Over the past 20–30 years, the global landscape of scientific research and innovation has shifted dramatically.
U.S. Research Trends: Grant-Driven Projects and Signs of Stagnation
Over the last few decades, the U.S. scientific enterprise has expanded in scale but faces criticism that much of this growth has been in quantity rather than quality of innovation. The number of scientific publications has exploded – growing about 8–9% annually, reaching 4.6 million publications worldwide in 2020 (up from 1.3 million in 2000) . Yet a striking 65% of these papers received no citations within 20 years of publication , suggesting a vast proliferation of low-impact research. This deluge of papers, driven by a “more is better” approach to scientific output, can obscure truly novel ideas in a sea of incremental findings . Indeed, studies across disciplines indicate a slowdown in scientific progress, with each research dollar yielding fewer breakthroughs – a phenomenon some dub scientific stagnation. A 2023 analysis of 45 million papers and 3.9 million patents found they are increasingly less likely to break with the past and push science in new directions, a universal decline in disruptiveness across fields . In other words, recent papers and patents tend to build on established work rather than spark major paradigm shifts, reinforcing concerns that research has become more incremental.
One oft-cited cause is the incentive structure in U.S. academia and R&D. Funding and career advancement are tightly linked to publishing frequently and securing grants, which may discourage risk-taking. As one analysis explains, the reward system “with its emphasis on publication-counting” has led to a torrent of papers alongside a decline in major innovations . Researchers face pressure to produce results quickly and reliably – for example, to renew grants or win tenure – which can favor “low impact but predictable research outcomes” over bold, high-risk ideas . These safe, grant-friendly projects satisfy committees and yield steady publications, but they may “push away scholars from risk-taking, and hence, breakthroughs” . Over time, this culture can create a self-perpetuating cycle: more papers, fewer disruptive ideas. As evidence, despite ever-increasing R&D spending, the share of publications that are highly cited or considered breakthrough work has not kept pace. Researchers Besancenot and Vranceanu (2024) even model this as a signaling problem: when promotions and funding depend on easily observed outputs (papers, citations) rather than hard-to-observe innovation, scientists rationally focus on incremental productivity at the expense of exploration . The result is an academia stuck in a “publish or perish” rat race that may be slowing the pace of real innovation.
Another symptom is seen in the patent system. U.S. patent output remains high, but there are worries about “ineffective” or low-quality patents. Throughout the 1990s–2000s, an influx of minor or incremental patents that add little to scientific progress was observed . An OECD analysis found that patent quality (measured by citations of a patent in subsequent patents) declined ~20% from the 1990s to 2000s . In essence, fewer new patents are foundational enough to be cited by later innovations, meaning many patents represent narrow tweaks useful only to their holders . The rise of patent litigation and “patent trolls” in the U.S. exacerbated this trend – companies and non-practicing entities filed large numbers of defensive or trivial patents aimed at lawsuits or licensing, rather than genuine technological advances . This glut burdened the system and may have delayed truly innovative products . Thus, while the U.S. still leads in raw patent counts, a smaller fraction of those patents represent impactful breakthroughs. Recent research also shows patents are less “disruptive” on average than decades ago, mirroring the pattern in publications . All these factors contribute to the narrative of a U.S. innovation slowdown despite massive efforts. The nation’s R&D enterprise remains formidable, but many worry it is treading water – sustaining itself with grant-driven theoretical work and incremental innovation, rather than delivering the transformational advances of previous eras.
Funding misalignment is often blamed. Federal R&D funding in the U.S. shifted after the mid-20th-century golden era; as a share of GDP it fell from Cold War highs, only recently rising slightly with big initiatives . Industry now funds about 76% of U.S. R&D (as of 2022) while the federal share has dropped to ~18% . Industry funding drives important development work but may focus on shorter-term payoff, while federal grants (especially for basic science) have become hyper-competitive. Success rates for agencies like the NIH and NSF are low, meaning scientists spend enormous time writing proposals. This can incentivize projects that sound feasible and yield publishable results within grant cycles, arguably disfavoring ambitious blue-sky ideas. In summary, the past 20–30 years in U.S. science have seen unprecedented growth in output but growing concern about output – a situation where more research activity is not translating into commensurately more innovation. This has prompted calls for reforming incentives, increasing funding for high-risk/high-reward research, and improving patent scrutiny to weed out trivial claims.
European Efforts: “Choose Europe for Science” and Potential Pitfalls
In recent years, European institutions and governments have mobilized to attract scientific talent from the U.S., in part responding to perceived stagnation or instability in the American research environment. A flagship initiative is the “Choose Europe for Science” campaign launched by the European Commission in 2025. Backed by a €500 million (~$565 million) package through 2027, this campaign is explicitly designed to make “Europe a magnet for researchers”, especially those disillusioned or displaced from the U.S. . At an event at the Sorbonne University in Paris, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pointed to the “gigantic miscalculation” of recent U.S. moves to cut or politicize science funding, and pitched Europe’s openness and support for science as an alternative. The EU’s offer includes new long-term grants and assistance for scientists willing to relocate to Europe . Individual European countries have launched parallel efforts: for example, France’s “Choose France for Science” platform (with €100M funding) connects foreign scientists to opportunities in French labs , Norway created a $9.6M program to recruit experienced researchers (explicitly eyeing U.S.-based scholars) , and the UK (post-Brexit) set aside £50M for a scheme to lure global researchers with startup grants and relocation support . These initiatives all frame Europe as a refuge for science – highlighting generous grants, commitment to basic research, and relative political stability in research policy.
