The Myth of American Leadership of Science and Technology



American Leadership of Science and Technology:

Reality or Myth?

R. D. Shelton*, J. B. Mooney, Jr., Geoffrey M. Holdridge

Introduction: U.S. Goals for “Maintaining” World Leadership

President Clinton has set an ambitious goal, “maintaining world leadership in science, mathematics, and engineering” for federal research agencies (NTSC, 1999), and there is wide acceptance of the premise that the U.S. is already ahead. Bruce Alberts, President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, has told the House Science Committee, “The United States is today the undisputed world leader in science and technology” (Alberts, 1998). While setting an international competitive goal, as if this S&T were a Olympic basketball game, can inspire greater efforts, some of the benefit is undercut when the coaches tell the players at halftime that they have already won and just need to hang on to their lead.

One definition of “myth” is that it is “a belief given uncritical acceptance by the members of a group, especially in support of existing or traditional practices and institutions” (Webster’s, 1986). Many Americans feel that the U.S. still leads the world in S&T, but just what is the basis for that belief? The assertion sounds a bit presumptuous abroad, where expert observers often find research and development efforts challenging those in the U.S. Also, convincing the President and Congress to adequately fund research can be handicapped by a vague impression that the U.S. is comfortably leading all important fields of S&T.

With the new emphasis on planning mandated by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), federal agencies need goals, plans for achieving them, and performance reports on their progress. While the U.S. may lead the world in some aggregated sense, research agencies must assess the status in the sub-disciplines they fund. Systematic assessments of individual fields are sparse, but the best available evidence shows that the U.S. does not lead the world in many important fields.

The purpose of this paper is to examine evidence on the extent to which the U.S. does lead the world, including results from our own expert reviews abroad. From this exercise, some insights can be obtained on how reasonable the goal itself is from the point of view of measurement of its achievement. A slightly modified goal is proposed for consideration by the next U.S. administration.

_____________________________________________________________________

*Loyola College, 4501 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21210, USA.

Presented at the S&T 2000 Conference, Leiden, The Netherlands, May 24-27, 2000.

Methods of Assessing Leadership in S&T

There are two approaches for such assessments: quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative methods rely on measuring inputs to the innovation process, such as annual research investments; and outputs such as technical papers and citations to them, patents, and international trade benefits of new technologies. Absolute indicators are total metrics like the number of papers published by a country’s scientists; relative indicators result from normalization of absolute indicators by some measure of size, such as population or gross domestic product (GDP). Literature-based indicators are called bibliometrics, patentometrics, and scientometrics; Wagner has evaluated the usefulness of these methods for international comparisons for U.S. science (Wagner, 1995). Quantitative methods provide numerical results at relatively low cost since they can be done by economists or information scientists for a broad range of fields, but some of those numbers should be used with caution. The economic impact of R&D is diluted by many confounding factors. The Japanese patent system encourages more patent applications than the American one; since 1991 a majority of the ten firms getting the most U.S. patents have been giant Japanese high-tech companies. A nation may get a higher score on some measures mainly because it is larger than its leading competitors. Citations can be biased, by self-citations for example (Kostoff, 1998). Publish-or-perish policies encourage quantity at the expense of quality in some countries. This paper will review some published studies that use quantitative approaches, then update such indicators with data from OECD (2000), NSB (2000), ISI (2000) and other sources.

Qualitative methods recognize that assessment of whether Researcher A is ahead of Researcher B can only be done by a competent and unbiased Researcher C in the same field. These methods come in different varieties: (a) studies by experts of the international stature of research efforts in their discipline based on their present knowledge of the players or with submissions of work to be evaluated as in the massive British Research Assessment Exercises; and (b) international benchmarking with data gathered from lab visits in the U.S. or to leading foreign competitors.

Many have been skeptical of the feasibility of assessing R&D for GPRA at all, but a new study concludes that federal programs can indeed be evaluated, and that expert review is the best method (COSEPUP, 1999). Kostoff (1997) has also made the case that peer review is the appropriate GPRA metric for research. Thus, it can be argued that what results are available from qualitative methods should be given special consideration.

