Hubbry Logo
Research and developmentResearch and developmentMain
Open search
Research and development
Community hub
Research and development
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Research and development
Research and development
Research and development
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Cycle of research and development
Spending on research and development as share of GDP (2015)

Research and development (R&D or R+D),[1] known in some countries as experiment and design, is the set of innovative activities undertaken by corporations or governments in developing new services or products.[2][3][4] R&D constitutes the first stage of development of a potential new service or the production process.

Although R&D activities may differ across businesses, the primary goal of an R&D department is to develop new products and services.[2][4] R&D differs from the vast majority of corporate activities in that it is not intended to yield immediate profit, and generally carries greater risk and an uncertain return on investment.[2][5] R&D is crucial for acquiring larger shares of the market through new products.[4] R&D&I represents R&D with innovation.[6][7][8]

Background

[edit]

New product design and development is often a crucial factor in the survival of a company. In a global industrial landscape that is changing fast, firms must continually revise their design and range of products. This is necessary as well due to the fierce competition and the evolving preferences of consumers. Without an R&D program, a firm must rely on strategic alliances, acquisitions, and networks to tap into the innovations of others.

A system driven by marketing is one that puts the customer needs first, and produces goods that are known to sell.[9] Market research is carried out, which establishes the needs of consumers and the potential niche market of a new product. If the development is technology driven, R&D is directed toward developing products to meet the unmet needs.[citation needed]

In general, research and development activities are conducted by specialised units or centres belonging to a company, or can be out-sourced to a contract research organisation, universities, or state agencies.[citation needed] In the context of commerce, "research and development" normally refers to future-oriented, longer-term activities in science or technology, using similar techniques to scientific research but directed toward desired outcomes and with broad forecasts of commercial yield.[10]

Statistics on organizations devoted to "R&D" may express the state of an industry, the degree of competition or the lure of progress.[11] Some common measures include: budgets, numbers of patents or on rates of peer-reviewed publications. Bank ratios are one of the best measures, because they are continuously maintained, public and reflect risk.

In the United States, a typical ratio of research and development for an industrial company is about 3.5% of revenues; this measure is called "R&D intensity".[12] A high technology company, such as a computer manufacturer, might spend 7% or a pharmaceutical companies such as Merck & Co. 14.1% or Novartis 15.1%. Anything over 15% is remarkable, and usually gains a reputation for being a high technology company such as engineering company Ericsson 24.9%, or biotech company Allergan, which tops the spending table with 43.4% investment.[13] Such companies are often seen as credit risks because their spending ratios are so unusual.[citation needed]

Generally such firms prosper only in markets whose customers have extreme high technology needs, like certain prescription drugs or special chemicals, scientific instruments, and safety-critical systems in medicine, aeronautics or military weapons. [citation needed]The extreme needs justify the high risk of failure and consequently high gross margins from 60% to 90% of revenues.[citation needed] That is, gross profits will be as much as 90% of the sales cost, with manufacturing costing only 10% of the product price, because so many individual projects yield no exploitable product. Most industrial companies get 40% revenues only.[citation needed]

On a technical level, high tech organizations explore ways to re-purpose and repackage advanced technologies as a way of amortizing the high overhead.[citation needed] They often reuse advanced manufacturing processes, expensive safety certifications, specialized embedded software, computer-aided design software, electronic designs and mechanical subsystems.[citation needed]

Research from 2000 has shown that firms with a persistent R&D strategy outperform those with an irregular or no R&D investment program.[14]

Business R&D

[edit]
Mercedes Benz Research Development North America (13896037060)

Research and development are very difficult to manage, since the defining feature of research is that the researchers do not know in advance exactly how to accomplish the desired result. As a result, "higher R&D spending does not guarantee more creativity, higher profit or a greater market share".[15] Research is the most risky financing area because both the development of an invention and its successful realization carries uncertainty including the profitability of the invention. One way entrepreneurs can reduce these uncertainties is to buy the licence for a franchise, so that the know-how is already incorporated in the licence.[16]

Benefit by sector

[edit]

In general, it has been found that there is a positive correlation between the research and development and firm productivity across all sectors, but that this positive correlation is much stronger in high-tech firms than in low-tech firms.[17][18] In research done by Francesco Crespi and Cristiano Antonelli, high-tech firms were found to have "virtuous" Matthew effects while low-tech firms experienced "vicious" Matthew effects, meaning that high-tech firms were awarded subsidies on merit while low-tech firms most often were given subsidies based on name recognition, even if not put to good use.[19] While the strength of the correlation between R&D spending and productivity in low-tech industries is less than in high-tech industries, studies have been done showing non-trivial carryover effects to other parts of the marketplace by low-tech R&D.[20]

Risks

[edit]

Business R&D is risky for at least two reasons. The first source of risks comes from R&D nature, where R&D project could fail without residual values. The second source of risks comes from takeover risks, which means R&D is appealing to bidders because they could gain technologies from acquisition targets.[21] Therefore, firms may gain R&D profit that co-moves with takeover waves, causing risks to the company which engages in R&D activity.[22]

Global

[edit]
Since the 1960s, private businesses in the U.S. have provided an increasing share of funding for research and development, as direct federal funding waned.[23]

Global R&D management is the discipline of designing and leading R&D processes globally, across cultural and lingual settings, and the transfer of knowledge across international corporate networks.[24]

Government expenditures

[edit]
Further information: Public research and development

United States

[edit]
See also: Federally funded research and development centers

Former President Barack Obama requested $147.696 billion for research and development in FY2012, 21% of which was destined to fund basic research.[25] According to National Science Foundation in U.S., in 2015, R&D expenditures performed by federal government and local governments are 54 and 0.6 billions of dollars.[26] The federal research and development budget for fiscal year 2020 was $156 billion, 41.4% of which was for the Department of Defense (DOD).[27] DOD's total research, development, test, and evaluation budget was roughly $108.5 billion.[28]

  • The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
    The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
  • Learning Research and Development Center, Pittsburg
    Learning Research and Development Center, Pittsburg
  • Mercedes Benz Research Development North America
    Mercedes Benz Research Development North America
  • National Museum of the U.S. Air Force-Research and Development Gallery
    National Museum of the U.S. Air Force-Research and Development Gallery

Israel

[edit]
See also: Science and technology in Israel

Israel is the world leader in spending on R&D as a percentage of GDP as of 2022, spending 6.02%.[29] According to CSIS, During the 1970s and 1980s Israel initially built up Israel's research infrastructure through various programs, often in the defence industry. In 1984, a law for Encouragement of Research and Development in Industry encouraged the commercial sector to invest in R&D in Israel as well as empowered the Office of Chief Scientist In the 1980s to 1992, the Chief scientist of Israel significantly expanded R&D subsidies in the Israeli industrial sector.[30] Israel invested in the creation of clusters of startups in the high-tech sector as well as venture capital investments. In 1993, Israel initiated the Yozma program, which led to the doubling of value of Israel's 10 new venture capital funds in 3 years.[30] In the late 1990s, Israel was second only to the US in private equity as a share of the general economy.[30] The high tech sector in Israel, known as Silicon Wadi, which earned Israel the nickname - Start-up Nation, was ranked the 4th leading startup ecosystem in the world by Startup genome with a value of $253billion in 2023.[31]

European Union

[edit]

Europe is lagging behind in R&D investments from the past two decades.[according to whom?] The target of 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) was meant to be reached by 2020, but the current amount is below this target. This also causes a digital divide among countries since only a few EU Member States have R&D spending.[32]

Research and innovation in Europe are financially supported by the programme Horizon 2020, which is open to participation worldwide.[33]

A notable example is the European environmental research and innovation policy, based on the Europe 2020 strategy which will run from 2014 to 2020,[34] a multidisciplinary effort to provide safe, economically feasible, environmentally sound and socially acceptable solutions along the entire value chain of human activities.[35]

Firms that have embraced advanced digital technology devote a greater proportion of their investment efforts to R&D. Firms who engaged in digitisation during the pandemic report spending a big portion of their expenditure in 2020 on software, data, IT infrastructure, and website operations.[36][37] A 2021/2022 survey found that one in every seven enterprises in the Central, Eastern and South Eastern regions (14%) may be classed as active innovators — that is, firms that spent heavily in research and development and developed a new product, process, or service — however this figure is lower than the EU average of 18%. In 2022, 67% of enterprises in the same region deployed at least one sophisticated digital technology, and 69% EU firms did the same.[38]

As of 2023, European enterprises account for 18% of the world's top 2 500 R&D corporations, but just 10% of new entrants, compared to 45% in the United States and 32% in China.[39]

As of 2024, the electronics sector leads in R&D investment, with 28% of its total investment dedicated to it. This is followed by textiles (19%), digital (18%), and aerospace (15%). Other sectors allocate less than 10% of their total investment to R&D.[40][37]

While 17% of the world’s top R&D investors are based in the European Union, they accounted for only 1% of acquisitions involving EU-based companies between 2013 and 2023.[41][42]

  • Secop R&D Center in Gleisdorf Austria
    Secop R&D Center in Gleisdorf Austria
  • IBM Germany Research & Development
    IBM Germany Research & Development

