A Companion to Science and

Engineering Indicators - 2008

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: ESSENTIAL 

FOUNDATION FOR U.S. COMPETITIVENESS

IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY

National Science Foundation

National Science Board
National Science Board 

Steven C. Beering, Chairman, President Emeritus, Purdue University, West Lafayette 

Kathryn D. Sullivan, Vice Chairman, Director, Battelle Center for Mathematics and Science Education Policy, 

John Glenn School of Public Affairs, Ohio State University, Columbus

Mark R. Abbott, Dean and Professor, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University

Dan E. Arvizu, Director and Chief Executive, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado

Barry C. Barish, Maxine and Ronald Linde Professor of Physics Emeritus and Director, LIGO Laboratory, 

California Institute of Technology

Camilla P. Benbow, Patricia and Rodes Hart Dean of Education and Human Development, Peabody College, 

Vanderbilt University

Ray M. Bowen, President Emeritus, Texas A&M University, College Station

John T. Bruer, President, The James S. McDonnell Foundation, St. Louis

G. Wayne Clough, President, Georgia Institute of Technology

Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Associate Vice President for Research, Regents’ Professor of Meteorology and 

Weathernews Chair, University of Oklahoma, Norman

Kenneth M. Ford, Director and Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Pensacola

Patricia D. Galloway, Chief Executive Officer, The Nielsen-Wurster Group, Inc., Seattle

José-Marie Griffiths, Dean, School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Daniel E. Hastings, Dean for Undergraduate Education and Professor, Aeronautics & Astronautics and 

Engineering Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Karl Hess, Professor of Advanced Study Emeritus and Swanlund Chair, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Elizabeth Hoffman, Executive Vice President and Provost, Iowa State University, Ames

Louis J. Lanzerotti, Distinguished Research Professor of Physics, Center for Solar-Terrestrial Research, 

New Jersey Institute of Technology

Alan I. Leshner, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Publisher, Science, American Association for the 

Advancement of Science, Washington, DC

Douglas D. Randall, Professor and Thomas Jefferson Fellow and Director, Interdisciplinary Plant Group, 

University of Missouri-Columbia

Arthur K. Reilly, Senior Director, Strategic Technology Policy, Cisco Systems, Inc., Ocean, New Jersey

Jon C. Strauss, President Emeritus, Harvey Mudd College

Thomas N. Taylor, Roy A. Roberts Distinguished Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 

Curator of Paleobotany in the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, 

The University of Kansas, Lawrence

Richard F. Thompson, Keck Professor of Psychology and Biological Sciences, University of Southern California

Jo Anne Vasquez, Director of Professional Development, Policy, and Outreach; Center for Research on 

Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology; Arizona State University, Tempe 

Member ex officio

Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Michael P. Crosby, Executive Officer, National Science Board and National Science Board Office Director

* * *

Committee on Education and Human Resources, Subcommittee on Science and Engineering Indicators

Louis J. Lanzerotti, Chairman

Members:

Camilla P. Benbow Arthur K. Reilly

John T. Bruer Jon C. Strauss

G. Wayne Clough Richard F. Thompson

José-Marie Griffith Jo Anne Vasquez 

Board Subcommittee Staff:

Alan I. Rapoport, Executive Secretary

Jean M. Pomeroy, Board Office Liaison
Steven C. Beering

Chairman 

National Science Board

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22230 (703) 292-7000 http://www.nsf.gov/nsb email: NSBoffice@nsf.gov

National Science Board

Dear Colleague:

As part of our mandate from Congress, the National Science Board (Board) oversees the collection of a very broad set of 

quantitative information about U.S. science, engineering and technology, and every 2 years publishes the data and trends in 

our Science and Engineering Indicators (Indicators) report. On occasion, the data reveal trends that raise important policy 

concerns that the Board believes should be brought to the attention of the President, Congress, and the public in the form of 

a “companion” policy statement to the Indicators report. 