Evidence of American Leadership

Some recent quantitative studies support the assertion that the U.S. leads other nations in most fields of S&T. Adams (1998) has assessed papers, citations, and impacts (ratios of citations to papers) for seven countries (US, England, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, and Japan). The U.S. is far ahead of the other six in papers and citations in all 47 fields studied, partly because of its size. Even in impacts, which provide some normalization, the U.S. leads the other six in about three-fourths of the fields.

One criticism of normalization in this field is that the large scientific enterprise of the U.S. conveys some advantages. In this light another approach to adjusting the size advantage of the U.S. is to compare its scientific output to that of the whole of the European Union (EU) – not so tightly organized as the U.S. but becoming more so. Leydesdorff (2000) analyzes this issue and shows that the U.S. share of overall scholarly publication output was surpassed by the EU in 1995; these shares continue to diverge at over 1% per year.

Data from ISI (2000) on the number of scientific papers in about 5000 of the world’s leading journals can be used to show that the number of the 20 S&T fields led by the U.S. dropped sharply in the 1990s in comparison to the EU and the Asia-Pacific Region (Fig. 1). The EU (with 40% more population) now leads the U.S. in total scientific publications; it increased its share in the 1990s by 16%. All 15 EU countries increased their “market share,” in placing their articles in these elite journals, while the U.S. share dropped by 11%. Such results are hardly consistent with the notion that the U.S. is number one in all fields of S&T, and the trend may be even more alarming to Americans. If present trends continue, the EU will surpass the US in three more fields by mid-decade.

Fig. 1. Number of 20 S&T fields led by the US, EU, and Asia-Pacific countries.

The traditional leading position of the U.S. in global share of high tech markets was reduced throughout the 1980s by the gains of the Japanese, who briefly surpassed the U.S. in 1992 (Rausch, 1998). Since American industries have now regained much of that market share, this measure of economic impact contributes to the impression that the Japanese challenge to S&T leadership is history; for a contrary view see Shelton and Holdridge (1997). The technology trade surplus has been one bright spot in an otherwise dismal international trade balance for the U.S. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit for 1999 was $347 billion, up 41% from 1998. The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services was "only" $271 billon in 1999, but this combined deficit was also up by 65% over 1998 (Shelton, 2000) The trade balance in high technology products has also softened; as measured by the Census Bureau, it has been reduced to only $20 billion in 1999.

Michael Porter, Scott Stern, et al. use international patenting as an output to evaluate the comparative position of 25 economies, and to identify the most significant inputs. The U.S. now leads in the outputs and aggregate input (an “innovation index”), but their model predicts that Japan and several European nations will soon take the lead, because the U.S. is making inadequate investments to maintain its position (Porter, 1999). Other data shows that the leaders, the U.S. and Japan, are about equal in patenting in neutral markets like in Western Europe (Rausch, 1999), but the U.S. is far ahead in international patenting worldwide (OECD, 2000).

Evidence of Other Nations’ Leadership

While absolute quantitative measures of total outputs put the U.S. on top of other single nations at present, qualitative studies of individual fields and relative indicators paint a less rosy picture for the U.S. The Adams (1998) study above found 12 of 47 fields where U.S. did not lead in relative impacts among the six nations covered.

In 1999 the U.S. led the EU as a whole in impacts in 19 of the 20 S&T fields in ISI (2000), but some individual EU members led the U.S. in up to eight fields, and non-member Switzerland led the U.S. in relative impacts, and has done so since 1982 for the 24 field set. Further, in 1999 at least one nation had relative impacts that exceed the US in all but three fields of the 20 S&T fields tabulated.

May has shown that, while the U.S. is first in papers and citations to them, merely dividing by the country’s research investment or population puts the U.S. well down the list in productivity. He has also compared investments in R&D in 12 countries, 1981-1995, and found that Sweden and Japan overtook the U.S. and Germany as the top spenders relative to gross domestic product (May, 1997 and 1998).