Worldwide

[edit]

In 2015, research and development constituted an average 2.2% of the global GDP according to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics.[43]

By 2018, research and development constituted an average 1.79% of the global GDP according to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Countries agreed in 2015 to monitor their progress in raising research intensity (SDG 9.5.1), as well as researcher density (SDG 9.5.2), as part of their commitment to reaching the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. However, this undertaking has not spurred an increase in reporting of data. On the contrary, a total of 99 countries reported data on domestic investment in research in 2015 but only 69 countries in 2018. Similarly, 59 countries recorded the number of researchers (in full-time equivalents) in 2018, down from 90 countries in 2015.[44]

Top countries by R&D spending[45]
Country R&D as percentage of GDP
Israel
5.44
Korea
4.81
Sweden
3.53
Belgium
3.48
United States
3.45
Japan
3.26
Austria
3.20
Switzerland
3.15
Germany
3.14
Denmark
2.96
Finland
2.94
Iceland
2.47
China
2.40
France
2.35
Netherlands
2.29
Norway
2.28
Slovenia
2.15
Czechia
1.99
Singapore
1.89
Australia
1.83

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Research and development

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Research and development (R&D) comprises creative and systematic work aimed at increasing the stock of , including that of humans, , and applying this to create new applications. This encompasses three main activities: , which seeks fundamental understanding without immediate practical goals; applied research, directed toward specific practical aims; and experimental development, focused on producing or improving prototypes, products, or processes. Organized R&D emerged in the late 19th century with industrial labs, such as Thomas Edison's facilities, and expanded significantly during through government-led efforts like the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development, yielding breakthroughs in , rocketry, and . R&D drives and by generating new technologies, products, and firms that enhance and address societal challenges. shows that R&D investments, particularly in basic , yield long-term gains across multiple sectors and countries, often multiplying initial expenditures by factors of three to eight. In 2023, global R&D expenditures approached $3 trillion, with the leading at approximately 29% of the total, underscoring its role as a key engine of progress amid varying national priorities and funding sources from business, , and higher education. Despite its benefits, R&D allocation can reflect institutional biases, with funding sometimes prioritizing defense or over broader applications, though involvement has grown since the mid-20th century to counterbalance such distortions.

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Concepts and Distinctions

Research and development (R&D) encompasses creative and systematic work aimed at increasing the stock of —including , —and applying that knowledge to develop new applications, such as materials, products, devices, processes, systems, or services. This definition, established in the OECD's , serves as the international standard for identifying and measuring R&D activities, emphasizing novelty, creativity, and uncertainty as inherent characteristics that distinguish R&D from routine or . R&D excludes activities lacking systematic planning or aimed solely at adapting existing products without significant , ensuring focus on efforts that advance technological frontiers or resolve scientific unknowns. The core components of R&D comprise three interrelated activities: , applied research, and experimental development, each defined by their objectives and outputs. involves experimental or theoretical endeavors primarily to acquire new knowledge about the fundamental principles underlying phenomena, without immediate practical applications in mind; for instance, studies on in the early laid groundwork for later technologies despite initial lack of targeted use. It prioritizes understanding observable facts and causal mechanisms through hypothesis testing and replication, often conducted in academic or settings where long-term, exploratory outcomes prevail over short-term commercial viability. Applied research, in contrast, directs original investigations toward acquiring new with a specific practical objective, such as addressing identified technical challenges or exploring potential uses for findings. It bridges fundamental insights and real-world problems, producing intermediate outputs like prototypes or feasibility assessments; an example is the development of early testing protocols in the 1940s, which built on basic microbiological discoveries to target bacterial infections. While sharing methodological rigor with , applied efforts emphasize problem-solving utility, often funded by industry or government agencies seeking measurable progress toward implementation. Experimental development represents the application of research-derived and practical to systematically create or substantially improve tangible outputs, including new products, processes, or systems. This stage involves iterative prototyping, testing under operational conditions, and design refinement to achieve reliability and , as seen in the evolution of fabrication techniques from the 1960s onward, which integrated applied circuit into manufacturable chips. Unlike , it focuses on verifiable performance enhancements rather than novel generation, though it generates ancillary data that may feed back into cycles. These distinctions, while analytically useful for resource allocation and policy, reflect a continuum rather than rigid categories, with overlaps arising from integrated projects where basic inquiries inform applied goals and developmental trials yield unexpected theoretical insights. In practice, the boundaries depend on contextual intent and outcomes; for example, a project's may shift if initial applied aims evolve into broader foundational exploration. Such fluidity underscores R&D's iterative nature, where causal chains from curiosity-driven inquiry to market-ready drive economic and technological progress, though empirical measurement challenges persist due to self-reported categorizations by performers.

Basic vs. Applied Research

, as defined by the , constitutes experimental or theoretical work primarily aimed at acquiring new regarding the fundamental underpinnings of phenomena and facts, without immediate or specific applications in view. In contrast, applied research involves original investigations directed toward acquiring new but oriented explicitly toward a particular practical objective or problem-solving aim. The U.S. (NSF) aligns with this, characterizing basic research as efforts to augment scientific for its intrinsic value, emphasizing comprehension of underlying principles over utilitarian outcomes. The core distinction lies in intent and orientation: basic research pursues generalizable insights into natural laws and mechanisms, often through exploratory inquiry unbound by predefined endpoints, whereas applied research leverages existing knowledge to address targeted challenges, such as improving processes or technologies. Methodologically, basic research tends toward abstract modeling, testing in controlled settings, and long-term horizons, yielding publications and theoretical advancements; applied research employs iterative experimentation, prototyping, and validation against real-world constraints, producing patents, prototypes, or incremental solutions. Funding patterns reflect these divergences: in 2022, U.S. basic research received 40% of its support from federal sources and 37% from businesses, with the latter often more mission-oriented even in basic pursuits, while applied research draws disproportionately from industry for its nearer-term commercial viability. Historically, the dichotomy gained prominence through Vannevar Bush's 1945 report Science, the Endless Frontier, which positioned basic research as the "pacemaker of technological progress," insulating it from short-term pressures to foster breakthroughs that later enable applied innovations. Examples illustrate this: basic research into quantum electrodynamics in the mid-20th century elucidated subatomic behaviors without practical intent, foundational to later applied developments like transistors; applied research, conversely, might refine laser technology for medical diagnostics based on such fundamentals. Despite overlaps—where basic inquiries anticipate utility or applied work uncovers novel principles—the framework persists in policy for allocating resources, though critics note its subjectivity, as researcher motivations can blur lines and private basic efforts increasingly align with strategic goals. Empirically, basic research underpins sustained innovation, with studies showing that foundational discoveries correlate with downstream economic multipliers, albeit through nonlinear pathways rather than direct causation.

Development Processes

Development processes in research and development (R&D) encompass the systematic application of knowledge gained from basic or applied to create or significantly improve products, processes, or services, often through iterative and validation efforts. These processes emphasize empirical testing, reduction, and , distinguishing them from pure by focusing on practical and commercialization potential. A widely adopted framework for managing these processes is the Stage-Gate model, developed by Robert G. Cooper in the late , which structures development into sequential stages punctuated by evaluation gates to assess feasibility, progress, and decisions. Typical stages include ideation and scoping for initial concept refinement; development involving and prototyping; detailed and ; testing and validation through prototypes and pilots; and finally, launch preparation with full-scale . At each gate, multidisciplinary teams review data against predefined criteria such as technical achievability, cost estimates, and competitive positioning, enabling early termination of unviable projects to conserve resources. Empirical analyses of Stage-Gate implementations indicate improved project outcomes, with firms reporting success rates for new products rising from under 10% in unstructured approaches to 30-50% when gates enforce rigorous criteria and cross-functional reviews. However, the model's linear nature can introduce delays in dynamic fields like software, prompting adaptations such as hybrid Stage-Gate-Agile systems that incorporate iterative sprints within stages for faster feedback loops. In sectors like pharmaceuticals, development processes align with regulatory milestones, progressing from preclinical testing to phased clinical trials (Phase 1 for in small groups, Phase 2 for efficacy in larger cohorts, and Phase 3 for confirmatory trials in thousands of participants) before market approval. Agile methodologies, originating from software engineering in the early , have increasingly influenced R&D development by prioritizing incremental deliverables, , and adaptive planning over rigid phases, particularly in tech-driven innovations where user feedback drives rapid pivots. This approach reduces time-to-market—evidenced by studies showing 20-50% faster development cycles in adopting organizations—but requires strong team discipline to avoid . Across industries, effective processes integrate tools like (CAD) for prototyping and for virtual testing, minimizing physical iterations while grounding decisions in causal data from failure analyses. Success hinges on balancing structured oversight with flexibility, as overly bureaucratic gates can stifle creativity, whereas unchecked iteration risks inefficient resource allocation.