The 2008 volume of Indicators reinforces the Board’s concern with declining support for U.S. research and development 

(R&D), especially basic research, by U.S. industry and the Federal Government. The confluence of a range of indicators raises 

important questions about future U.S. high technology industry’s competitiveness in international markets and implications 

for highly skilled jobs at home. The importance of understanding the implications of these indicators underscores the need 

for new metrics to guide Federal Government investment strategies for R&D to more effectively enhance international 

competitiveness of the U.S. in high technology.

This Board Companion Piece, Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global 

Economy (NSB-08-3), examines currently available data and recommends the following.

The Federal Government should take action to enhance the level of funding for, and the transformational nature of,

basic research. 

Industry, government, the academic sector, and professional organizations should take action to encourage greater 

intellectual interchange between industry and academia, with industry researchers encouraged to also participate as

authors and reviewers for articles in open, peer-reviewed publications. 

New data are critically needed, and this need should be addressed expeditiously by relevant Federal agencies,

to track the implications for the U.S. economy of the globalization of manufacturing and services in high technology 

industry. 

We urge all Americans to support sustaining our Nation’s long-term commitment to basic research and to a strong U.S. R&D 

enterprise, coupling the advantages of our world leading academic research institutions with our strength in industrial science 

and technology. Our continued commitment is essential to our Nation’s future prosperity and security.

 Sincerely,

 

Research and Development: Essential Foundation for 

U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy

Our hope is that there will be full employment, and that the production of goods and services 

will serve to raise our standard of living...Surely we will not get there by standing still, merely 

by making the same things we made before and selling them at the same or higher prices. 

We will not get ahead in international trade unless we offer new and more attractive and 

cheaper products...There must be a stream of new scientific knowledge to turn the wheels of 

private and public enterprise. (Vannevar Bush, 1945)1

U.S. Basic Research: A Need for Serious National Attention

U.S. industry and the Federal Government are the primary pillars of financial support for the U.S. research and development 

(R&D)2 enterprise. The National Science Board (Board) observes with concern the indicators of stagnation, and even 

decline in some discipline areas, in support for U.S. R&D, and especially basic research, by these two essential patrons and 

participants. A decline in publications by industry authors in peer reviewed journals suggests a de-emphasis by U.S. industry 

on expanding the foundations of basic scientific knowledge. More specifically, research contributions by U.S. industry authors 

in the physical and biomedical sciences through publications in peer reviewed journals have decreased substantially over 

the last decade. In addition, in this century the industry share of support for basic research in universities and colleges, the 

primary performers of U.S. basic research, has also been declining. Likewise, Federal Government support for academic 

R&D3

 began falling in 2005 for the first time in a quarter century, while Federal and industry support for their own basic 

research has stagnated over the last several years. These trends are especially alarming in light of the growing importance of 

knowledge-based industries in the global economy.

The confluence of these indicators raises important questions about implications for the future of U.S. competitiveness in 

international markets and for the future existence of highly skilled jobs at home. The net economic and workforce effects 

on the Nation and on industry of these negative changes are complex, and the Board finds that requisite data for an adequate 

analysis of current conditions and future trends do not presently exist. Nevertheless, the Nation must be acutely aware of 

the current trends as future resource allocations for basic research are debated and decided in industry and by the Federal 

Government.

Global Competition in Science and Technology: A Strong National 

Response Required

Innovation is a key to economic competitiveness and the technological breakthroughs that improve our lives. Basic research 

fuels technological innovations and is critical in fostering the vitality of the U.S. science and technology enterprise and the 

growth of highly-skilled jobs. The scientific and technological advances that have led to our Nation’s remarkable ability to 

create new industries and jobs, improve the standard of living for people, and provide sophisticated technology that ensures 

our national security can be traced back to the outcomes of basic research. 

Although industry funds two-thirds of U.S. R&D, the majority of basic research is conducted by research universities, and 

the U.S. Government has long recognized the importance of public support for these institutions. The Federal Government 

established the basis for the Nation’s land grant institutions through the Morrill Acts4

 in the second half of the 19th century. 

