News blog

UK research data: how scientists move to and fro

science money.jpgPosted on behalf of Richard Van Noorden.

Rub your hands together, data-mavens: a blizzard of new statistics on the strength of the United Kingdom’s research base has just appeared, with the publication of three reports on the topic. The overall message is the same as countless previous studies: the United Kingdom punches way above its weight, yet its research funding is falling; it has a problem getting industry to invest in science and is generally in danger of losing its high position.

But there is some very innovative data* tracking how researchers flow into and out of the country, in the latest of the three studies — a biennial report commissioned by the government’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). *Update 19 October: maybe not so innovative! There are even older studies on researcher flow which come to similar conclusions. See end of post.

First things first: as headlined in the BIS report (provided by analysts from Elsevier), the United Kingdom has a very high-quality and efficient research base. Compared to researchers in the United States, China, Japan and Germany, for example, UK scientists generate more articles per researcher, more citations per researcher, and more online downloads, even though the country spends less in absolute terms. [Another interpretation of this data however, is that other countries spend more money on industrial science and less on academic science which generates publications but not companies. On this view, the UK may not be so efficient after all].

Yet the country is also in danger of losing its lead to upcoming high-spending countries like China: the United Kingdom has a declining share of global spending on research and a declining share of researchers globally. What’s more, it doesn’t produce many patents relative to other countries, and business contributes a smaller fraction to research spend than in other countries.

Updated to 2010 the numbers may be, but this is exactly what the UK Royal Society noted in its report The Scientific Century last year, and what the government says in its latest SET statistics, and what analysts from Thomson Reuters say in their latest report, and also what they said in their 2009 report to BIS before Elsevier won that contract … well, you get the familiar picture.


What’s especially intriguing in the BIS report is a new analysis of how researchers flow into and out of the country, done by tracking individual researchers’ publication records. Gone is the old concept of ‘brain drain’ — rather, the emphasis is on ‘brain circulation’.* Though 37% of the United Kingdom’s 210,923 researchers tracked never seem to have published anything outside the country, a small group of researchers (2.6%) moved out of the United Kingdom between 1996 and 2010 and also returned. What’s more, this group were senior and highly productive, in terms of their research impact.

“Far from implying the UK ‘loses the best and brightest’ to the US and other countries, this analysis suggests that returnee inflow brings comparatively productive researchers back into the UK (presumably with an extended international network, diverse skills and knowledge) and that returnee outflow (representing the most productive group identified) is high, which may also serve to strengthen the position of the UK abroad through international network-building,” the report says. It also points to the importance of international collaborations: collaborative research is more highly cited, it shows; and in particular, research between the United Kingdom and another country always has more impact than the United Kingdom’s average.

That analysis just emphasizes the short-sightedness of the UK government’s cap on visa entries for non-EU skilled migrants, since it is they who contribute so much to the country’s research base.

*19 October update: there’s nothing new under the sun, I’m reminded. A Higher Education Policy Institute analysis of 2005 also talked about brain circulation and analysed how migration brought scientific benefit to the UK.

The data are all very interesting, but for practical purposes, the problem is that policy-makers could take the numbers as justification for research cuts, since the United Kingdom seems to be so good at doing more with less. On the other hand, as those rallying for science cash point out, they are also a reminder that the country cannot afford to lose its research talent. The latest studies do not include the recent cuts to the government’s science budget, which as CaSE (the London-based Campaign for Science and Engineering) have noted, will mean a cut of 12% in cash terms up to 2014-15, even excluding inflation.

Image courtesy of M4D GROUP via Flickr under Creative Commons.

Comments

  1. Report this comment

    Rosa Fernandez said:

    For the benefit of those who want to read the report and take data at face value, even when publicising opinions.

    When considering mobility of researchers the Elsevier report is openly clear on the partiality of using data on publications to look at mobility. It is however a novel approach not reflected in the other publications quoted.

    It is incorrect to quote that 37% of those counted as not having been affiliated to a non-UK institution did not publish anything outside the country. The reciprocal 63% have been affiliated to an institution outside the country. The former may well have moved and not acknowledge this in publications. The report is explicit about this in the main text.

  2. Report this comment

    Richard Van Noorden said:

    Rosa – thanks for your clarifying comments. You’re incorrect in your assertion that I stated that “37% did not publish anything outside the country”. The wording I use in the blog is “37% … never seem to have published anything outside the country”.

Comments are closed.