The geography of knowledge

The past decade has seen a remaking of the map of world science and innovation, as countries including China, India, Brazil, South Korea and South Africa have increased their investment and risen up the league tables of papers published, citation rates, and patents filed.

As a result there has been shift in the centre of gravity of the global distribution of knowledge, and innovation resources and users of knowledge are increasingly found outside the old poles of the US, Europe and Japan.

“The old established centres have a new edge of competition and that is probably a good thing for all of us,” said Mary Minch, Director of International Cooperation at the Directorate-General for Research at the European Commission, introducing a session on the globalisation of science and innovation at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego this week.

“But what do we mean by science going global?” asked Sylvia Schwaag Serger of the Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems in Stockholm. She suggested there are two components. First, are the new poles of attraction in science and innovation, with China being the most obvious example. Then there is the question of how the old poles connect to the new ones. The core-periphery model in which the US, Europe and Japan sit at the centre, with a huge periphery that implements what these poles come up with, no longer applies.

Schwaag Serger has studied the rise of science in China, interviewing Chinese students to see how these changes are reflected in their attitudes. While some see studying in the US and UK as the top choice, there are others who are interested in the leading Chinese universities, and see the US/UK as second choice.

While China has made a continuous massive increase in investment in R&D, with the budget rising by 20 per cent a year over the past ten years, the science base remains relatively immature. So for example, said Schwaag Serger, there has been a huge increase in the quantity of papers published by Chinese scientists, but no matching increase in quality. And while the Chinese government claims there are 1,200 foreign R&D centres in the country, many of these are not operational.

There remain structural issues to be overcome, in particular a disconnect between research and education, with China having a relatively low expenditure on education. There is also very little investment in basic research, and as yet a very low R&D intensity in high tech industries in China. Small and medium enterprises, in particular, do not feature in the innovation strategy.

In addition, R&D resources are very concentrated and good researchers are over-funded. One result is that Chinese scientists are not interested in joining European Framework programmes research projects, because they already have more ready sources of money.

Schwaag Serger also pointed to shortcoming in the ethos of Chinese scientists, as exemplified by the refusal to cooperate and share samples at the time of the outbreak of SARS (Severe acute respiratory syndrome). She also said there is evidence of academic corruption and an inefficient knowledge and innovation management system.

Despite this, there is no doubt that the centre of gravity is moving east, and knowledge is becoming a key asset in the new world order. “Knowledge and innovation are seen as a wonder drug for all the problems of China,” Schwaag Serger said.

For now, there is an imbalance in terms of the linkages of the new scientific pole of China, to older poles. So for example, one million Chinese have gone abroad to study since 1979, of whom one quarter have returned, bringing with them contacts and networks. In contrast, very few European students go to China, and those that do are likely to be studying the language or martial arts.

“It is still not good for your career to have studied in China, and working in industry in China is not necessarily considered as a good springboard,” Schwaag Serger said.

The new scientific poles of China and elsewhere require new competences and strategies in Europe, believes Schwaag Serger. “European linkages with, and presence in, these new knowledge and innovation hubs are relatively weak – there is a need to strengthen Europe’s innovation pull.”

But rather than formulating a European policy for engaging with China’s emerging science base, national delegations are competing with each other for attention and diluting the European brand. “The Chinese have bilateral agreements on biotech with every country in Europe, said Schwaag Serger.

With the correct strategy everyone could be a winner in the new geography of knowledge and innovation, according to Schwaag Serger. “The increase in knowledge resources in Brazil, India and China is bringing science closer to society, and closer to where the greatest challenges lie. The increase in the world’s knowledge resources is therefore positive.”