Historical Evolution

Pre-Industrial and Early Industrial Origins

In antiquity, precursors to modern emerged through empirical observation and systematic inquiry in civilizations such as , where of mechanics, medicine, and astronomy enabled feats like and the development of a around 3000 BCE. Similarly, ancient during the (206 BCE–220 CE) produced inventions including and through practical experimentation tied to state needs, while from the 6th century BCE advanced in mathematics and astronomy, though often remaining theoretical rather than applied. Roman engineering from the 1st century BCE emphasized practical applications in architecture and hydraulics, as documented in Pliny the Elder's Naturalis Historia, fostering like aqueducts but relying on tacit, experience-based over codified methodologies. These efforts, primarily elitist and patronage-driven, influenced economies through incremental productivity gains in and but lacked the institutional structures for scalable development. The medieval period (11th–15th centuries) saw the establishment of universities in , which preserved and expanded knowledge in fields like and , transitioning tacit craftsmanship into more codified forms via scholastic methods. The and (15th–17th centuries) accelerated this with the printing press's invention around 1440 by , enabling widespread dissemination of texts, and empirical methodologies championed by figures like , who in 1620 advocated for practical utility in . Institutions such as the Royal Society of London, founded in , institutionalized collaborative experimentation, funding inquiries into natural phenomena that bridged scholarly pursuit and potential applications, though still divorced from commercial imperatives. During the early Industrial Revolution (c. 1760–1840), invention shifted toward systematic problem-solving amid Britain's textile and energy demands, exemplified by Thomas Newcomen's atmospheric in 1712 and James Watt's improvements by 1769, which involved iterative testing and partnerships with manufacturers like to enhance efficiency for mining and factories. These advances relied on empirical tinkering rather than pure , with over 2,000 patents granted in Britain between 1750 and 1800 for machinery like the (1764) by , driving economic growth through mechanization but conducted largely by independent artisans or small firms without dedicated teams. By the mid-19th century, organized efforts emerged, including Michael Faraday's systematic electromagnetic experiments at the Royal Institution from 1831, yielding generators and motors, and the first industrial chemical laboratories in during the 1860s, followed by German firms in the 1870s that commercialized university-derived dyes through in-house teams. In the United States, Thomas Edison's Menlo Park laboratory, established in 1876, marked a pivotal step toward structured development, employing over 30 technicians for systematic invention, resulting in the (1877) and incandescent bulb (1879) via methodical trial-and-error, with Edison securing 1,093 patents by emphasizing division of labor in research. This model, blending basic inquiry with applied prototyping, influenced subsequent labs, such as those in the pharmaceutical sector where university collaborations, like the 1895 by H.K. Mulford Company with input, demonstrated early spillovers from academic to industry. These origins highlighted causal links between resource constraints, market incentives, and incremental experimentation, setting precedents for formalized R&D amid expanding industrial scales.

20th Century Corporate and Government Expansion

The establishment of dedicated industrial research laboratories by major American corporations in the early represented a pivotal shift toward systematic, in-house R&D, driven by the demands of in electricity, chemicals, and machinery. created the first prominent corporate lab in 1900, led by consultant , focusing on electrical innovations such as improved generators and lighting systems. This model spread rapidly; by 1910, firms like and had followed, with opening its Experimental Station in 1903 to tackle synthetic materials and dyes amid competitive pressures from European chemical giants. Between 1900 and 1940, nearly 350 independent industrial laboratories emerged, concentrating in the Middle Atlantic region and prioritizing applied problem-solving over pure science. Corporate R&D expanded further in the , fueled by scientific opportunities in physics and chemistry that enabled breakthroughs in complex products like automobiles and appliances. Hundreds of companies, particularly in electrical and chemical sectors, internalized research functions to reduce dependence on external inventors and patents, with the number of scientists and engineers in industrial labs doubling between 1921 and 1927 despite the economic disruptions of the . This era saw R&D budgets grow as firms recognized returns from innovations like radio components and synthetic fibers, though outcomes varied by industry, with success tied to integration with processes rather than isolated . In contrast, government-sponsored R&D remained limited before , comprising a small fraction of total activity and oriented toward practical, mission-specific needs rather than broad innovation. U.S. federal expenditures totaled under $70 million annually by 1940—equivalent to about 1% of inflation-adjusted modern levels—primarily supporting agriculture via the Department of Agriculture's experiment stations, natural resource surveys, and nascent defense projects. Agencies such as the National Bureau of Standards, founded in 1901, focused on and standards for industry, but lacked the scale or ambition of corporate efforts, reflecting a approach where public roles were confined to foundational rather than competitive technological advancement. prompted modest increases, including the creation of the National Research Council in 1916 to coordinate wartime science, yet these did not sustain post-armistice expansion, leaving private enterprise as the dominant force in R&D growth.

Post-WWII Boom and Cold War Era

Following , the experienced a surge in research and development (R&D) activities, building on wartime innovations and transitioning to peacetime applications. In July 1945, , director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, published "Science, the Endless Frontier," which argued that sustained federal investment in was essential for national security, economic prosperity, and public health, proposing the creation of a National Research Foundation to coordinate non-military scientific efforts. This vision influenced the establishment of the (NSF) in 1950 under President , with an initial budget focused on supporting at universities and fostering a larger cadre of scientists. Federal R&D expenditures, which totaled under $70 million annually in 1940 (adjusted for inflation to about 1% of later levels), began modest growth in the late , laying the groundwork for expanded public-private partnerships. The onset of the accelerated R&D investments, particularly in defense-related fields, as geopolitical tensions with the prioritized technological superiority. The Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957 prompted the creation of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA, later ) on February 7, 1958, by President to consolidate high-risk, high-reward military R&D projects, including early space and missile technologies. By the early , U.S. total R&D spending accounted for nearly 70% of global efforts, dominated by government funding channeled through defense contracts that supported innovation hubs and increased patenting in affected regions by 40-50% compared to untreated areas by 1970. These investments, often performed by industry, contributed to roughly one-quarter of subsequent productivity growth. The epitomized R&D competition, driving massive U.S. commitments to aeronautics and related technologies. From 1960 to 1973, the alone cost $25.8 billion (equivalent to about $318 billion in 2023 dollars), spurring advancements in , materials, and while employing thousands in R&D roles. Soviet expenditures, estimated at $6-10 billion through 1964, focused on parallel achievements like Yuri Gagarin's orbital flight, but U.S. investments ultimately enabled the 1969 and broader spillovers to civilian sectors. Defense R&D's emphasis on applied development sustained a growing population of researchers, with federal outlays peaking relative to private spending during this era before declining post-1990.

Globalization and Digital Age (1980s–Present)

The globalization of research and development accelerated in the 1980s as multinational corporations increasingly established overseas R&D facilities to access specialized talent, reduce costs, and align innovation with local markets. This shift marked a departure from predominantly home-country-centric models, with transnational corporations (TNCs) performing strategic R&D in developing countries starting in the mid-1980s. By the 1990s, internationalization concentrated in the Triad regions (North America, Europe, Japan), involving technology transfers, patent licensing, and adaptive research for regional needs. Global R&D investments expanded dramatically, rising from $478.6 billion in 1980 to $1.61 trillion in 2013 (in 2009 purchasing power parity dollars). The digital age, propelled by the IT revolution and widespread adoption of computing and internet technologies, further intensified R&D globalization by enabling distributed teams, real-time data sharing, and software-intensive innovation. U.S. multinationals' foreign R&D expenditures grew sevenfold between 1989 and 2013, driven partly by the rising importance of software and information technology in firm operations. Digital tools facilitated open innovation models, where firms linked foreign R&D affiliates to external partners, enhancing knowledge flows and reducing development timelines. This era saw the proliferation of global R&D networks, including centers in emerging hubs like Israel and India, exemplified by facilities such as Microsoft's Israel R&D Center focusing on cybersecurity and AI. By the 2020s, global R&D spending reached $3.1 trillion in 2022, with the accounting for 30% and 27%, reflecting Asia's ascendance amid geopolitical shifts. Digital technologies transformed R&D methodologies, incorporating analytics, simulations, and virtual prototyping to accelerate discovery and mitigate risks across sectors like pharmaceuticals and . However, challenges emerged, including vulnerabilities in offshore locations and dependencies on global supply chains, prompting strategies like nearshoring in response to tensions such as U.S.- trade disputes. Despite these, the period underscored R&D's role in fostering economic resilience, with business-funded activities comprising the majority of expenditures worldwide.