During World War II, the wartime success of the partnership between universities and the Federal Government through the 

Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) led to a proposal – requested by the President – from the head of OSRD 

for public funding for research, specifically basic research, in academic institutions and research institutes. Such funding 

would encourage the creation of knowledge and employ science and engineering (S&E) for discovery and innovation—and 

thereby expand national economic growth, increase employment, and improve the quality of life. This proposal ultimately 

led to the creation of the National Science Foundation (NSF).

 1
2 

The conduct of basic 

research is 

international in 

character and, in 

today’s global 

environment, its 

benefits are widely 

shared by all 

nations. At the same 

time, America’s 

economic 

competitiveness 

relies on the ability to 

exploit scientific and 

technological 

advances. The 

country in which a 

discovery is made 

has an enormous 

initial advantage 

in exploiting such 

advances in understanding. 

Furthermore, by 

maintaining strength 

in a variety of basic 

research fields, we 

will be positioned 

to benefit from the 

breakthroughs made 

by investigators in 

other parts of the 

world. 

— National Science 

Board, 19937

Through its support of entities that fund basic research, the U.S. Government helps 

underwrite our national infrastructure for science and engineering R&D and thereby 

the global preeminence of the U.S. in S&E innovation. Over time, the Federal 

Government support for R&D, and the related important efforts of industry, have 

grown into a complex and changing web. Given the impacts on the national innovation 

infrastructure of changes in investment patterns, it is imperative that patterns and 

trends of R&D investments be monitored. 

Extending beyond U.S. borders, dramatic changes have occurred that have led 

to a new global economy operating in ways not envisioned even several decades 

ago. As with our own Nation, innovation and its hand maiden, R&D, is driving the 

global economy, and we are seeing more nations recognize this by creating their 

own version of U.S. research institutions and infrastructure. U.S. businesses are 

taking advantage of the global markets and resources, and are increasing their 

support for research and R&D infrastructure outside the U.S. At the same time, 

industry support for its own U.S. basic research has been fairly stagnant in this 

century,5

 and its support to academic basic research in the U.S. has remained at most 

flat, and declined in share of support for academic R&D to a level not seen in more than 

2 decades.6 The rapid changes taking place internationally increase the urgency of 

understanding and monitoring where our Nation stands in its R&D competitiveness, 

the direction of trends related to competitiveness in high technology, and what critical 

information may be lacking that would provide more accurate assessments of the 

Nation’s standing and outlook. 

Basic Research: A Declining National Commitment

In 2006 the total expenditure for R&D conducted in the U.S. was about $340B in 

current dollars. Of this total, basic research accounts for about 18% ($62B), applied 

research about 22% ($75B), and development about 60% ($204B).8 Over the past 

decades the U.S. institutions contributing to the output of basic research have shifted 

dramatically.9 Although industrial contributions to national R&D now far outpace 

Federal R&D support, only about 3.8% of industry-performed R&D can be classified 

as ‘basic’, with the remainder devoted to applied R&D. For industry-funded and 

performed R&D, the basic percentage is about the same for 2006, 3.7%. This 

percentage of basic research performed by industry has hovered slightly below 4% of 

all industry-performed R&D for most years since the late 1990s.10 In 2006, industry 

funded 17% of U.S. basic research, and performed 15% of it.

The Federal Government is the second largest source of R&D funding (28%) 

following industry. Federal expenditures vary greatly from agency to agency in terms 

of amounts, directions, and objectives, depending upon the mission of the particular 

agency.11 Federal funding is the primary source of basic research support in the U.S. 

(over 59% in 200612), of which about 56% is carried out by academic institutions. 

U.S. basic research is also funded by foundations (about 10%), universities and 

colleges (about 10%), and state and local governments (about 3.5% through funding 

of academic basic research).13 Federal obligations for academic research (both 

basic and applied) and especially in the current support for National Institutes of 

Health (NIH) (whose budget had previously doubled between the years 1998 to 2003) 

declined in real terms between 2004 and 2005 and are expected to decline further in 

2006 and 2007. This is the first multiyear decline in Federal obligations for academic 
research since 1982.14 The intent of Federal policy is to increase support for physical 

sciences research in future years.15 

International Competitiveness of the U.S. in Science 

and Technology

The relative increase in R&D and basic research of foreign nations as compared to the 

U.S. can (in some ways) work to the advantage of U.S. industry. Domestic industries 

can learn and profit from the R&D that is carried out in other countries and reported 

in the literature. Basic research that is published can be used freely by all nations, 

and the benefits do not necessarily accrue to the industries or nations that fund the 

research. However, as the Board stated in 1993,17 there are enormous advantages to 

those industries and nations who are first with discoveries.