One engine of innovation, and the publications that measure it, is in university graduates with degrees in science and engineering (S&E). Johnson (1996) shows that Europe has greatly increased its production of first degrees in S&E and now leads the U.S. and the Asian region in production of S&E Ph.D. degrees. In this analysis “Europe” included 11 leading countries, and “Asia” included six. Many graduate students in Europe and the U.S. are from the Asian region, but it seems clear that European investments in S&T education have led to great progress, and this may account for part of the surge in European publications.

Qualitative assessments also raise serious challenges to U.S. leadership. While relatively few fields have been analyzed by this detailed approach, expert review of the main competitors frequently finds centers of excellence that lead the best work in the U.S. Table 1 shows some of these findings from recent benchmarking studies by the International Technology Research Institute (ITRI). Those studies also found many fields where the U.S. leads, including fundamental research in some of the technologies listed.

Table 1.

Some ITRI Expert Assessments of Technologies Which the US Does Not Lead

|R&D Field |Leads US |Panel Chairs |Year |

|Green Manufacturing |Europe and Japan |Gutowski |2000 |

|Manufacturing for MEMS |Europe |Hilbert, Curtis |2000 |

|Wireless Communications |Japan, Europe, and|Ephremides |2000 |

| |US Tie | | |

|SiC electronics |Europe |Dmitriev |1999 |

|Optical storage |Japan |Kryder, Esener |1999 |

|GaN electronics |Japan |Dmitriev |1998 |

|Digital library: displays, virtual reality, digitization, IP |Japan |Reddy |1998 |

|policy, commercialization | | | |

|Electronic device applications of nanotechnology |Japan |Siegel, Hu |1998 |

| |Europe | | |

|Launch technology for satellite communications |Europe |Pelton, MacRae |1998 |

|Refrigeration for superconductivity; materials science of thin |Japan |Rowell |1998 |

|HTS films; SQUID systems | | | |

|Polymer composites in civil engineering |Japan |Karbhari |1998 |

|Several mass market electronic packaging techniques |Japan |Kelly, Boulton |1997 |

|Superconducting generators, Maglev applications, current |Japan |Larbalestier |1997 |

|limiters, Bi-2212 wires | | | |

|Superconducting transformers |Germany |Larbalestier |1997 |

|Gravity casting, advanced manufacturing, and process development |Europe |Flemings |1997 |

|in metal casting | | | |

|Rapid solidification, metal matrix composites, pressure die |Japan |Flemings |1997 |

|casting, environment, and energy in metal casting | | | |

|Consumer optoelectronics; optical packaging |Japan |Forrest |1996 |

|Electronics manufacturing technologies |Japan |Kelly, Boulton |1995 |

|Pedestrian and bicycle safety technologies |Europe |Zegeer |1994 |

|Micropure water |Japan |King |1993 |

|Hydrometallurgical separation technologies | | | |

|Nuclear plant control rooms |Canada |Uhrig |1993 |

|Fuzzy logic |Japan |Feigenbaum |1993 |

|Spacecraft antennas and power systems |Europe |Pelton, Edelson |1993 |

|LCD display technologies |Japan |Tannas, Glenn |1992 |

|Nuclear instrumentation and controls |Europe |White, Lanning |1992 |

|Construction research |Japan |Tucker |1991 |

|Nuclear power research |Japan |Hansen |1990 |

|Superconducting materials research |Japan |Dresselhaus |1989 |

Each entry is based on some of the findings in a substantial report available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS); most are also posted at . Complete citations are in the Reference Section of this paper. To

conduct benchmarking studies, ITRI organizes a review panel of distinguished American scientists and engineers on behalf of the Federal research agencies sponsoring research in that technology. This peer review panel then visits leading labs abroad and compares the status and trends of the best R&D abroad with that in the U.S. The methodology was adapted from that of the Japanese, who are well known for sending expert delegations abroad to assess work and bring home good ideas. ITRI has conducted over 50 such assessments since 1989. The Microelectronics and Computer Corporation (MCC) has conducted 12 expert study tours, but most results are proprietary. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has recently conducted expert review studies of the international standing of three fields of U.S. science. Their findings show that the U.S. leads in math and immunology and is among the leaders in materials science. There are sub-fields in each case where the U.S. does not lead (COSEPUP, 2000).