Economic Role in Business and Innovation

Incentives and Returns on Investment

Firms engage in research and development (R&D) primarily to secure competitive advantages through technological innovations that enhance product offerings, improve production efficiency, or create new markets, thereby generating supernormal profits protected by rights or lead-time advantages. These incentives are driven by the prospect of capturing economic rents, as successful R&D outcomes enable firms to charge premium prices, expand , and deter entrants, with empirical analyses confirming that innovation-intensive strategies correlate with sustained profitability in dynamic industries. Private returns on R&D , measured as the or excess profitability from outputs, typically range from 10% to 30% annually, exceeding those of conventional investments like machinery, which average around 7-10%. A of firm-level studies estimates an average private near 20%, implying that a $1 in R&D yields approximately $3-4 in additional profits over subsequent years, though variability arises from sector-specific factors such as (higher returns) versus mature (lower). These returns are derived from econometric models linking R&D expenditures to gains and revenue growth, accounting for lags where benefits often materialize 2-5 years post-. Government incentives, including and subsidies, supplement market-driven motivations by reducing the effective cost of R&D, with programs like the U.S. Research and Development providing dollar-for-dollar offsets that boost after-tax returns by 10-20% for qualifying expenditures. However, such policies address underinvestment stemming from knowledge spillovers, where private firms capture only a fraction of total benefits—social returns to private R&D are estimated at 50-100%, reflecting externalities like industry-wide productivity spillovers that justify public intervention despite occasional inefficiencies in allocation. Uncertainty inherent in R&D, with success rates often below 50% for early-stage projects, tempers incentives but does not negate them, as portfolio approaches and staged funding mitigate risks while high marginal returns on breakthroughs—evident in cases like pharmaceutical blockbusters yielding ROIs over 50%—drive overall positive expected values. from U.S. business data indicates that firms increasing R&D intensity by 1% of sales see long-term productivity rises of 0.1-0.3%, underscoring the causal link between investment and economic performance despite measurement challenges like intangible asset valuation.

Sector-Specific Applications and Benefits

In the pharmaceutical sector, research and development (R&D) focuses on , clinical trials, and processes, yielding breakthroughs such as targeted therapies for cancer and that have averted millions of deaths. For instance, R&D investments enabled the rapid development of mRNA-based vaccines in 2020, which by 2022 had been administered over 13 billion doses globally, reducing severe illness rates by up to 90% in clinical settings. Benefits include improved outcomes, with studies estimating that pharmaceutical R&D generates social returns of 10-20% annually through productivity gains from healthier workforces and reduced healthcare costs, though private returns vary due to high failure rates exceeding 90% for drug candidates. The information technology sector leverages R&D for advancements in semiconductors, software algorithms, and artificial intelligence, exemplified by investments totaling $150 billion in U.S. computer and electronic products R&D in 2022, driving exponential increases in computational efficiency per Moore's Law extensions. Applications include cloud computing infrastructures and machine learning models that automate data analysis, with benefits manifesting as enhanced productivity across economies; for example, AI-related R&D has contributed to a 1-2% annual boost in total factor productivity in tech-dependent industries through spillover effects to non-performers. In the , R&D targets batteries, autonomous driving systems, and lightweight materials, as seen in expenditures exceeding $100 billion globally in 2023 for transitions. Key applications involve for crash safety and optimization, delivering benefits like a 50% reduction in battery costs from 2010 to 2023, which has accelerated market adoption and lowered emissions by enabling vehicles with ranges over 300 miles on single charges. These investments yield competitive edges, with firms recouping costs through and advantages in low-emission standards. Energy sector R&D emphasizes renewables, grid storage, and fusion technologies, with U.S. funding reaching $20 billion in 2022 for clean innovations. Applications include perovskite solar cells and advanced turbines, resulting in solar photovoltaic costs dropping 89% from 2010 to 2022, facilitating a shift toward sustainable sources that now comprise 12% of global . Benefits encompass and economic savings, as R&D-driven efficiency gains have reduced U.S. household expenditures by 15% in real terms over the past decade, while fostering job creation in high-skill manufacturing. Agricultural R&D applies and precision farming tools, such as and drone-based crop monitoring, with global investments yielding hybrid seeds that increased yields by 20-30% in developing regions since 2000. In the U.S., such efforts contributed to a 1.5% annual growth rate from 2010-2020, enhancing and reducing use by up to 37% through targeted applications. Overall benefits include mitigated risks and trade surpluses, though returns depend on enforcement to capture spillovers from public-private collaborations.

Risks, Failures, and Management Strategies

Research and development (R&D) inherently involves high , with technical, financial, market, and human factors contributing to elevated risks of . Technical risks arise from unpredictable scientific outcomes, such as incomplete knowledge of underlying mechanisms or unforeseen technical hurdles, which can render projects unfeasible despite initial promise. In pharmaceuticals, for instance, approximately 90% of drug candidates fail during clinical development due to inefficacy, issues, or both, even after preclinical validation. Financial risks stem from substantial capital outlays with no guaranteed returns; R&D costs can escalate due to or prolonged timelines, often leading to opportunity costs as funds are diverted from proven streams. Market risks include misjudging demand or facing superior competitive alternatives, while human risks encompass talent attrition or errors from inadequate expertise. Strategic misalignment, where R&D pursuits do not align with organizational priorities, further amplifies these vulnerabilities. Notable R&D failures underscore these risks' consequences. In the pharmaceutical sector, Pfizer's torcetrapib cholesterol drug, abandoned in 2006 after Phase III trials, incurred over $800 million in losses due to increased mortality risks observed in patients. Similarly, Merck's Vioxx painkiller, withdrawn in 2004 amid cardiovascular safety concerns, resulted in a $4.85 billion settlement for user damages following its market approval. Outside pharma, Ford's automobile project, launched in 1958 after extensive , failed commercially due to overestimation of consumer interest and design flaws, leading to $350 million in losses (equivalent to about $3.5 billion in 2023 dollars) and its discontinuation within three years. Dyson's electric car initiative, developed over a decade with £500 million invested by 2019, was canceled that year owing to prohibitive production costs and unviable market pricing, highlighting financial and market miscalculations. These cases illustrate how even well-resourced efforts can collapse under compounded risks, with industry-wide data showing an overall likelihood of approval from Phase I in at just 9.6%. Effective strategies mitigate these through structured processes emphasizing identification, assessment, and . Risk identification involves early mapping of potential technical and market uncertainties, often via multidisciplinary teams, while quantitative evaluation uses probabilistic models to prioritize threats. Stage-gate reviews, implemented sequentially to evaluate progress against milestones, enable timely termination of underperforming projects, preserving resources; empirical studies show this approach enhances productivity in high-risk endeavors when paired with tolerance for initial uncertainties. Portfolio diversification across multiple projects balances high-risk, high-reward bets against safer increments, with evidence indicating that aligning R&D with corporate strategy improves outcomes. Additionally, agile methodologies adapt to emerging , reducing and strategic errors, while external collaborations share risks and leverage specialized . Despite these tools, complete risk elimination remains impossible, as demands tolerance for to achieve breakthroughs.

Funding Mechanisms

Private Sector Funding Dynamics

Private sector entities, primarily enterprises, perform and fund the majority of global and development activities, accounting for approximately 78% of total U.S. R&D expenditures in at $697 billion out of $892 billion nationally. Worldwide, enterprise R&D constitutes the largest share in countries, with expenditures reaching significant scales driven by profit-oriented investments in applied and technological development. This dominance reflects a causal emphasis on innovations with direct commercial applicability, where firms prioritize projects offering measurable returns over speculative due to challenges in appropriating spillovers. The primary source of private R&D funding derives from internal company resources, such as and operational cash flows, comprising $608 billion or about 88% of U.S. R&D spending in 2022, with the remainder from external sources including federal government contracts ($83 billion total external). In frameworks, enterprises predominantly self-finance their R&D through industry own-funds, supplemented by inter-firm payments, foreign funding, and public grants, though the exact mix varies by sector and jurisdiction. Large corporations like those in pharmaceuticals, , and allocate these funds strategically, often tying investments to competitive advantages in product pipelines and process improvements, as evidenced by sustained growth in R&D exceeding 14% year-over-year in the U.S. Venture capital plays a complementary role in funding high-risk, early-stage R&D within startups, particularly in , though it represents a smaller fraction of overall private expenditures compared to established firms' internal budgets. Global investments rose in early 2025, fueled by megadeals in and , yet remain selective amid economic uncertainties, with startups extending funding cycles to 18-24 months. This dynamic underscores 's function in bridging gaps for innovations too uncertain for corporate balance sheets, enabling rapid scaling but with high failure rates inherent to speculative R&D pursuits. Trends in private sector funding exhibit accelerated growth outpacing public investments, with U.S. R&D nearing $700 billion by 2022 and global totals reflecting similar expansions despite geopolitical tensions, concentrated in high-tech industries. Funding dynamics are influenced by tax incentives, which in countries account for nearly 55% of government support to R&D, incentivizing higher expenditures without direct outlays. However, reliance on internal funds ties R&D intensity to firm profitability, leading to cyclical fluctuations and potential underinvestment during downturns, as firms balance short-term pressures against long-term needs.