A review of quantitative indicators of the state of U.S. science and engineering in 

the new Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 provides some measure of U.S. 

international standing in R&D. The total 2006 R&D in the U.S. (about $340B) 

comprised about 2.6% of the Nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). The ratio of 

R&D to GDP is a widely used measure of an economy’s R&D intensity. From a high 

of about 2.9% of GDP in the early 1960s (after the Sputnik “scare”), the Nation’s 

R&D expenditures have hovered around 2.5% of GDP in the last decades. With 2.6% 

of its GDP devoted to R&D, the U.S. ranks seventh among OECD18 countries, and 

second among G-719 countries (as it has for the last more than a decade at least). U.S. 

funding for R&D has exceeded 50% of the total G-7 nations’ R&D since 1997. In 

2002 (the latest global data available), the U.S. expenditures for R&D were one third 

of the world-wide total R&D (over $800B in current dollars). 

Countries can be compared over time with respect to contributions to knowledge and 

innovation using two indicators of research outcomes: (1) patents, as a measure of a 

nation’s inventiveness and (2) publications by authors from the respective nations in 

peer reviewed journals, as a measure of cutting edge S&E capabilities.

Patents

The share of patent applications in the U.S. patent office filed by inventors20 residing 

in the U.S. dropped from 55% in 1996 to 53% in 2005. The percentage drop was 

largely caused by the increasing filings by Asian inventors. Inventions for which 

patent protection is sought in the world’s three largest markets – the U.S., the EU,21

Japan – are called “triadic patent families.” The U.S. has been the leading source of 

triadic filings (about 37% of the world share) since 1989, when it surpassed the EU, 

and its share has continued to increase. The U.S. position in patent filings and in 

triadic patents suggests sustained U.S. leadership for inventions. 

Companies that innovate might not always choose to secure every innovation through 

patenting. Some innovations can be retained as trade secrets. Growing, maintaining 

and defending a patent portfolio involves costs, so that companies must evaluate the 

marginal benefits of individual patent filings. On the other hand, cross-licensing of 

patents can be competitively beneficial for companies, as can the revenue received 

from licensing or sale of patents. Thus, motivations for patent filings, and therefore 

the significance of declines in the share of U.S. filings, are not well understood. 

Although many 

people assume that 

the United States will 

always be a world 

leader in science and 

technology, this may 

not continue to be 

the case inasmuch 

as great minds and 

ideas exist throughout the world. We 

fear the abruptness 

with which a lead in 

science and technology can be lost – and 

the difficulty of 

recovering a lead 

once lost, if indeed 

it can be regained at 

all. 

— The National 

Academies, 200716

3
4 

Publications 

Basic research articles published in peer-reviewed journals by authors from U.S. private industry peaked in 1995 and 

declined by 30% between 1995 and 200522 as industry research, and therefore publications, tended to shift away from basic 

research. Five broad fields – biological science, geosciences, chemistry, physics, and medical sciences – account for 95% of 

the industry basic research literature. The drop in physics publications was particularly dramatic: decreasing from nearly 

1,000 publications in 1988 to 300 in 2005.23 

The decline in physics publications by U.S. industry is likely reflected in the observed drop in share of highly influential24

S&E articles published by U.S. authors in peer reviewed journals: The U.S. has now dropped from first to second rank in 

physics over the 12-year period from 1992 to 2003. The U.S. retained the first rank in all other major fields in 2003, but 

overall lost share of highly influential articles, dropping from 63% to 58%. Other fields where the U.S. declined to near 

parity with the EU-1525 in recent years are biology and chemistry, also traditional focus areas for industrial basic research 

publications. This most likely reflects, in part, the decline in U.S. industry authors’ publications, and flat (or decreasing 

as in the case of physics) industry support for its own basic research. In the field of engineering/technology, although the 

