public Understanding of Science 19
(3):372–82.
Miller JD, Pardo R, Niwa F. 1997. Public Perceptions of Science
and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European
Union, The United States, Japan, And Canada. Bilbao, Spain:
Fundación BBVA.
Ministry of Education (MOE), Taiwan, Educational Statistics
(various years).
Muñoz A, Moreno C, Luján JL. 2012. Who Is Willing to Pay for
Science? On the Relationship between Public Perception of
Science and the Attitude to Public Funding of Science. Public
Understanding of Science 21 (2):242–53.
Mullis IVS, Martin MO, Foy P, Hooper M. 2016. TIMSS 2015
International Results in Mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA:
Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
Available at http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/
international-results/. Accessed 15 March 2019.
Martin MO, Mullis IVS, Foy P, Hooper M. 2016. TIMSS 2015
International Results in Science. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston
College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. Available
at http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-
results/. Accessed 15 March 2019.
National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), China, China Statistical
Yearbook (various years).
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
(NCSES), National Science Foundation. 2019. Business
Research and Development and Innovation Survey, 2016.
Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvyindustry/.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
(NCSES), National Science Foundation. 2019. National
Patterns of R&D Resources (annual series). Alexandria,
VA. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
natlpatterns/#tabs-1. Accessed October 2019.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
(NCSES), National Science Foundation. 2010. Scientists and
Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT), 2003. Arlington,
VA. Available at https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/datadownload/.
Accessed 5 June 2019.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
(NCSES), National Science Foundation. 2019. National Survey
of College Graduates (NSCG), 2017. Alexandria, VA. Available
at https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/datadownload/. Accessed 5
June 2019.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
(NCSES), National Science Foundation. Special tabulations
(2018) of 1990–2017 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) mathematics assessments, National Center
for Education Statistics, Department of Education.
21https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
(NCSES), National Science Foundation. Special tabulations
(2018) of 2009–15 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) science assessment, National Center for
Education Statistics, Department of Education.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
(NCSES), National Science Foundation. Special tabulations
(2018) of 2014–18 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) technology and engineering literacy
assessment, National Center for Education Statistics,
Department of Education.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
(NCSES), National Science Foundation. Special tabulations
(2019) by SRI International and Science-Metrix of Patent
Statistical Database of the European Patent Oce (PATSTAT).
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
(NCSES), National Science Foundation. Special tabulations
(2019) by SRI International and Science-Metrix of Elsevier’s
Scopus abstract and citation database.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
(NCSES), National Science Foundation. Special tabulations
(2019) by SRI International of 2001 Survey of Public Attitudes
Toward and Understanding of Science and Technology,
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
(NCSES), National Science Foundation. Special tabulations
(2018) by RTI of 2015 Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS).
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
(NCSES), National Science Foundation. Special tabulations
(2019) of 2006–16 General Social Survey, NORC at the
University of Chicago.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
(NCSES), National Science Foundation. Special tabulations
(2019) by SRI International of 2004 Survey of Consumer
Attitudes, University of Michigan.
National Science Board. 2018. Science and Engineering
Indicators 2018. NSB-2018-1. Alexandria, VA: National Science
Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/
nsb20181/.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). 2019. Education and Training Indicators, 2019.
Available at https://stats.oecd.org/. Accessed March 2019.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). 2019. Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI)
2019/1. Paris. Available at https://www.oecd.org/science/
msti.htm. Accessed October 2019.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). 2015. Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting
and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental
Development. The Measurement of Scientic, Technological
and Innovation Activities. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/
Eurostat (OECD/Eurostat). 2005. Oslo Manual 2005: Guidelines
for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation. 3rd ed.
The Measurement of Scientic, Technological and Innovation
Activities. Paris: OECD Publishing/Luxembourg: Eurostat.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/
Eurostat (OECD/Eurostat). 2018. Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines
for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation. 4th ed.
