International Comparison of Science and Technology Capability, Judged by Japanese Experts October, 2011 Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) Center for Research and Development Strategy (CRDS) Overseas Unit 1
Foreword To develop and recommend effective strategy, it is important to understand the international position of Japan by comparing its capacity of science and technology (S&T) and trends in research and development (R&D) with those abroad. It is also necessary to pay attention to emerging and new technologies in order to accurately grasp the trends of R&D in the future. Therefore, the Center for Research and Development Strategy (CRDS) of the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), has conducted international comparisons of S&T since 2008, and has published its results. This June, it published the 2011 edition which summarized the survey results up to March, 2011. The survey, which compared a total of 252 sub-fields in five advanced S&T areas, used the opinions of Japanese experts. There are two indicators generally used to understand the current status of S&T in the leading countries from a macro perspective; one is the analysis of scientific research papers and the other is the analysis of patents. It is doubtful though that these alone provide the complete picture about current S&T status of the leading countries. Therefore, our attention was drawn to the above international comparison surveys conducted by the CRDS, considering that this data could be used with some further refinement to help assess the S&T capability of various countries from a macro perspective. This report is based on such a perception of problems. Our approach in this paper may seem elementary. We feel, however, that we were able to compare the S&T capability and trends of different countries. On the other hand, we have also noted problems in the international comparison survey itself of the CRDS, and we found fundamental problems in analyzing this data from a macro perspective. We think it will be important to give due consideration to these problems and conduct more refined research. October, 2011 Yukihide Hayashi Principal fellow, Overseas Unit Center for Research and Development Strategy (CRDS) Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) 2
Chapter 1 S&T capability of major countries and regions 1. International comparative survey by CRDS We here outline the survey method used for the international comparison by CRDS which constitutes the raw data for the study in this paper. (1) Outline of the survey method For the survey by CRDS, subjective assessment (knowledge-based insights) by Japanese experts was carried out and compiled. Specifically, in each S&T area, a principal fellow of CRDS completely supervised work which included deciding on the range of the area and sub-fields (S&T fields divided to the level at which it is possible to compare the technological capabilities), and the assignment of the experts. International comparison of S&T, including surveys of notable new trends, was done for each sub-field by these experts in that field, through a variety of means including obtaining the latest related literature and trends of international academic conventions, as well as interviews with relevant researchers and engineers. The results of the survey for each sub-field were then summarized by the fellow of CRDS, and then compiled and edited in the form of a report which was issued. (2) Details of the international comparison of S&T capability Comparisons in each sub-field The comparison of three levels of S&T capability was made, that is, research, industrial R&D, and industrial technology. The level of research refers to the level of research at universities and public research institutions. The level of industrial R&D refers to the level of R&D in private corporations. The level of industrial technology refers to the technological capability at production sites The current state of each of these levels of S&T capability was categorized into four results: highly advanced( ), advanced( ), lagging behind( ), and backward( ). Countries and regions In principle, the countries and regions examined included Japan, the US, Europe, China and Korea (=South Korea), and other countries and regions were examined when the need arose. 3
(3) Numbers of Fields, Sub-field and participating External experts in each S&T Area S&T Area Field Sub-field External expert (number of people) Environment and Energy 4 30 34 Electronics, Information 6 64 62 and Communication Nanotechnology and Materials 13 67 109 Life Sciences 8 79 133 Clinical Medicine 6 12 16 Total 37 252 354 (Sources) Digest edition The international comparison of science and technology research and development capability 2011 edition, Center for Research and Development Strategy (CRDS) of the Japan Science and Technology Agency Web page http://crds.jst.go.jp/output/rp.html#1-1 4
2. Data preparation method of this chapter In the above international comparative survey (1), the evaluation of three S&T levels of 252 sub-fields into four symbols was made: very advanced symboled as, advanced symboled as, lagging behind symboled as, bachward symboled as. There is, however, no overall evaluation (for example, of a total area like electronics, information and communication ). In view of this, the following attempt was made to organize the results of these sub-fields: The number of the symbols of,,, for each of the three S&T levels in each of the five S&T areas was counted, and a list of the results was made. Where two symbols were given to one sub-field by some experts, each symbol was given half weight. Then, in order to understand the overall S&T capability in the area, the number of the symbols given for all three S&T level of the area was added up and a list was prepared based on the results. On the basis of these lists, assessment including the symbols ~, and > was provided. The symbol ~ means that the country/region on the left is equal to or slightly stronger than the country/region on the right, while the symbol > means that the country/region on the left is significantly stronger than the country/region on the right. 5