U.S. lost share while the EU-15 gained, the decline in U.S. share more importantly reflects the rapid rise in share by the 

East Asia-4 (comprising China, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan). U.S. annual growth in all S&E article publications 

in peer reviewed journals also slowed from 3.8% over the period from 1988 to 1992 to 0.6% from 1992 to 2003. Although 

the rate of growth also declined for the EU-15 and other S&E publishing centers, all exceeded the U.S. growth rate during 

both periods.26

Intellectual Property and Industrial Innovation 

Patents and publications do not necessarily equate to innovation and thus do not reflect the totality of industrial innovation. 

In global, competitive, high technology industries, some innovations might be more cost effectively protected by means 

other than patenting. In addition, research and/or commercial priorities might direct limited resources towards further 

advances in research or to addressing how to apply the results of the innovation rather than publishing articles. As a result, 

any basic research that may have contributed to such processes is unknown to (and unrecorded in) the wider community. 

Further, under these conditions the wider community cannot be alerted to possible basic research directions that might be 

productive for achieving new breakthroughs.

The growing competitiveness in the global environment is resulting in new business models such that the impact of 

innovations might not be captured in current international trade metrics. Companies might innovate and create intellectual 

capital in one country that is then utilized in designing and developing products, services, applications, etc. in that country 

or another. The actual fabrication might occur in yet another country. The complete process from creation of intellectual 

capital and high-tech design through to fabrication and distribution of products, services and applications can be performed 

across many countries in a global supply chain that can result in cost-effective products for consumers. Although the 

transfer of a physical product across a border may be recorded in such a process, if no intellectual property licensing 

occurs, the value of the intellectual capital may not be captured by the current global trade metrics. Furthermore, some 

international commercial transactions (sale, payment, product delivery) in such an environment are not simply bilateral 

exchanges between two countries. Instead, such transactions may involve multiple flows of information, components, 

products/services/applications, and payments that are not easily correlated. In parallel with new metrics to capture this 

type of innovation, the traditional Federal Government investment strategies for basic research may need to be adapted 

to the emerging environment of discovery, innovation, and deployment in order to more effectively support the web of 

connections between R&D investments and U.S. competitiveness.

Competitiveness of U.S. Industry

Another measure of competitiveness is the U.S. international trading position in high technology industries. The U.S. 

trading position in technology-oriented services remains strong as evidenced by the continued surplus in trade of computer 

software and manufacturing know-how.27 By current measures, the U.S. trade balance across all high technology sectors 

significantly declined over the last decade. This could translate into the loss of manufacturing jobs28 in high technology 

industries, although the data are insufficient to measure the impact on employment over time. 
Of the five high technology manufacturing industries identified by the OECD, only that for aerospace had a large positive 

balance of trade in 2005. The scientific instruments industry is relatively balanced with regard to trade, and the other 

three high technology manufacturing categories are negative. The total U.S. trade balance in high technology shifted from 

surplus to deficit in the late 1990s, with a deficit of $32B in 2000, increasing to $135B in 2005. This increase primarily 

reflects increases in the deficits with Asia.

In contrast to the manufacturing category, the U.S. trade balance in royalties and fees for intellectual property between 

affiliated and non-affiliated companies has continued a sustained surplus over the years.29 Licensing fees and royalties 

largely reflect past innovations, sometimes quite distant past, and are not good measures of the current state of research or 

accurate predictors of future intellectual property revenues from the research.

Global Investment by Industry in Innovation 

U.S. industries are establishing R&D facilities and manufacturing facilities in nations in which they have markets and in 

which they wish to grow market share. Such facilities can also contribute to more cost-effective manufacturing capabilities 

to the benefit of consumers in the U.S. and elsewhere. Off-shore facilities for engineering design are also being established 

by U.S. industry, especially in China and India. Such R&D can benefit U.S. industry’s products, profitability, and over-all 

competitiveness, as well as provide some limited domestic job growth. However, critical data on these trends in off-shoring 

R&D by U.S. industry are presently lacking, as is the net effect of such trends on industrial competitiveness and domestic 

job growth.