Conclusions

So is America leading the world? While it is difficult to name a single nation that rivals the U.S. for the lead, the answer really depends on which indicator is used as a ruler; some common ones are in Table 2. Numerical details are in the Appendix, along with additional indicators. The U.S. leads the whole world in many absolute indicators (with some significant exceptions), but relative indicators almost inevitably show at least one other nation ahead. One could construct a weighted sum of indicators for an aggregate rating, but absent guidance on which indicators should be emphasized, one can only say that evidence of current American leadership is not conclusive-- contrary to popular myth.

Table 2

Summary of Science and Technology Leadership

|1st Place |2nd Place |Leadership Indicator |

|Europe |US |S&T Ph.D. Production |

|US |EU |R&D Investment Overall |

|Sweden |Japan |R&D Investment Relative to GDP |

|EU |US |Quantity of Technical Papers |

|Switzerland |US |Quality of Technical Papers (Relative Impacts) |

|US |EU |International Patents |

|US |Japan |High Technology International Market Share |

|Switzerland |Sweden |S&T Productivity (Papers per Capita) |

|US |Japan |Expert Review (Japan leads many fields) |

Some quantitative indicators seem to confirm that the belief of American leadership of S&T is well founded at present, at least in comparison to much smaller individual nations. However, some indicators show the opposite, and trends in the metrics are often not favorable for the U.S. Further, what qualitative evidence is available suggests that other nations lead in important fields, which is particularly significant to Federal agencies now charged with maintaining leadership in their jurisdictions. Finally, normalizing by size (or comparison to the EU as a whole) makes for a fairer comparison with smaller nations, and shows that American leadership in some of these research games depends mainly on its larger teams on the field. Thus complacency in “maintaining American leadership” is unwarranted.

Reaching a single conclusion for world leadership in S&T is difficult because the many indicators available. Even so, the benefits of such a goal warrant its perfection rather than its abandonment. With the imminent arrival of a new Administration, it is appropriate to reconsider the exact statement of such an objective. Unlike 1950, in 2000 it is not logical to beg the question by assuming, despite significant evidence to the contrary, that U.S. S&T already leads the world. Further some guidance is needed on what fields are included and on methods which should be used to determine the answer. A more constructive goal for the U.S. Government might be to “help American science and technology lead the world in most major disciplines as measured by expert review and quantitative indicators.”

Appendix I

Table 3

Absolute S&T Indicators

|Indicator |U.S. |EU |Japan |Other |Source |

|(Data Year) | | | |Highest | |

|1. R&D Investment billions |$212 |$139 |$90 |$42 |(OECD, 2000) |

|(1997) | | | |Germany | |

|2. S&E Engaged in R&D (1997) |1,114,100* |856,900 |625,400 |235,800 |(*NSF, 2000), (OECD, |

| | | | |Germany |2000) |

|3. S&E Ph.D. Production (1997) |26,847 |38,167 |6,157 |11,728 |(NSB, 2000) |

| | | | |Germany | |

|4. Quantity of Papers (1999) |245,284 |266,883 |68,684 |67,069 |(ISI, 2000) |

| | | | |UK | |

|5. International Patents (1997)|1,703,314 |1,627,076 |729,721 |478,688 |(OECD, 2000) |

| | | | |Germany | |

|6. High-Tech Market Share |32% |18% |23% |8% |(Rauch, 1998) |

|(1995) | |4 Nations | |Germany | |

|7. Technology IP Sales Abroad |$33,781 |NA |$5,071 |$10,295 |(OECD, 2000) |

|$ millions (1997) | | | |Germany | |

|8. Nobel Prizes | | | | |(Free University of |

|Physics |57 |31 |3 |UK:8 |Berlin, 2000) |

|Chemistry |33 |33 |1 |UK:18 | |

|Medicine |69 |34 |1 |UK:10 | |

|(1950-1999) | | | | | |

|9. Expert Review |Leads Most Fields |3rd Place |2nd Place |Germany |50 ITRI Reports |

|(1993-2000) |NA | | | | |

|Sites Studied | |187 |772 |65 | |

Notes (By Table Row Number)

The data year is the latest available; where a nation’s figures are not available for that year, the most recent data is used. The EU column is for the 15 European Union nations, except Indicator 6. The underlined metric is the one that is highest in the four columns.

