Globalization of Research: Implications for U.S. Science
BY WILLIAM A. BLANPIED
Modern science provides what may be the first robust example of a globalized activity. The contributions of a Pole (Copernicus), a German (Kepler), and an Italian (Galileo) to what became known as the Newtonian synthesis is probably the most obvious case in point. Four centuries later, scientific research remains a highly globalized activity as measured, for example, by the increasing number of internationally coauthored scientific papers in peer-reviewed literature.
The rise of scientific capabilities outside the United States and Europe, particularly in Asia, suggests that support for research, in addition to the research itself, is becoming globalized. As one result, although the United States remains the world leader across a wide spectrum of disciplines, its relative dominance has declined. Western European scientists now publish a larger percentage of papers in leading peer-reviewed journals than do U.S. scientists. More significantly, the number of papers published by scientists from East Asia, particularly China, is sharply increasing.
Some American scientists express concern about this diminution in U.S. scientific dominance. To the contrary, an increase in the world’s supply of well-trained, well-supported scientists suggests that the amount and even the quality of first-rate research will also increase with benefits to scientists in all countries, assuming that the traditional norms of openness, free movement across international borders, and the sharing of research results expand proportionately.
The global character of science and its fundamental norms are, however, conditional rather than absolute. Simply stated, they apply primarily to basic research, often defined as the search for new knowledge. Applied research, which seeks to apply scientific knowledge to tangible ends, be they defense- or commercially-related, is a different matter. In both the United States and Japan, for example, industry supports over 65 percent of all research and development, and the central governments less than 30 percent, so open sharing of scientific research is limited. However, since these governments provide relatively generous support for basic research, scientists in both countries continue to subscribe to the globalization of research and the fundamental norms underlying globalization.
But will governments continue to support their best scientists engaged in cooperative research activities if research capabilities are regarded as a means toward national advantage? The answer is by no means obvious. In the late 1980s, influential U.S. government officials attempted to limit research cooperation with Japan on spurious trade-related grounds. Today, there are suggestions that the flow of Chinese graduate students into U.S. universities should be restricted for somewhat analogous reasons. Will such a measure become more widely supported as China’s scientific and commercial prowess increases? Reciprocally, might China one day seek to restrict contact between its best scientists and their foreign colleagues in a misguided attempt to safeguard critical research results?
More provocatively, might the tools that now facilitate the globalization of research undermine support for globalization among U.S. scientists? Advances in information and communications technologies (ICT) now make it possible for scientists at widely separated locations not only to exchange massive sets of data, but also to collaborate on research projects in real time. The capacity to cooperate with peers from different institutions is already empowering individual scientists relative to their institutions, and could erode their institutional and even their national loyalties.
But even as ICT is enhancing research opportunities for American scientists, it is also expanding the pool of talented researchers available to commercial firms. For example, it is now possible for a U.S. company or, more properly, a large multinational pharmaceutical company to solicit research results, via the Internet, from Chinese and Indian scientists, thus outsourcing applied research in a manner analogous to what is already occurring with technical and engineering tasks. Conceivably, government laboratories or even universities might ultimately outsource at least some basic research.
The latter scenario may be far-fetched. Yet it seems evident that the first decades of the 21st century will witness a shift from competition between institutions on a global level to competition among individuals. How will new generations of U.S. scientists fare in such a competition with their Asian peers? If the results were to lead to a serious erosion of U.S. scientific supremacy, would the U.S. scientific community continue to subscribe with enthusiasm to the traditional norms of openness and free movement across international borders?
William Blanpied is a visiting senior research scholar of science and trade policy at George Mason University’s National Center for Technology and Law (http://www.law.gmu.edu/nctl/?q=techcenter/), housed in the School of Law.