Foreign nations continue to establish R&D centers in the U.S., as well as manufacturing facilities in some industries. Foreign 

companies also support some academic R&D, including endowed professorships. There are limited data on these trends, as 

well as on the net economic effects on the U.S. of the “out-sourcing” of R&D by U.S. companies and of the “in-sourcing” of 

R&D funded by foreign companies. However, Indicators data on R&D by multinational corporations are instructive. These 

data show that affiliates of foreign companies located in the U.S. made $29.9B in R&D expenditures in 2004, little changed 

from 2003. Between 1999 and 2004, R&D by these affiliates increased faster than overall U.S. industrial R&D (2.1% on an 

annual average rate basis after adjusting for inflation, compared with 0.2% for U.S. industry overall).

On the other hand, foreign affiliates of U.S. multinational corporations performed $27.5B in R&D abroad in 2004, a rise of 

$4.7B from 2003, the largest annual increase since a 22% rise in 1999. This amount nearly equals the R&D by affiliates of 

foreign countries in the U.S. ($29.9B).30 Affiliates located in Europe represented slightly more than two-thirds of the 2004 

increase.

The Road Ahead: Conclusions and Recommendations

The stagnation in industry support for its own basic research in this century, together with the current decrease in support 

of academic R&D and basic research by the Federal Government could over time have severe implications for U.S. 

competitiveness in international markets and for highly skilled and manufacturing jobs at home. However, the net economic 

effects on the Nation and on industry of the off-shoring of manufacturing capabilities are complex, and appropriate data do 

not exist for adequate analysis of present situations and future trends. 

For more than a quarter century U.S. industry has dominated the funding of U.S. R&D. The Federal Government continues 

to dominate research funding to the academic sector. The recent three-year decline in Federal obligations for academic 

research, the first since 1982, and the decrease of support by industry for basic research could pose significant problems 

in that academic researchers, primarily supported by Federal funds, are now likely to have less available funding and 

to be considerably less aware than previously of the major research challenges that face U.S. industry and industrial 

competitiveness. Further, with fewer industry researchers focusing on basic research, a company may be unable to readily 

tap into the expertise and facilities of the university community. 

 5
6

1. Based on past experience, basic research can be expected to be a major 

driver in the future for innovations that result in new industries and new 

jobs, and that will enhance the Nation’s global competitiveness. 

	 Recommendation: The Federal Government should take action to 

enhance the level of funding for, and the transformational nature of, 

basic research.

2. The decrease in industrial-based basic research may result in a decreasing 

level of interactions between industry and academic research and teaching. 

In addition, changes in some industry’s policies related to the management 

of patent portfolios and to publishing peer-reviewed journal articles are 

likely limiting public awareness of some innovation. It is unknown how 

much, if any, basic research in industry results in innovations that remain 

company-proprietary, or that could beneficially influence the directions of 

any basic research. 

 Recommendation: Industry, government, the academic sector, and 

professional organizations should take action to encourage greater 

intellectual interchange between industry and academia. Industry 

researchers should also be encouraged to participate as authors and 

reviewers for articles in open, peer-reviewed publications.

3. In the area of high technology manufacturing of products and services, 

globalization has often resulted in “value flows” across several nations 

before the end user acquires the device or service. Current trade 

measurements monitor the flow of components and products, but do not 

track at present all of these value flows. New metrics would be valuable 

in order to accurately attribute where value is added and, therefore, where 

intellectual capital is created and skilled labor is employed. Basic research 

is crucial to advancing science and engineering and creating intellectual 

capital in the United States, and for the U.S. to continue to add value and 

to provide leadership in the global marketplace. 

Recommendation: New data are critically needed to track the 

implications for the U.S. economy of the globalization of manufacturing 

and services in high technology industries, and this need should be 

addressed expeditiously by relevant Federal agencies. 