Public Sector Funding and Policies

Public sector funding for research and development primarily supports , national defense, , and with long-term payoffs that private entities often underinvest in due to high risks and non-appropriable spillovers. Governments allocate resources via appropriations, grants to universities and national laboratories, and contracts, with total global government R&D expenditures estimated at around 25-35% of overall R&D funding depending on the economy. In countries, government appropriations or outlays for R&D (GBOARD) grew by 2% in real terms in 2022, following a post-pandemic rebound, but remained below growth rates. This funding mechanism addresses market failures in pure while enabling strategic priorities, though empirical analyses indicate variable returns influenced by allocation efficiency and bureaucratic incentives. In the United States, federal agencies such as the (NSF), (NIH), and Department of Defense (DoD) disbursed approximately $190 billion in R&D obligations in fiscal year 2022, constituting about 18% of total national R&D performance, with a focus on competitive peer-reviewed grants to minimize political distortion. Policies emphasize dual-use technologies and technology transfer via acts like the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which has facilitated over 15,000 startup formations from federally funded research by allowing universities to retain patent rights. In contrast, China's government sector R&D expenditure reached levels 1.6 times that of the US in recent years, driven by state-directed plans under the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025), prioritizing self-reliance in semiconductors, biotechnology, and through subsidies to state-owned enterprises and national labs. Such centralized approaches have accelerated catch-up in applied technologies but evidence suggests lower marginal productivity per dollar compared to decentralized systems, as state involvement can crowd out private initiative and foster . The European Union exemplifies collaborative public policies through (2021-2027), budgeting €95.5 billion for transnational grants emphasizing green and digital transitions, with member states contributing additional national funds to reach collective intensities of 3% GDP in total R&D. Government policies increasingly target and defense amid geopolitical shifts; OECD data show sharp rises in these areas post-2022, with R&D budgets up 20% in real terms across member states due to net-zero commitments and supply security needs. However, critiques from economic analyses highlight that public funding's efficacy hinges on rigorous evaluation metrics, as historical cases like demonstrate risks of politically motivated selections over merit-based ones, underscoring the need for sunset clauses and independent oversight to align with causal evidence of pathways.
Country/RegionGovernment R&D Expenditure (2022/2023, USD PPP billions, approx.)Share of National Total R&D (%)
China~500~8 (performance share)
United States~300~18 (funding share)
European Union~250 (aggregate)~20-25
Japan~50~15
Note: Figures derived from aggregated OECD and NSF estimates; exact government funding varies by methodology (GBOARD vs. intramural). leads in absolute government outlays, reflecting scale advantages in state coordination.

Tax Credits, Subsidies, and Other Instruments

Tax credits for and development (R&D) expenditures represent a primary fiscal used by governments to stimulate private-sector , typically calculated as a of qualified R&D spending above a base amount. In the United States, the federal R&D under Section 41 of the , enacted in 1981 and made permanent in 2015, provides a of up to 20% on incremental qualified research expenses (QREs), which include wages, supplies, and 65% of research costs meeting a four-part for technological uncertainty and experimentation. Empirical studies indicate these credits increase R&D , with one analysis finding eligible firms boosted spending by an average of 17%, particularly among smaller companies lacking prior credits. Firm-level supports elasticities of 0.1 to 0.3, meaning a 10% reduction in the user cost of R&D via credits yields 1-3% higher spending, though aggregate effects can appear muted due to baseline adjustments and crowding out of other funds. Globally, R&D tax incentives have proliferated, comprising about 55% of total government support for business R&D in countries by 2020, up from 30% in 2000, with refundable credits especially beneficial for startups facing losses. Countries like and offer among the most generous regimes for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), with refundable rates exceeding 30-35% on eligible expenditures, enabling cash refunds that enhance liquidity for early-stage innovation. In , the implied rate (B-index) for R&D spending varies, with and providing effective rates above 0.30 (meaning a 30% per spent), while Germany's is lower at around 0.10 due to narrower definitions of qualifying activities. Direct subsidies, including and appropriations, constitute another key instrument, often targeting basic or applied where private returns are uncertain or spillovers are high. In the , federal subsidies funded roughly 40% of basic in 2022, with total R&D support reaching $201.9 billion proposed for FY2025, dominated by defense (DOD) and health (HHS) agencies. These have yielded substantial long-term gains, with government-funded R&D accounting for about 25% of business-sector growth since and returns estimated at 140-210% on nondefense investments. However, subsidies can distort allocation by favoring politically connected projects, and evidence suggests they are less efficient than credits for applied R&D, as governments struggle to select high-impact innovations compared to market signals. Other instruments include government loan guarantees, accelerated depreciation, and patent boxes, which reduce effective tax rates on innovation-derived income. For instance, patent box regimes in countries like the and tax qualifying IP income at rates as low as 10%, complementing upfront incentives by extending benefits to . While these tools amplify R&D by alleviating financing constraints—particularly for SMEs facing high upfront costs—their net impact depends on design; refundable and broad-based incentives outperform targeted ones prone to abuse or narrow eligibility. Overall, empirical consensus holds that such instruments elevate total R&D intensity when calibrated to avoid , though they complement rather than substitute private funding, with private-sector decisions driving most applied .

National and Regional Breakdowns

In 2022, the recorded the world's highest gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) at $923.2 billion in (PPP) dollars, accounting for approximately 30% of the global total of $3.1 trillion. followed with $811.9 billion, representing a 16% increase from the prior year and reflecting sustained government-directed growth in strategic sectors like semiconductors and . ranked third at $200.8 billion, driven primarily by corporate investments from and automotive industries. ![Spending on research and development as share of GDP, OWID.svg.png][float-right] Germany's GERD stood at $174.9 billion, with business enterprises funding over 60% amid a focus on and applications. expended $139.0 billion, bolstered by chaebol-led efforts in displays, batteries, and . Other notable performers included the ($102.6 billion) and ($85.2 billion), where public funding supported and research. These top performers collectively accounted for over 70% of global R&D outlays, highlighting concentration in advanced economies. When measured as a percentage of GDP (R&D intensity), smaller high-tech economies lead: at approximately 5.7% in 2022, emphasizing defense and cybersecurity innovations. South Korea followed at 4.9%, with total spending reaching 119.74 trillion (about $90 billion USD) in 2023, ranking second globally in intensity. and hovered around 3.3-3.4%, while the stood at 3.5% and at 2.6% in 2023. Emerging players like increased to about 0.7% of GDP, focusing on and pharmaceuticals, though absolute volumes remain modest at under $50 billion. Regionally, —dominated by the U.S.—held about 32% of global R&D in 2022, with contributing an additional $20-25 billion annually in resource and biotech areas. The aggregated €389 billion (roughly $420 billion USD nominal) in 2023, or 2.26% of collective GDP, led by and but varying widely, with at 3.4% and southern members like below 1.5%. , including , , and , surpassed 45% of worldwide totals, fueled by export-oriented and state planning.
Top Countries by GERD (2022, PPP billion USD)Value
923.2
811.9
200.8
174.9
139.0
Leading Countries by R&D Intensity (2022-2023, % of GDP)Value
Israel5.7%
South Korea4.9%
United States3.5%
Japan3.4%
China2.6%

Worldwide Totals and Growth Patterns

Global gross domestic expenditures on research and development (GERD) reached approximately $3 trillion in 2023, nearly tripling from $725 billion in 2000 despite economic crises, a , and geopolitical tensions. This expansion reflects sustained investment in , with outlays comprising about 70% of the total, underscoring private enterprise as the primary driver of global R&D scale. Growth patterns show concentration among leading economies: in 2022, the top eight regions accounted for 82% of worldwide R&D, led by the at 30% ($923 billion in adjusted GERD) and at 27%. Absolute spending has increased more than threefold from to alone, but recent real growth has decelerated, with corporate R&D rising 6.1% in 2023 compared to 7.5% in 2022, and overall global R&D projected at 2.9% for 2024 before easing to 2.3% in 2025. R&D intensity, measured as GERD relative to GDP, reveals uneven global distribution, with roughly 66% of economies below 1% and half under 0.5%, highlighting disparities in commitment to . In contrast, the maintained an average of 2.7% from 2020 onward, stable amid slowing growth, while non- surges—particularly in —have offset declines elsewhere. These patterns indicate that while absolute totals continue upward, momentum is waning in mature economies, with emerging powers reshaping the trajectory through state-directed acceleration.

Recent Shifts (2020s Developments)

The catalyzed a sharp increase in R&D investments, particularly in and , with U.S. federal obligations for R&D rising nearly 14% to $190.2 billion in fiscal year 2021, of which $35.6 billion stemmed from pandemic-related stimulus. This influx supported accelerated and therapeutic development, yielding high economic returns estimated close to optimal levels for COVID-specific efforts. Globally, governments directed substantial funds toward pandemic , including $13.7 billion in development assistance for responses in alone. Post-pandemic, overall global R&D growth decelerated markedly, expanding by 2.9% in 2024 and forecasted at 2.3% for 2025—the weakest pace since the —amid cooling and broader economic pressures. Exceptions persisted in select regions and sectors; China's R&D expenditures grew by 8.7%, exceeding averages, U.S. (1.7%), and (1.6%) rates, with funding advancing 10.5% to 249.7 billion yuan in 2024, elevating its share of global gross domestic R&D spending. This divergence underscores China's state-directed emphasis on strategic technologies, contrasting with moderated growth in Western economies. Artificial intelligence has profoundly reshaped R&D methodologies, accelerating processes across 80% of large corporate spending sectors and poised to double velocity while generating up to $500 billion in annual economic value through applications in , , and optimization. In biopharma, AI-driven efficiencies have enhanced productivity and , contributing to signs of higher overall R&D output despite persistent high costs averaging $2.23 billion per asset in 2024. Geopolitical frictions and supply chain disruptions prompted targeted public interventions, exemplified by the U.S. of 2022, which committed $280 billion to R&D and incentives, including $11 billion for facilities and $52.7 billion in broader chip ecosystem support. Such measures, alongside rising government allocations to and defense R&D, reflect a pivot toward securing critical technologies amid U.S.- competition and post-pandemic vulnerabilities. In dealmaking, biopharma partnerships have shifted toward later-stage assets, prioritizing de-risked innovations over early exploratory ventures.