The U.S. leads in all the absolute indicators except S&T doctoral production and technical papers -- where it was recently knocked out of first place by the EU. Also note that the U.S. does not lead in any of the normalized metrics, including relative impacts, which is reasonable measure of average quality of those technical papers.

1. Purchasing Power Parity normalization is used.

Table 4

Normalized S&T Indicators

|Indicator |U.S. |EU |Japan |Other |Source |

|(Data Year) | | | |Highest | |

|10. R&D Investment per GDP |2.60% |1.84% |2.92% |3.85% |(NSB, 2000) |

|(1997) | | | |Sweden | |

|11. Quality of Papers: Relative |1.47 |1.06 |0.84 |1.66 |(ISI, 2000) |

|Impacts (1999) | | | |Switzerland | |

|12. Papers per |9.0 |7.1 |5.4 |18.7 |(ISI, 2000) |

|10,000 residents | | | |Switzerland |(CIA, 1999) |

|(1999) | | | | | |

|13. Papers per $1 billion GDP |21.8 |32.4 |15.6 |67.8 |(NSB, 2000) (OECD, |

|(1997) | | | |Israel |2000) |

|14. Patents per $1 million R&D |8.04 |11.7 |8.09 |26.9 |ditto |

|(1997) | | | |Finland | |

|15. S&E R&D workers per 10,000 |81.8 |50* |92.2 |91 |(OECD, 2000*) |

|workers (1997) | | | |Iceland* |(NSB, 2000) |

|16. % of Bachelor’s Degrees in |32.6% |40.3% |66.5% |72.3% |(NSB, 2000) |

|S&E (1997) | | | |China | |

|17. Foreign Citations in This |33.5% |NA |64.8% |89.9% |(NSB, 2000) |

|Country’s Papers (1997) | | | |Ireland | |

2. This is total R&D degreed personnel (FTE) from Table 7 of (OECD, 2000), except for the U.S., where it is scientists and engineers (S&E) only from (NSB, 2000). The U.S. still leads despite its smaller field.

3. All science and engineering Ph.D.s are included, including social sciences.

4. The paper counts are for the 24 fields on the ISI CD. This includes the fields of social sciences, business and economics, education, and law, in which the U.S. is far ahead of the EU. Thus the relative lead of the EU in natural sciences and engineering is even greater than shown.

5. Patents are applications by resident inventors in their home country and abroad. This involves much multiple counting since a single invention might be patented in several countries. In 1992 the EU led the U.S. in this measure, but U.S. patenting strengthened in the mid-1990s. The Japanese led the world in domestic patenting alone.

6. High-technology international market share is a country’s production of aerospace, computer, communications, and medical products divided by worldwide production (NSB, 2000).

7. The Technology Balance of Payments is based on commercial transactions related to international technology transfers. It consists of money received or paid for use of patents, licenses, trademarks, designs, know-how and closely-related technical services and for industrial R&D carried out abroad. The data in Table 3 is balance of payments from Table 81 of (OECD, 2000) with local currency figures converted by the Purchasing Power Parities in Table C of the same source.

8. There is some judgement involved in classifying the nationality of Nobel laureates. Often a scientist’s career spans two or more countries. Immigration to the U.S. in mid- career is a common pattern, and these scientists are counted as Americans. The source is

9. ITRI expert review shows that Japan leads in many sub-disciplines, but generally in the judgement of the expert panels, the U.S. maintains leadership in most fields overall. Further, there was a strong bias toward selecting those fields for study in which other nations have a strong position. The numbers in this row are a very rough measure of the relative strength of R&D in the EU, Germany, and Japan. They are the number of site visits made in the respective countries by ITRI teams, which means that expert panelists and sponsors thought that the visit to the foreign site was worth the time and money in the context of a technology assessment. Many panels do not visit U.S. labs, but rather gather U.S. baseline information from their existing knowledge of the U.S. scene, literature searches, and roundtables where U.S. researchers are asked to make presentations. These roundtables are sometimes held abroad to gain information more efficiently from many sites, but those numbers are not counted in Table 3. In addition to the site visits shown in the table, ITRI teams have also visited 203 labs in other countries, mainly the U.S., Pacific Rim countries, and the former Soviet Union.