The Measurement of Scientic, Technological and Innovation
Activities. Paris: OECD Publishing/Luxembourg: Eurostat.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). 2017a. OECD Compendium of Productivity
Indicators 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-compendium-of-productivity-
indicators-2017_pdtvy-2017-en. Accessed 16 August 2019.
United Nations Educational, Scientic, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) Institute for Statistics (UIS). 2017.
Research and Experimental Development (Full Data Set).
Available at http://data.uis.unesco.org/#. Accessed
October 2019.
22 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2020
Detailed Figure Notes
Figure 1: TIMSS participants include both countries, which
are complete, independent political entities, and non-national
entities (e.g., Hong Kong). Developed economies are based
on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) designation of
advanced economies (Table A, pg. 132 in World Economic
Outlook: Challenges to Steady Growth, 2018). IMF classies
Russia as a developing economy, but it is included in this
analysis because it is a large economy with high levels of
student achievement. See Martin et al. (2016) and Mullis et al.
(2016) for more details on the TIMSS performance.
Figure 2: For more information on NAEP, see
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.
Figure 3: To facilitate international comparison, data for the
United States are those reported to the OECD, which vary
slightly from the NCSES classication of elds presented
in other sections of the report. Data are not available for
all countries or economies for all years. The EU top 6 total
includes aggregated data for the six EU countries producing
the highest number of S&E rst university degrees in
2016: France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United
Kingdom. The data source for Japan changed in 2014, which
may potentially result in a time series break.
Figure 4: Dotted line connects across missing data. To
facilitate international comparison, data for the United
States are those reported to the OECD, which vary slightly
from the NCSES classication of elds presented in other
sections of the report. Data are not available for all countries
or economies for all years. The EU top 6 total includes
aggregated data for the six EU countries producing the
highest number of S&E doctoral degrees in 2016: France,
Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. EU
top 6 includes estimated data for some countries and some
years when country data are not available.
Figure 5: Data include active foreign national students on
F-1 visas and exclude those on optional practical training.
Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Detail may not add
to total because of rounding. The data reect fall enrollment
in a given year and include students with “active” status as of
November 15 of that year. For more information on the SEVIS
database, see https://www.ice.gov/sevis/overview.
Figures 11 and 15: Data for the United States in this gure
reect international standards for calculating gross
expenditures on R&D, which vary slightly from the NCSES’s
protocol for tallying U.S. total R&D.
Figure 21: Article counts are from a selection of journals in
S&E from Scopus. Articles are credited on a fractional count
basis (i.e., for articles from multiple regions, countries, or
economies, each area receives fractional credit on the basis
of the author’s institutional address). Some articles have
incomplete address information for coauthored publications
in the Scopus database and cannot be fully assigned to a
region, country, or economy. These unassigned counts, 0.1%
of the world total in 2018, are used to calculate this gure but
are not shown. For more information on Elsevier’s Scopus
database, see https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus.
Figure 22: This gure depicts the share of publications that
are in the top 1% of the world’s citations, relative to all the
country’s publications in that period and eld, referred to as
the “index of highly cited articles.” It is computed as follows:
Sx = HCAx/Ax, where Sx is the share of output from country
x in the top 1% most cited articles; HCAx is the number of
articles from country x that are among the top 1% most-cited
articles in the world; and Ax is the total number of articles
from country x in the database that were published in 2016 or
earlier. At least 2 years of data after publication are needed for
a meaningful measure. Publications that cannot be classied
23https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/
by country or eld are excluded. Articles are classied by
the publication year and are assigned to a region, country,
or economy on the basis of the institutional address(es)
listed in the article. The world average stands at 1.00 for each
period and eld. For more information on Elsevier’s Scopus
database, see https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus.