Measurement and Assessment

Inputs: Expenditures and Intensity Metrics

Gross domestic expenditure on research and development (GERD) measures the aggregate inputs to R&D, comprising all current and capital spending performed within a country's borders by business enterprises, higher education institutions, , and private nonprofits, regardless of funding source. This metric captures the scale of resource allocation to systematic investigation aimed at new or applications, excluding routine development absent innovative elements. GERD data, harmonized under guidelines, enable cross-national comparisons but vary in coverage due to differing national reporting standards and exclusions like military R&D in some tallies. R&D intensity, typically expressed as GERD as a of GDP, adjusts expenditures for economic size to gauge relative prioritization of over output growth. Higher intensity correlates with sustained competitiveness in knowledge-driven sectors, though causal links to gains depend on institutional absorption capacity and spillover , not merely spending levels. Global GERD totaled $3.1 trillion in PPP U.S. dollars in 2022, reflecting a tripling from $725 billion in 2000 amid accelerating demand for technological advancement. The led with $923 billion in GERD that year, followed by at $812 billion, together accounting for over half of worldwide totals.
Country/RegionGERD (2022, billion PPP USD)Intensity (% of GDP, latest available)
9233.5 (2021)
8122.6 (2023)
~600 (est. 2023 EUR equiv.)Varies; 3.64 (2023)
AverageN/A2.7 (2023)
Data compiled from NCSES and Eurostat; EU GERD approximated from €389 billion in 2023 at prevailing PPP rates. Intensity trends show divergence: OECD-area growth slowed to under 5% annually by 2023, while China's surged, narrowing the gap with advanced economies through state-directed scaling in applied fields. U.S. intensity rose from 2.6% in 2000 to 3.5% in 2021, driven by business enterprise R&D (BERD) dominance at ~75% of GERD. Sectoral intensities reveal private sector leverage: BERD averaged 2% of GDP in high-performers like Sweden, versus government shares under 0.5% in most, underscoring efficiency variances where public funding often crowds in private investment via contracts rather than direct outlays. Metrics like researcher full-time equivalents per million population complement spending data, with intensities exceeding 4,000 in Israel and South Korea signaling human capital bottlenecks over fiscal ones. Underreporting in emerging markets and PPP adjustments introduce uncertainties, but empirical patterns affirm that sustained intensity above 2.5% underpins long-term technological sovereignty.

Outputs: Patents, Publications, and Commercialization

Patents serve as a primary quantifiable output of research and development (R&D), reflecting inventions deemed novel and non-obvious by patent offices. Globally, applications reached a record 3.55 million in 2023, up 2.7% from , driven largely by filings in , which accounted for 12.4% of the total. Under the (PCT), international applications totaled 273,900 in 2024, a 0.5% increase from 2023, with leading at over 70,000 filings. Empirical studies confirm a positive between R&D expenditures and counts at firm, industry, and national levels; for instance, higher national R&D intensity boosts rates, which in turn support through spillovers. However, this link varies by context: collaborative R&D networks enhance the of outputs, while uncited patents may inefficiently absorb resources without advancing cumulative . Scientific publications represent another key R&D output, disseminating findings for peer validation and further innovation. Worldwide science and engineering (S&E) articles indexed in Scopus reached 3.3 million in 2022, following exponential growth at approximately 5.6% annually, with totals rising from 1.92 million in 2016 to 2.82 million in 2022. This expansion correlates with R&D investments, as increased funding yields more papers, though the relationship is mediated by institutional incentives favoring quantity over depth, leading to concerns over diluted quality amid the publication surge. Open-access articles grew faster than closed-access ones, rising over 8% in recent years, facilitating broader dissemination but straining peer review systems. Commercialization translates R&D outputs into marketable products or services, often via licensing, startups, or spin-offs, with universities playing a pivotal role post-Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which enabled U.S. institutions to retain rights to federally funded inventions. Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) data from U.S. and Canadian institutions show steady tech transfer activity: the 2023 Licensing Survey reported a 26% rise in startups formed to commercialize academic technologies compared to the prior year, reaching 134 new ventures. Overall, university licensing yields licenses/options, with 68% directed to small firms under 500 employees, fostering innovation diffusion; however, success rates remain low, as only a fraction of disclosed inventions (typically thousands annually) result in royalties exceeding costs. Private-sector commercialization, meanwhile, leverages patents for revenue: studies indicate that $10 million in public R&D funding, such as from NIH, generates 2.3 additional private patents, amplifying economic returns through downstream applications. Despite these metrics, commercialization faces hurdles like the "valley of death" between proof-of-concept and market viability, with empirical evidence underscoring that while R&D inputs predict outputs, path-dependent factors like market timing determine ultimate value.

Economic and Societal Impacts

Research and development (R&D) investments generate substantial economic returns by enhancing (TFP) and fostering innovation, which in turn drive GDP growth. Empirical analyses across U.S. states indicate an R&D elasticity to GDP ranging from 0.056 to 0.143, implying returns to state GDP from R&D spending of 83% to 213%. At the firm and industry levels, private returns to R&D typically exceed those of , averaging 10-30%, while social returns—incorporating knowledge spillovers to other entities—are markedly higher, often surpassing 30% and reaching up to 100% or more in meta-analyses of aggregate data. These spillovers justify public funding, as private actors underinvest due to incomplete appropriability of benefits. Government-funded R&D, particularly nondefense basic and applied , yields sustained long-term gains, with causal linking increases in such spending to private-sector TFP growth. For instance, U.S. federal R&D averaging 0.23% of GDP in basic and 0.61% in experimental development has been associated with economy-wide output expansions. Cross-country studies confirm a positive relationship between R&D intensity and GDP growth in both and non-OECD nations, with high-tech exports amplifying these effects. Reductions in public R&D, such as a hypothetical 20-50% cut, could cumulatively reduce U.S. GDP by hundreds of billions to trillions over a decade, underscoring the macroeconomic leverage of sustained investment. Societally, R&D catalyzes broader advancements that elevate living standards, including medical breakthroughs, energy innovations, and agricultural yield improvements, which have historically reduced poverty and extended life expectancy through diffusion of technologies. Public R&D investments not only create high-skill jobs but also stimulate regional economic clusters around research hubs, as evidenced by federally supported university proximity effects on local growth and business formation. These impacts extend to welfare gains via productivity spillovers, though empirical estimates vary by sector and institutional context, with stronger effects in knowledge-intensive industries. Overall, the causal chain from R&D inputs to societal outputs—via patents, publications, and commercialization—supports net positive contributions, tempered by the need for efficient allocation to maximize benefits.

Challenges and Controversies

Public vs. Private Efficiency and Complementarity

Empirical studies indicate that public R&D funding generally complements rather than substitutes for private R&D , with public expenditures stimulating additional private efforts through spillovers and reduced for high-uncertainty projects. For instance, a 1% increase in public R&D funding correlates with a 0.11-0.14% rise in private R&D, particularly in high-tech sectors where public grants foster and networks. This complementarity arises because private firms prioritize projects with appropriable returns, while public funding targets with diffuse benefits, enabling private actors to build upon foundational advances. Analyses across EU countries and global panels confirm that both sectors amplify each other's productivity impacts when local bases are strong, though the effect weakens in isolated or underdeveloped ecosystems. Private R&D exhibits higher efficiency in and output metrics, such as patents and market-applied innovations, due to profit-driven incentives and competitive pressures that align resources with signals. Privately traded R&D service firms, for example, generate more patents and exert greater influence on subsequent innovations compared to counterparts, with outputs diffusing more rapidly into products. In contrast, R&D often yields superior long-term social returns—estimated at levels aligning with or exceeding private R&D's social benefits—through broader spillovers that enhance economy-wide , as seen in nondefense investments boosting sustained growth. Private returns to R&D typically range from 20-30%, with social returns roughly double due to externalities, but funding amplifies these by focusing on underinvested areas like fundamental , where market failures preclude private entry. However, inefficiencies persist in sectors, including potential bureaucratic waste and lower direct rates, underscoring the need for targeted roles to avoid crowding out. The interplay enhances overall , as R&D provides non-rivalrous that private entities leverage for applied development, evident in sectors like pharmaceuticals where government-funded underpins private drug pipelines. A $10 million increase in NIH funding, for example, nets 2.3 additional private-sector patents, illustrating causal spillovers from to private efficiency. This division of labor— handling high-risk, long-horizon exploration and private excelling in scalable exploitation—sustains technological leadership, though geopolitical tensions and funding shifts in the highlight risks if complementarity erodes. Critics note that while complements dominate empirically, poorly designed programs can induce substitution, emphasizing the importance of performance-based allocation over indiscriminate subsidies.