10. Based on 1997 data, the U.S. at 2.60% is in sixth place in this indicator behind Sweden (3.85%), Japan (2.92%), South Korea (2.89%), Finland (2.78%), and Switzerland (2.74% in 1996).

11. Switzerland leads overall in the relative impacts (ratio of citations to papers) for the 24 technical fields on the ISI CD, which includes social sciences. Also Swiss papers have higher impacts than those of the U.S. in 12 of the 20 fields of natural sciences and engineering covered on the CD.

12. The paper counts are 1999 figures on the ISI CD for all 24 covered fields of S&T. The population figures are July 1999 estimates from the World Fact Book 1999 on-line. Other nations that lead the U.S (9.0) in this indicator include: Sweden (16.5), Israel (15.1), Denmark (13.9), Finland (13.4), Netherlands (11.4), the UK (11.3), and Belgium (9.5).

13. Yes, the U.S. only produces about 22 S&T articles per $1 billion in GDP from TableA6-57 in (NSB, 2000). One can also normalize by just R&D investment using “GERD” -- the gross domestic expenditure on R&D, which is compiled by the OECD. GERD is based on purchasing power of local currencies (PPP) and includes both government and private sector investments. The average American S&T paper costs about $1 million in R&D investment by this measure. All the EU nations exceed the U.S. in this indicator; the Greeks write over 5 technical papers per $1 million from a Spartan R&D investment. The Japanese produce only about 0.7 papers per $1 million from a generous one – is there a pattern here?

14. Patents are domestic applications by residents in a country plus their applications abroad. The denominator is GERD.

15. The EU figure comes from Table 9 in (OECD, 2000), which is for degreed research personnel. The other figures are from (NSB, 2000), which only counts scientists and engineers (S&E) – the EU is still the lowest of the four despite its over-count. Iceland is a pretty small country, so the four next highest in the OECD data are: Sweden (86), Finland (83), Norway (76), Denmark (61) – there is definitely a pattern here.

16. This metric shows the interest of students in S&E fields. Nations that are pushing S&T as an investment in the future provide much encouragement to students to major in these fields. The U.S. lags far behind China, Japan, and the EU in this endeavor, and its figure of 32.6% is well below the world average of 41.7%.

17. The percent of foreign citations in a country’s scientific papers is rough measure of how aware its scientists are of work outside their country, which affects several aspects of assessing which nations lead. This indicator is confounded by the large number of papers published in the U.S. and the relatively high overall citations to those papers. Irish scientists don’t have many Irish papers to cite, so they refer to those from larger countries. Nevertheless, in 1997 Americans cited domestic papers 66.5% of the time--about twice their share (35.3%) of the world’s literature. The 33.5% of foreign citations in American papers is far below all the other 71 countries in the database; the next lowest is Japan with 64.8%. An analysis in (NSB, 2000, p. 6-51) shows that papers from other nations cite U.S. papers an average of 43% compared to its 33.5% share, and that papers from most nations cite their own literature in excess of its share. However, the perception by Americans scientists of U.S. leadership of S&T is brought into question by the extraordinarily low citation of foreign work by Americans. This strong propensity of Americans to cite mostly American papers also raises the relative impact of those papers, enhancing the appearance of American quality. Experience from interactions with 50 ITRI teams of American experts and hundreds of foreign hosts confirms that many foreign scientists are much more aware of international research than Americans are.

There are other possible indicators, but it is clear from this set that the U.S. leads in most (but not all) absolute indicators, and normalization is likely to result in at least one nation’s indicator exceeding that of the U.S.

References

Adams, Jonathan, 1998. “Benchmarking International Research,” Nature 396, 615.

Alberts, Bruce, 1998. “International Science: What’s In It for the United States?” Testimony before the House Science Committee, March 25, 1998. Available from the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.