Figure 23: Articles refer to publications from a selection
of journals and conference proceedings in S&E indexed in
Scopus. Articles are credited on a whole-count basis (i.e.,
each collaborating country or economy is credited with one
count). An article is considered an international collaboration
when there are institutional addresses for authors from
at least two different countries. Domestic author(s) only
include articles with a single author or multiple authors
with institutional addresses from only one country. The
numbers of articles from the “international collaboration”
and “domestic author(s) only” categories do not sum to the
total whole-count article number because some coauthored
publications have incomplete address information in
the Scopus database and sometimes cannot be reliably
identied as international or domestic collaborations. For
more information on Elsevier’s Scopus database, see
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus.
Figures 24 and 25: Value added is the amount contributed by a
country, rm, or other entity to the value of a good or service
and excludes purchases of materials and inputs. For more
information on the Comparative Industry Service Forecast
database available at IHS Markit, see https://ihsmarkit.com/.
Figures 26 and 27: For more information on PATSTAT data,
see https://www.epo.org/searching-for-patents/business/
patstat.html#tab-1.
Figures 29 and 30: Dotted line connects across missing data
(Figure 29). The most recent attitudes data are from the
General Social Survey (GSS) 2018 (available at https://gss.norc.
org/getthedata/Pages/Home.aspx), conducted by NORC at the
University of Chicago. Historical attitudes data are from the
Survey of Consumer Attitudes, conducted by the University
of Michigan, and from the Survey of Public Attitudes Toward
and Understanding of Science and Technology, conducted
by NCSES (both available at https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/
icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/28368). The following questions from
these surveys are used in these gures:
• Agree that science generates opportunities for next
generation: Data show responses of “strongly agree”
and “agree” with the statement, Because of science
and technology, there will be more opportunities for the
next generation.
• Agree that government should fund basic scientic
research: Data show responses of “strongly agree” and
“agree” with the statement, Even if it brings no immediate
benets, scientic research that advances the frontiers
of knowledge is necessary and should be supported by the
federal government.
• Agree that science makes life change too fast: Data
show responses of “strongly agree” and “agree” with the
statement, Science makes our way of life change too fast.
• Have a great deal of condence in the scientic
community: Data show respondents expressing a “great
deal of condence” when asked, As far as the people running
these institutions are concerned, would you say that you have
a great deal of condence, only some condence, or hardly
any condence at all in them?
24 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2020
Explore Further
The Indicators 2020 thematic reports provide more detailed
analysis and fuller discussion of the related topics presented
in The State of U.S. Science and Engineering. Each topic
presented in this report and its corresponding Indicators
2020 thematic report or reports are listed below. The State
Indicators data tool also provides detailed information on
selected S&E indicators for states.
U.S. and Global Education
• “Elementary and Secondary Mathematics and Science
Education” by Susan Rotermund (RTI International) and
Karen White (National Center for Science and Engineering
Statistics [NCSES]). Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/
pubs/nsb20196/.
• “Higher Education in Science and Engineering” by Josh
Trapani (NCSES) and Katherine Hale. Available at
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20197/.
• “The Skilled Technical Workforce: Crafting America’s
Science and Engineering Enterprise.” Available at
https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2019/nsb201923.pdf
U.S. S&E Workforce
• “U.S. Science and Engineering Labor Force” by Amy
Burke (NCSES). Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/
nsb20198/.
Global R&D
• “Research and Development: U.S. Trends and International
Comparisons” by Mark Boroush (NCSES). Available at
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20203/.
U.S. R&D Performance and Funding
• “Research and Development: U.S. Trends and International
Comparisons” by Mark Boroush (NCSES). Available at
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20203/.
• “Academic Research and Development” by Josh Trapani
(NCSES) and Michael Gibbons (NCSES). Available at https://
ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20202/.
Global S&T Capabilities
• “Publication Output: U.S. Trends and International
Comparisons” by Karen White (NCSES). Available at https://
ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20206/.
• “Production and Trade of Knowledge- and Technology-
Intensive Industries” by Derek Hill (NCSES). Available at
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20205/.
Invention, Innovation, and Perceptions of Science
• “Invention, Knowledge Transfer, and Innovation” by Carol
Robbins (NCSES), Mark Boroush (NCSES) and Derek
Hill (NCSES). Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/
nsb20204/.