Ethical, Regulatory, and Waste Concerns

Ethical concerns in research and development encompass risks to human subjects, potential misuse of dual-use technologies, and conflicts of interest that undermine scientific integrity. Core principles, as outlined in the 1979 , mandate respect for persons through and protection of vulnerable populations, beneficence via risk-benefit assessments, and in equitable participant selection. Violations, such as inadequate study design or , erode trust and lead to retracted publications, with common issues including authorship disputes and redundant reporting. In pathogen research, gain-of-function (GOF) experiments—enhancing transmissibility or virulence—have sparked debate over biosafety, exemplified by the 2011 H5N1 controversy and ongoing scrutiny of U.S.-funded work at the , where critics argue risks of accidental release outweigh predictive benefits for pandemics. Epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch has contended that GOF yields little unique value compared to surveillance alternatives, prioritizing containment over enhancement. Regulatory frameworks aim to mitigate these risks but often impose burdens that stifle , particularly in and pharmaceuticals. In the U.S., the 2017 lifting of a GOF moratorium evolved into stricter 2024 oversight requiring federal agencies to review experiments with enhanced potential pathogens (ePPPs), amid fears of lab escapes fueling events like COVID-19. Broader challenges include protracted approvals, such as FDA requirements that extend timelines and inflate costs, contributing to biopharma's stalled productivity despite rising investments. In medtech, evolving AI integration blurs regulated device boundaries, demanding adaptive compliance that executives report as a key efficiency barrier. These regimes, while safeguarding , can deter risk-taking; for instance, stringent export controls on dual-use tech limit international collaboration without proportionally curbing proliferation threats. Waste in R&D manifests as inefficient , with estimates indicating 85% of biomedical expenditures lost to flawed designs, irreproducibility, and duplication rather than advancing . Pharmaceutical development exemplifies this, where approximately 90% of candidates fail clinical trials, primarily due to inefficacy (40-50% of Phase II terminations) or unforeseen , necessitating $2-3 billion per approved drug amid low Phase III success rates dipping below historical norms. Such attrition stems from overreliance on preclinical models that poorly predict outcomes, compounded by siloed efforts and biases favoring positive results, which academics and industry analyses attribute to systemic incentives misaligned with causal validation over exploratory volume. Reducing waste demands prioritizing high-fidelity testing and meta-research to cull low-yield paths early, though entrenched models perpetuate excess spending without commensurate outputs.

Geopolitical and Future-Oriented Debates

The geopolitical rivalry between the United States and China has intensified debates over research and development (R&D) as a driver of national power, with both nations viewing technological leadership in fields like artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and biotechnology as essential for economic dominance and military superiority. U.S. policymakers have implemented export controls on advanced semiconductors since 2018 to restrict China's access to cutting-edge technologies, aiming to preserve American innovation edges amid concerns over dual-use applications in military systems. These measures reflect a strategic assessment that unchecked technology transfer could erode U.S. advantages, as evidenced by China's rapid scaling of R&D investments, which positioned it to potentially surpass the U.S. in total spending by 2026. National security concerns amplify these tensions, with documented instances of Chinese state-linked targeting U.S. academic and industrial R&D, including theft of in . The U.S. Department has expanded programs to safeguard sensitive research from economic , highlighting risks to small businesses and universities lacking robust countermeasures. In response, countries like and have tightened research security protocols, recognizing that open scientific collaboration can inadvertently enable adversarial gains. Critics argue such not only siphons innovations but also discourages private investment by undermining competitive incentives. Future-oriented debates center on whether partial technological decoupling—evident in U.S.-China restrictions across AI, biotech, and chips—will sustain global innovation or provoke inefficiencies. Proponents of decoupling contend it protects strategic assets without halting U.S. progress, as analyses of semiconductor firms show export controls have not impeded innovation outputs. Opponents warn that severed ties could delay breakthroughs in shared challenges like pandemics, with calls for selective cooperation to balance rivalry against mutual benefits. Amid slowing global R&D growth to 2.3% projected for 2025, emerging alliances among democratic nations are proposed to counterbalance China's state-directed model, emphasizing quality-driven investments over sheer volume. This shift underscores causal links between R&D policies and geopolitical outcomes, where sustained U.S. leadership hinges on bolstering domestic capacities rather than isolation.