CIA, 1999. World Fact Book 1999, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington. On-Line Data Used: .

COSEPUP, 1993. Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy Press, Washington).

COSEPUP, 1999. Evaluating Federal Research Programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results Act, National Academy Press, Washington.

COSEPUP, 2000. Experiments in International Benchmarking of U.S. Research Fields,  National Academy Press, Washington.

Dmitriev, Vladimir, ed. 1999. High-Temperature Electronics in Japan, ITRI, Baltimore, MD, National Technical Information Service, (NTIS) PB2000-101186, Springfield, Virginia.

Dmitriev, Vladimir, ed. 2000. High-Temperature Electronics in Europe, ITRI, Baltimore, MD, NTIS PB2000-TBD.

Dresselhaus, Mildred S. ed., 1989. JTEC Panel Report on High Temperature Superconductivity in Japan. ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB89-123126.

Edelson, Burton and Joseph Pelton, eds. 1997. NASA/NSF Panel Report on Satellite Communications Systems & Technology. ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS nos. PB93-231116, PB93-209815, PB94-100187.

Esener, Sadik and Mark Kryder, eds. 1999. WTEC Panel Report on the Future of Data Storage Technologies. ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB99-144214.

Feigenbaum, Edward, 1993. JTEC Panel Report on Knowledge-Based Systems in Japan. ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB93-170124.

Flemings, Merton, ed. 1997. WTEC Panel Report on Advanced Casting Technologies in Japan and Europe. ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB97-156160.

Forrest, Stephen , ed. 1996. JTEC Panel Report on Optoelectronics in Japan and the United States. ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB96-152202.

Free University of Berlin, 2000. Website at

.

Gutowski, Timothy, ed., 2000. WTEC Panel Report on Environmentally Benign Manufacturing, ITRI, Baltimore, MD. In press. See .

Hansen, Kent F. ed., 1990. JTEC Panel Report on Nuclear Power in Japan. ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB90-215724.

Hilbert, Claude and Howard Curtis, MEMS and Microsystems in Europe, ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB2000-104945.

ISI, 2000. International Science Indicators (Standard Edition) CDROM, Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia.

Johnson, Jean M., 1996. “Western Europe Leads the United States and Asia in Science and Engineering Ph.D. Production,” SRS Data Brief November 27, 1996, NSF (Washington).

Johnson, Jean M., 1997. “Japan Hopes to Double Its Government Spending on R&D,” SRS Issue Brief NSF 97-310, NSF, Washington.

Karbhari, Vistasp M., 1998. WTEC Monograph on Use of Composite Materials in Civil Infrastructure in Japan. ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB98-158215.

Kelly, Michael, ed. 1995. JTEC Panel Report on Electronic Manufacturing and Packaging in Japan. ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB95-188116.

Kelly, Michael and William Boulton, eds. 1997. WTEC Panel Report on Electronics Manufacturing in the Pacific Rim. ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB97-167076.

King, C. Judson , ed. 1993. JTEC Panel Report on Separation Technology in Japan. ITRI, Baltimore, MD, NTIS PB93-159564.

Kostoff, Ronald N., 1997. “Peer Review: The Appropriate GPRA Metric for Research,” Science 277, 651 (1997).

Kostoff, Ronald N., 1998. “The Use and Misuse of Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation,” Scientometrics 43, 27 (Sept).

Larbalestier, David, ed. 1997. WTEC Panel Report on Power Applications of Superconductivity in Japan and Germany. ITRI, Baltimore, MD, NTIS PB98-103161.

Leydesdorff, Loet Is the European Union Becoming a Single Publication System? Scientometrics, 47, No. 2. pp. 265-280.

May, Robert M., 1998. “The Scientific Investments of Nations,” Science 281, 49.

May, Robert M., 1997. “The Scientific Wealth of Nations,” Science 275, 793.

Normile, Dennis, 2000. “Science Scope: Do It Again” Science, 287, 1183.

NSB 2000. Science & Engineering Indicators – 2000. Arlington, VA, National Science Foundation, 2000 (NSB-00-1).