Industry and the Federal Government bear special responsibility for the health of 

U.S. science and technology in the emerging global economy. Several indicators, 

described earlier, imply a reduced commitment to the U.S. enterprise by both the 

Federal and industry sectors—especially to academic and basic research—over 

the last several years, in spite of the growing importance of knowledge-based 

industries in international trade. The potential impacts of persistent negative 

trends in R&D support, and especially support for basic research, on the U.S 

economy and jobs are indeed troubling. As a Nation we must renew our strong 

commitment to R&D to ensure our continued preeminence in global science and 

technology. New metrics are required to guide national R&D investments in 

all sectors to ensure that we respond to the research needs in a rapidly changing 

global economy.

To keep America 

competitive, one 

commitment is 

necessary above all: 

We must continue 

to lead the world in 

human talent and 

creativity ... With 

more research in 

both the public and 

private sectors, we 

will improve our 

quality of life – and 

ensure that America 

will lead the world 

in opportunity 

and innovation for 

decades to come. 

— President George W. 

Bush, 200631
National Science Board 

Steven C. Beering, Chairman, President Emeritus, Purdue University, West Lafayette 

Kathryn D. Sullivan, Vice Chairman, Director, Battelle Center for Mathematics and Science Education Policy, 

John Glenn School of Public Affairs, Ohio State University, Columbus

Mark R. Abbott, Dean and Professor, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University

Dan E. Arvizu, Director and Chief Executive, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado

Barry C. Barish, Maxine and Ronald Linde Professor of Physics Emeritus and Director, LIGO Laboratory, 

California Institute of Technology

Camilla P. Benbow, Patricia and Rodes Hart Dean of Education and Human Development, Peabody College, 

Vanderbilt University

Ray M. Bowen, President Emeritus, Texas A&M University, College Station

John T. Bruer, President, The James S. McDonnell Foundation, St. Louis

G. Wayne Clough, President, Georgia Institute of Technology

Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Associate Vice President for Research, Regents’ Professor of Meteorology and 

Weathernews Chair, University of Oklahoma, Norman

Kenneth M. Ford, Director and Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Pensacola

Patricia D. Galloway, Chief Executive Officer, The Nielsen-Wurster Group, Inc., Seattle

José-Marie Griffiths, Dean, School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Daniel E. Hastings, Dean for Undergraduate Education and Professor, Aeronautics & Astronautics and 

Engineering Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Karl Hess, Professor of Advanced Study Emeritus and Swanlund Chair, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Elizabeth Hoffman, Executive Vice President and Provost, Iowa State University, Ames

Louis J. Lanzerotti, Distinguished Research Professor of Physics, Center for Solar-Terrestrial Research, 

New Jersey Institute of Technology

Alan I. Leshner, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Publisher, Science, American Association for the 

Advancement of Science, Washington, DC

Douglas D. Randall, Professor and Thomas Jefferson Fellow and Director, Interdisciplinary Plant Group, 

University of Missouri-Columbia

Arthur K. Reilly, Senior Director, Strategic Technology Policy, Cisco Systems, Inc., Ocean, New Jersey

Jon C. Strauss, President Emeritus, Harvey Mudd College

Thomas N. Taylor, Roy A. Roberts Distinguished Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 

Curator of Paleobotany in the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, 

The University of Kansas, Lawrence

Richard F. Thompson, Keck Professor of Psychology and Biological Sciences, University of Southern California

Jo Anne Vasquez, Director of Professional Development, Policy, and Outreach; Center for Research on 

Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology; Arizona State University, Tempe 

Member ex officio

Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Michael P. Crosby, Executive Officer, National Science Board and National Science Board Office Director

* * *

Committee on Education and Human Resources, Subcommittee on Science and Engineering Indicators

Louis J. Lanzerotti, Chairman

Members:

Camilla P. Benbow Arthur K. Reilly

John T. Bruer Jon C. Strauss

G. Wayne Clough Richard F. Thompson

José-Marie Griffith Jo Anne Vasquez 

Board Subcommittee Staff:

Alan I. Rapoport, Executive Secretary

Jean M. Pomeroy, Board Office Liaison
NSB-08-3