References

  1. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2015/10/frascati-manual-2015_g1g57dcb/9789264239012-en.pdf
  2. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/ncses22209
  3. https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_international-business/s17-01-an-introduction-to-research-an.html
  4. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20221365
  5. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/localizing-the-economic-impact-of-research-and-development/
  6. https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2024/0213
  7. http://democrats-budget.house.gov/publications/report/federal-research-and-development-fuels-our-economic-growth-national-capabilities
  8. https://www.ompi.org/web/economics/w/news/2024/news_0025
  9. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/AAAS%2520Global%2520RD%2520Update%25202025_final.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
  10. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20225
  11. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2015/10/frascati-manual-2015_g1g57dcb.html
  12. https://tacr.gov.cz/dokums_raw/novinky/Frascati2015_Chapter2_definitions.pdf
  13. https://one.oecd.org/document/OCDE/GD%2894%2984/en/pdf
  14. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf24332
  15. https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/2023-04/EndlessFrontier75th_w.pdf
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4141150/
  17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44697356
  18. https://issues.org/venkatesh/
  19. https://www.energy.gov/eere/analysis/articles/stage-gate-review-guide-industrial-technologies-program
  20. https://content1.dau.edu/DAUMIG_DecisionPoint_204/content/solutions/Stage-GateProcess.html
  21. https://www.stage-gate.com/blog/the-stage-gate-model-an-overview/
  22. https://www.designorate.com/stage-gate-new-product-development-process/
  23. https://www.itonics-innovation.com/guides/research-and-development
  24. https://www.fda.gov/patients/drug-development-process/step-3-clinical-research
  25. https://asana.com/resources/product-development-process
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166361517300210
  27. https://corasystems.com/guidebooks/stage-gate-process-modern-innovation-guide
  28. https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2018/18/shsconf_infoglob2018_01005.pdf
  29. https://blog.rootsofprogress.org/science-and-the-industrial-revolution
  30. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/industrial-revolution-and-technology/
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014498321000413
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8218977/
  33. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-invention-factory-thomas-edison-s-laboratories.htm
  34. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w11470/w11470.pdf
  35. http://www.industrialdesignhistory.com/timelineproducts
  36. https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/usselman_paper.pdf
  37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006598
  38. https://mackinstitute.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Suh-Jungkyu-Arora-Ashish-Belenzon-Sharon-Kosenko-Konstantin-and-Yafeh-Yishay_The-Rise-of-American-Corporate-Science.pdf
  39. https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-american-rd-lab/
  40. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45556/
  41. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/19980814_95-1209_5099a81054a63d58f79d6d18b4572fe7270f5a2e.pdf
  42. https://www.pi.infn.it/~giorgio/INFN/3M/SciencetheEndlessFrontier.pdf
  43. https://www.nsf.gov/about/history
  44. https://www.darpa.mil/sites/default/files/attachment/2025-02/magazine-darpa-60th-anniversary.pdf
  45. https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/its-all-about-the-rd-implications-of-post-world-war-spending/
  46. https://ungated.research.bowdoin.edu/article/1659
  47. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/apollo-moon-space-race-industrial-policy-cost/
  48. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000316255.pdf
  49. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/2103/chapter/3
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733398001115
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X9700079X
  52. https://shs.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2012-2-page-53?lang=en
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6440631/
  54. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/699931
  55. https://jopeninnovation.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40852-015-0008-6
  56. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/whats-behind-the-globalization-of-rd/
  57. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20257/global-r-d-and-international-comparisons-2
  58. https://www.gartner.com/en/innovation-strategy/trends/digital-technologies
  59. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/iteiia20056overview_en.pdf
  60. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20246
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169721810020083
  62. https://www.frontier-economics.com/uk/en/news-and-insights/news/news-article-i10181-understanding-the-returns-to-rd/
  63. https://kpidepot.com/kpi/roi-randd-investments
  64. https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/1997/199712/199712pap.pdf
  65. https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-tax-credits-that-improve-roi/
  66. https://www.dallasfed.org/~/media/documents/research/papers/2023/wp2305r2.pdf
  67. https://www.bls.gov/productivity/highlights/research-and-development-contribution-to-total-factor-productivity.htm
  68. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20246/u-s-business-r-d
  69. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/research-and-development-statistics.html
  70. https://www.frontier-economics.com/media/015adtpq/rate-of-return.pdf
  71. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf25327/table/1
  72. https://itif.org/publications/2024/02/09/a-closer-look-at-us-private-sector-rd-spending/
  73. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/tech-forward/scientific-ai-unlocking-the-next-frontier-of-r-and-d-productivity
  74. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361832380_An_Analysis_of_New_Energy_Automobile_From_the_Perspective_of_RD_Expenditure
  75. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.html
  76. https://www.pharmexec.com/view/managing-r-d-risk
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9293739/
  78. https://www.cfc.com/en-gb/knowledge/resources/articles/2021/05/top-risks-in-research-and-development/
  79. https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/featurecounting-the-cost-of-failure-in-drug-development-5813046/
  80. https://www.braineet.com/blog/innovation-failures
  81. https://www.prosymmetry.com/blog/4-famous-project-management-failures-and-what-to-learn-from-them
  82. https://pm360consulting.ie/10-project-failures-and-the-lessons-learned/
  83. https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/t2-main/medschool-prd/wp-content/uploads/sites/106/2025/05/BiomedtrackerPDF.pdf
  84. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350906918_RD_project_risk_management_research
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733319301921
  86. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09537325.2021.2011192
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166497210000854
  88. https://www.csis.org/analysis/public-and-private-rd-are-complements-not-substitutes
  89. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf24334
  90. https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?lc=en&df%5Bds%5D=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df%5Bid%5D=DSD_RDS_BERD%2540DF_BERD_MA_SOF&df%5Bag%5D=OECD.STI.STP&df%5Bvs%5D=1.0
  91. https://kpmg.com/kpmg-us/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2025/venture-pulse-q1-2025.pdf
  92. https://goelastic.com/venture-capital-market-trends/
  93. https://hbr.org/1998/11/how-venture-capital-works
  94. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/global-innovation-index/w/blogs/2024/end-of-year-edition
  95. https://sciencebusiness.net/news/r-d-funding/tax-incentives-dominate-company-rd-support-oecd-countries
  96. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/main-science-and-technology-indicators/msti-highlights-september-2023.pdf
  97. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20246/cross-national-comparisons-of-r-d-performance
  98. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/insights/statistical-releases/2025/03/rd-spending-growth-slows-in-oecd-surges-in-china-government-support-for-energy-and-defence-rd-rises-sharply.html
  99. https://www.csis.org/analysis/competing-chinas-public-rd-model-lessons-and-risks-us-innovation-strategy
  100. https://itif.org/publications/2023/07/24/innovation-wars-how-china-is-gaining-on-the-united-states-in-corporate-rd/
  101. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/06e2860c-44ea-11f0-b9f2-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
  102. https://ncses.nsf.gov/data-collections/national-patterns
  103. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/41
  104. https://itif.org/publications/2020/05/05/new-evidence-rd-tax-credit-promotes-research-especially-small-companies/
  105. https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp2071.pdf
  106. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/research-and-development-tax/
  107. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/10/the-impact-of-r-d-tax-incentives_bc42ab04/1937ac6b-en.pdf
  108. https://www.rsm.global/insights/global-rd-tax-incentives-smes-cross-country-comparison
  109. https://www.randdtax.co.uk/comparing-global-rd-tax-incentives-which-country-offers-the-best-support/
  110. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/rd-tax-incentives-europe/
  111. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48307
  112. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1815566917300012
  113. https://kpmg.com/kpmg-us/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2021/global-rd-incentives-guide.pdf?
  114. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755309122000302
  115. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2017/wp1784.ashx
  116. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c15156/c15156.pdf
  117. https://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Sci-Tech/view?articleId=264121
  118. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS
  119. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=R%26D_expenditure
  120. https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/global-innovation-index-2024/en/global-innovation-tracker.html
  121. https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/insights/public-sector/global-innovation-index-2024-analyzing-global-r-and-d-trends-with-the-orbis-dataset.html
  122. https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/global-innovation-index-2025/en/global-innovation-tracker.html
  123. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20225/table/RD-6
  124. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23352
  125. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2321978121
  126. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9998276/
  127. https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/global-innovation-index-2025/assets/80937/global-innovation-index-2025-en.pdf
  128. https://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202502/t20250207_1958579.html
  129. https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/updates/new-report-shows-china-science-enterprise-rise-business
  130. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/AAAS%2520Global%2520RD%2520Update%25202025_final.pdf
  131. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-next-innovation-revolution-powered-by-ai
  132. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/week-in-charts/r-and-d-recharged-by-ai
  133. https://www.iqvia.com/blogs/2025/06/global-trends-in-r-and-d-2025-signs-of-higher-efficiency-and-productivity
  134. https://www.deloitte.com/ch/en/Industries/life-sciences-health-care/research/measuring-return-from-pharmaceutical-innovation.html
  135. https://www.nist.gov/chips
  136. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/the-chips-and-science-act-heres-whats-in-it
  137. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/life-sciences/our-insights/the-synthesis/pulse-check-key-trends-shaping-biopharma-dealmaking-in-2025
  138. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Gross_domestic_expenditure_on_R_%252526_D_%28GERD%29
  139. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=R%2526D_expenditure
  140. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20243/discovery-u-s-and-global-r-d
  141. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-941-2024-en-world-intellectual-property-indicators-2024.pdf
  142. https://www.wipo.int/en/ipfactsandfigures/patents
  143. https://www.emerald.com/inmr/article/18/2/175/186493/R-amp-D-spending-and-patents-levers-of-national
  144. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0923474817304083
  145. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13662716.2024.2377700
  146. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202333/publication-output-by-region-country-or-economy-and-by-scientific-field
  147. https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceadviser-scientists-are-publishing-too-many-papers-and-s-bad-science
  148. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2909426/
  149. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202333/impact-of-published-research
  150. https://autm.net/AUTM/media/SurveyReportsPDF/AUTM_FY2018_US_Licensing_Survey_with_Appendix.pdf
  151. https://autm.net/surveys-and-tools/surveys/licensing-survey/2023-licensing-survey
  152. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3564362/
  153. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6818650/
  154. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014292120302634
  155. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=sppworkingpapers
  156. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=93465
  157. https://www.dallasfed.org/~/media/documents/research/papers/2025/wp2519.pdf
  158. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2004/wp04185.pdf
  159. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JRF-11-2021-0177/full/html
  160. https://itif.org/publications/2025/09/15/how-reducing-federal-rd-reduces-gdp-growth/
  161. https://impa.american.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Costs_of_Cutting_Funding_Scientific_Research.pdf
  162. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/117834/2/1467-8489.00107.pdf
  163. https://www.bls.gov/productivity/technical-notes/impact-of-research-and-development-on-productivity-growth-1989.pdf
  164. https://www.ssrc.org/programs/mapping-the-economic-impacts-of-research-investments-in-emerging-technologies-existing-research/
  165. https://www.aaas.org/news/societal-impacts-rd-investments-not-just-job-creation-also-boost-business
  166. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733316301160
  167. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/the-impact-of-r-d-and-technology-diffusion-on-productivity-growth_413581370285.html
  168. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733323000914
  169. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21681376.2025.2453573
  170. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/arXiv:0905.4272
  171. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12698
  172. https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/entrepreneurship-and-innovation-policy-and-economy-volume-5/social-returns-public-rd
  173. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/blog/date/2025/html/ecb.blog20250110~e14843779d.en.html
  174. https://policyresearch.jnj.com/perspectives/private-and-public-sector-r-d-make-a-great-marriage-for-innovation
  175. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~bhhall/papers/DavidHallToole%2520RP00.pdf
  176. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html
  177. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4453117/
  178. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285586/
  179. https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain-of-function-disagreement/
  180. https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/little-to-be-gained-through-gain-of-function-research-says-expert/
  181. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01377-x
  182. https://www.clinicalleader.com/doc/biopharma-r-d-faces-productivity-and-attrition-challenges-in-2025-0001
  183. https://insightglobal.com/blog/lab-challenges-stalling-pharma-innovation/
  184. https://mdic.org/how-medtech-leaders-are-rethinking-compliance-ai-and-rd-efficiency/
  185. https://www.vox.com/2015/10/4/9440931/arnold-foundation-meta-research
  186. https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/opinions/031222/90-of-drugs-fail-clinical-trials
  187. https://www.norstella.com/why-clinical-development-success-rates-falling/
  188. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2016.136
  189. https://www.biospace.com/drug-development/5-clinical-assets-that-flopped-in-2024
  190. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4107-1.html
  191. https://www.csis.org/analysis/advancing-us-china-coordination-amid-strategic-competition-emerging-playbook
  192. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48642/R48642.3.pdf
  193. https://www.rdworldonline.com/dont-screw-it-up-eric-schmidts-warning-on-u-s-innovation-as-new-data-shows-china-on-track-to-take-rd-lead/
  194. https://www.csis.org/analysis/innovation-crosshairs-countering-chinas-industrial-espionage
  195. https://3gimbals.com/insights/how-foreign-threats-to-u-s-academic-and-research-institutions-undermine-national-security/
  196. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-implements-critical-national-security-program-protect-americans-sensitive
  197. https://theconversation.com/can-science-be-both-open-and-secure-nations-grapple-with-tightening-research-security-as-chinas-dominance-grows-244112
  198. https://federal-criminal.com/white-collar/how-espionage-threats-disrupt-emerging-technologies-in-business/
  199. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2022/04/us-china-technological-decoupling-a-strategy-and-policy-framework?lang=en
  200. https://www.csis.org/analysis/did-us-semiconductor-export-controls-harm-innovation
  201. https://www.scmp.com/opinion/china-opinion/article/3279475/biotech-next-battleground-us-china-decoupling
  202. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1751157724000348
  203. https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/global-rd-and-a-new-era-of-alliances/
  204. https://www.aaas.org/news/us-rd-and-innovation-global-context-2025-data-update
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.