NSF, 1995. The NSF in a Changing World: the National Science Foundation’s Strategic Plan, (Washington, DC) NSF 95-24.

NSF, 2000. Summary of FY2001 Budget Request to Congress, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.

NTSC, 1999. National Science and Technology Council 1998 Annual Report, (The White House, Washington) “The NSTC focuses Federal R&D activities on the President's goals for S&T. These goals include: Maintaining World Leadership in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering…”

OECD, 2000. Main Science and Technology Indicators Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1999 Number 2 Edition. Paris.

Pelton, Joseph and Alfred Mac Rae, eds. 1998. WTEC Panel Report on Global Satellite Communications Technology and Systems. ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB99-117954.

Porter, Michael, Scott Stern, et al. 1999. The New Challenge to America's Prosperity: Findings from the Innovation Index, Council on Competitiveness, Washington.

Prinz, Friedrich B., ed. 1996. JTEC/WTEC Panel Report on Rapid Prototyping in Europe and Japan, (Vol II., Site Report). ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB96-199583.

Rausch, Lawrence M., 1998. “High-Tech Industries Drive Global Economic Activity,” SRS Issue Brief NSF 98-319, NSF, Washington.

Rausch, Lawrence M., 1999. “U.S. Inventors Patent Technologies Around the World,” SRS Issue Brief NSF 99-329, NSF, Washington.

Reddy, Raj, ed. 1999. WTEC Panel Report on Digital Information Organization in Japan. ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB99-128019.

Rowell, John M., ed. 1998. WTEC Panel Report on Electronic Applications of Superconductivity in Japan. ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB98-150139.

Shelton, R. D. and Geoff Holdridge, 1997. “Sleeping Tiger? Japan’s Continuing Advances in Science and Technology,” Fifth International Conference on Japanese Information in Science, Technology, and Commerce, Library of Congress, Washington.

Shelton, R. D., 2000. ITRInews Electronic Newsletter, Loyola College, Baltimore. March Issue.

Siegel, Richard and Evelyn Hu, eds. 1998. WTEC Panel Report on Nanostructure Science and Technology, ITRI, Baltimore, MD, also available from Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Tannas, Lawrence E., and William E. Glenn eds., 1992. JTEC Panel Report on Display Technologies in Japan, ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB92-10027

Tucker, Richard L., ed., 1991. JTEC Panel Report on Construction Technologies in Japan, ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB91-100057.

Uhrig, Robert E., and Richard J. Carter eds., 1993. WTEC Monograph on Instrumentation Control and Safety Systems of Canadian Nuclear Facilities, ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB93–218295.

White, James D., David D. Lanning eds., 1991. WTEC Panel Report on European Nuclear Instrumentation and Controls, ITRI, Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB92-10097.

Wagner, Carolyn, 1995. Techniques and Methods for Assessing the International Standing of U. S. Science RAND Report MR-706.0-OSTP, Santa Monica, CA.

Webster’s, 1986. Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA.

Zegeer, Charles V. ed., 1994. FHWA Study Tour for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety in England, Germany, and the Netherlands, U.S. Department of Transportation No. FHWA-PL-95-006.

Biographical Sketches

Duane Shelton is Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at Loyola College and has chaired several university science and engineering departments. He was a policy analyst at NSF, and has served as legislative assistant to Rep. Lloyd Doggett as an IEEE Congressional Fellow. His degrees are in electrical engineering. He is director of the International Technology Research Institute at Loyola and president of ITRI, Inc., a new non-profit spin-off company.

Brad Mooney led a distinguished career in the submarine service, including commanding the U.S.S. Menhaden. He has also served as Oceanographer of the Navy and as Chief of Naval Research, in charge of ONR and NRL, until retiring as Rear Admiral. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering, as a marine engineer. He is director of the Technology Transfer (TTEC) Division of ITRI, Inc.

Geoff Holdridge has served on the staff of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation. His Yale University degree is in History with a focus on modern Asia. He is also a professional musician, performing with several bands in the Washington area. He is director of the World Technology (WTEC) Division of ITRI.

-----------------------

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download