3. Overview of Environment and Energy Area Environment and Energy Area Overall Research Industrial R&D Industrial Technology USA~Europe~Japan>Korea~China Europe~USA>Japan>Korea~China USA~Europe~Japan>Korea~China Japan>USA~Europe>Korea~China Overall (Sum of Research, Industrial R&D and Industrial Technology) 54.5 58.5 58 5 8.5 38.5 31.5 36 37.5 44.5 6 8 4 43.5 43 0 1 1 11 1 Research 14 20.5 22.5 1 1 18 9.5 8.5 14.5 16 1 3 2 12.5 15 0 0 0 4 0 Industrial R&D 17.5 20.5 19 1 2 12.5 10.5 12 11.5 16 3 2 2 17.5 15 0 0 0 3 0 Industrial Technology 23 17.5 16.5 3 5.5 8 11.5 15.5 11.5 12.5 2 3 0 13.5 13 0 1 1 4 1 6
4. Overview of Electronics, Information and Communication Area Electronics, Information and Communication Area Overall USA>Europe~Japan>Korea>China Research USA>Europe>Japan>Korea~China Industrial R&D USA>Japan~Europe>Korea>China Industrial Technology USA>Japan>Europe>Korea>China Overall (Sum of Research, Industrial R&D and Indestrial Technology) 72 156 78.5 12 25 95 30 89 66 84 26 5 23.5 91 74 2 4 4 23 12 Research 28 57 40.5 5 5 31 6 19.5 26 28 5 1 5 29 31 1 1 0 4 1 Industrial R&D 22 55 21 3 8 36 8 36.5 20 32 7 1 6.5 35 20 0 1 1 6 5 Industrial Technology 22 44 17 4 12 28 16 33 20 24 14 3 12 27 23 1 2 3 13 6 7
5. Overview of Nanotechnology and Materials Area Nanotechnology/Materials Area Overall USA~Japan~Europe>Korea>China Research USA~Europe~Japan>Korea~China Industrial R&D USA~Japan>Europe>Korea>China Industrial Technology Japan~USA~Europe>Korea>China Overall (Sum of Research, Industrial R&D and Indestrial Technology) 98 105 89 8 20 70 63 71 54 89 10 12 18 81 56 3 1 3 36 14 Research 42 49 45 6 5 19 11 16 24 37 0 1 0 26 17 0 0 0 5 2 Industrial R&D 35 35 27 1 8 22 25 27 18 29 4 1 7 26 18 0 0 0 15 5 Industrial Technology 21 21 17 1 7 29 27 28 12 23 6 10 11 29 21 3 1 3 16 7 8
6. Overview of Life Sciences Area Life Sciences Area Overall USA>Europe>Japan>China~Korea Research USA>Europe>Japan>China~Korea Industrial R&D USA>Europe>Japan>China~Korea Industrial Technology USA>Europe>Japan~Korea~China Overall (Sum of Research, Industrial R&D and Indestrial Technology) 48 195 127 3 3 125 20 79 59 49 40 3 8 114 134 6 0 0 33 28 Research 35 68 51 2 2 33 5 22 31 26 5 0 0 34 41 1 0 0 4 4 Industrial R&D 11 65 40 1 0 48 7 29 16 13.5 12 0 2 39 46.5 1 0 0 13 10 Industrial Technology 2 62 36 0 1 44 8 28 12 9.5 23 2 6 41 46.5 4 0 0 16 14 9
7. Overview of Clinical Medicine Area Clinical Medicine Area Overall USA>Europe>Korea~Japan>China Research USA~Europe>Japan~Korea>China Industrial R&D USA>Europe>Japan~Korea>China Industrial Technology USA~Europe>Korea~Japan>China Overall (Sum of Research, Industrial R&D and Indestrial Technology) 5 22 17 0 6 15 5 10 7 6 6 0 0 12 13 1 0 0 8 2 Research 3 8 7 0 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 2 0 Industrial R&D 2 8 5 0 2 5 1 4 2 2 2 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 3 1 Industrial Technology 0 6 5 0 2 6 3 4 3 2 2 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 3 1 10
8. Brief Discussion This approach makes it possible to visualize the levels of S&T of various countries and regions in various areas, as shown in the present chapter. Thus, we think that the international comparative survey by CRDS can be an indicator for macro-analysis. There are some concerns, however, about the assessments of the S&T capability of countries and regions in this method. Some of the concerns are as follows: That the importance and significance of all the sub-fields in an area are different and not necessarily equal. Under the circumstances, it might not be right to simply add up the points scored. That it is arbitrary to describe the S&T capability of each country and region using the symbols ~ and >. That because the expert of each sub-field does not only provide their assessment by means of the symbols, etc, but also present their technological comments in writing, to use only the symbols is improper. All of these concerns are reasonable. This simplification was adopted anyway, however, considering that it was also important to estimate the S&T capability of each country and region from a macro perspective. We will welcome frank comments from all people concerned, and attempt to improve upon this approach. Moreover, there are concerns about the analysis results themselves. Some have suggested that the S&T capability of Japan may have rated higher than it should have, while both China and Korea may have been rated worse than they should have. In terms of scientific research papers analysis which are commonly used as an indicator in the field of scientific research, Japan is rapidly lagging behind not only the US and main EU countries, but also behind rapidly growing China, both in the number and in the quality. There is fear that this has not been fully reflected in the present results. In the area of manufacturing and export of electronic products, Japanese companies are losing ground to Chinese and Korean companies. If this is the case, it is reasonable to assume that Korea and China are on par with Japan in the area of electronics, information and communication. According to the present survey, however, Japan is overwhelmingly superior to Korea and China. The question of how to account for this disparity remains unanswered. 11