• “Science and Technology: Public Attitudes, Knowledge,
and Interest” (forthcoming) by John Besley (University of
Michigan) and Derek Hill (NCSES). Available at
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20207/.
25https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/
Acknowledgments and Citation
Acknowledgments
This report was developed with guidance from the National
Science Board by Beethika Khan, Carol Robbins, and Abigail
Okrent, all at the National Center for Science and Engineering
Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation,
and it was supported by NCSES’s analytic staff, under the
leadership of Emilda B. Rivers, Director, NCSES, and Arthur
W. Lupia, Assistant Director of the Social, Behavioral and
Economic Sciences Directorate.
Mark Boroush, Amy Burke, Michael Gibbons, Ledia Guci,
Derek Hill, Josh Trapani, and Karen White, all at NCSES,
John Besley, University of Michigan, and Susan Rotermund,
RTI International, provided subject matter expertise. John
Jankowski, NCSES, and Rolf Lehming, formerly of NCSES,
reviewed the draft report. Samson Adeshiyan, Jock Black,
Wan-Ying Chang, Darius Singpurwalla, and Matthew
Williams, all at NCSES, provided advice on statistical issues.
May Aydin, Catherine Corlies, and Rajinder Raut of NCSES
coordinated the report’s publication process and managed the
development of its digital platform. Christine Hamel and Tanya
Gore of NCSES conducted editorial and composition review.
Ashley Begley and Christina Freyman of SRI International,
Center for Innovation Strategy and Policy, assisted with report
preparation. RTI International provided editing services. Staff
at Penobscot Bay Media, LLC (PenBay Media), created the
report site. The following agencies reviewed this report:
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Department of the Treasury
National Center for Education Statistics
National Center for Education Research
National Institutes of Health
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Science Foundation
Oce of Management and Budget
Oce of Science and Technology Policy
U.S. Geological Survey
The National Science Board is especially grateful to the
Committee on National Science and Engineering Policy for
overseeing preparation of the volume and to the National
Science Board Oce, under the direction of John Veysey,
which provided vital coordination throughout the project.
Nadine Lymn led the outreach and dissemination efforts.
Matthew Wilson and Reba Bandyopadhyay served as Board
Oce Liaisons to the committee. Beethika Khan, Carol
Robbins, and Anne Emig served as Executive Secretaries to
the Committee on National Science and Engineering Policy.
Cover Image Credit
The cover for Science and Engineering Indicators 2020: The
State of U.S. Science and Engineering shows a trefoil knot, an
iconic topological object, coming out of a tunnel with an image
of superconducting qubit chips reected on its surface.
Starting early this century, scientists have been working hard
to exploit the strangeness of quantum mechanics and make a
quantum computer. The superior computational processing
power of quantum bits (qubits) is poised to have revolutionary
impacts on diverse elds ranging from chemistry to
economics. In the race to nd a reliable platform for making
quantum computers, superconducting qubits are among the
leading ones.
In 2014, scientists at the University of California, Santa
Barbara, in collaboration with Boston University, used
one of these chips to study quantum topology and
showed how superconducting qubits can help to make
topological concepts tangible. Topology, despite its
abstract mathematical constructs, often manifests itself
in physics and has a pivotal role in the understanding of
natural phenomena. Notably, the discovery of topological
phases in condensed-matter systems has changed the
modern conception of phases of matter. In their research,
the scientists found a novel method to directly measure
topological properties of quantum systems. [This research
was supported in part by the National Science Foundation
(grants DMR 09-07039 and DMR 10-29764).]
Credit: P. Roushan\Martinis lab\UC Santa Barbara
Recommended Citation
National Science Board, National Science Foundation.
2020. Science and Engineering Indicators 2020: The State of
U.S. Science and Engineering. NSB-2020-1. Alexandria, VA.
Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/.
NSB-2020-1