On the surface, this “brain gain” strategy marks a reversal of historical trends. For decades, Europe grappled with “brain drain” as many of its young scientists moved to the U.S. for better-funded positions and a dynamic research climate . Now, European leaders see an opportunity to bring talent back. Factors motivating U.S. researchers to consider Europe include tightening U.S. immigration and funding (especially during the Trump administration’s science cuts), as well as concerns about academic freedom and job security in the States . European officials like Norway’s Research Minister have noted that “academic freedom is under pressure in the U.S.”, making Europe’s stable environment attractive by comparison . By offering assured funding and a welcoming stance, Europe hopes to accelerate its scientific output and perhaps address its own innovation gap relative to the U.S. and Asia.
However, critics question whether this approach can truly solve underlying issues – or if it might import the same inefficiencies plaguing U.S. research. One concern is that Europe’s structural challenges in R&D aren’t automatically fixed by an influx of American scientists. The EU funding system itself can be highly bureaucratic and competitive. In EU’s flagship Horizon programs, a large majority of proposals rated excellent still go unfunded due to budget limits (e.g. 74% of top-rated proposals failed to get grants under Horizon 2020) . This means European researchers also spend considerable time chasing grants, facing paperwork and low success rates. Without reforms, U.S. transplants may encounter a similar grant grind in Europe. A Science|Business analysis noted calls for a major shakeup in EU research funding, as Europe’s R&D investment (about 2.2% of GDP, below the 3% target) and heavy proposal bureaucracy are seen as stifling competitiveness . In other words, Europe’s research system has its own inefficiencies: underinvestment in R&D in many countries, fragmentation across national systems, and complex administration for EU-wide funds.
Furthermore, salary and resource differences could pose challenges. Prominent scientists have pointed out that European academic salaries and funding levels, on average, are lower than top U.S. institutions, and hiring/tenure procedures differ. The satirical tagline that Europe wants to poach U.S. talent “with lower wages and more paperwork” reflects a real skepticism . If star researchers find they have fewer resources or face slow-moving hierarchies, the intended innovation boost might not materialize. An anonymous European researcher interviewed about “Choose Europe for Science” argued the campaign is “addressed to the general public [for political support], not to researchers”, noting that it sidesteps existing problems in European academia (such as limited positions and high bureaucracy) . There is a risk that simply relocating scientists does not guarantee their continued productivity if the new environment has similar or new obstacles. For example, if U.S. scientists in Europe still must chase short-term grants or adapt to EU’s stringent grant reporting, they might encounter the same incentive to play it safe as in the U.S.
Another potential issue is that importing talent must be matched with local capacity building. Europe’s goal is to boost its own innovation output, but relying on U.S. expatriates is a short-term solution unless Europe also nurtures home-grown talent and funds daring projects. The influx of American researchers could even spark cultural clashes – U.S. academia’s “publish-perish” culture vs. historically more measured European approaches – or could accelerate a shift in Europe towards the U.S. model of metrics-driven evaluation. Already, European universities are increasingly using publication and citation counts in hiring/promotions, similar to the U.S. system. This convergence means the same misaligned incentives (favoring volume over impact) might take hold, if they haven’t already. In summary, Europe’s recruitment drive is a bold and in many ways positive move for global science collaboration. It may well mitigate the talent loss from U.S. institutions and give individual researchers a fresh start. But observers caution that without addressing systemic issues – chronic underfunding in parts of Europe, bureaucratic grant processes, and a risk-averse funding culture – simply importing U.S.-trained scientists could replicate the very conditions that led to U.S. stagnation. The campaign’s success will likely hinge on Europe’s ability to learn from U.S. mistakes (and its own) and create an environment where incoming researchers can pursue high-impact work rather than get bogged down in the same constraints.
China’s Scientific and Technological Rise
In stark contrast to the concerns in the U.S. and Europe, China has emerged as a scientific powerhouse over the past two decades, characterized by rapid growth in R&D investment, output, and increasingly, high-impact innovations. Since around 2000, China’s strategy has been state-driven and strategic – treating science and technology as pillars of national development. The results are evident in global metrics. By 2019, China’s share of worldwide R&D expenditures had climbed to ~22% (from just 4–5% in 2000), overtaking the entire European Union (18%) and approaching the U.S. share (27%) . In absolute terms, China is now the second-largest R&D spender after the U.S., investing an estimated $668 billion (PPP) on R&D in 2021 . This surge reflects consistent double-digit annual growth in R&D funding, far outpacing the modest growth in the U.S. or EU . Importantly, China has steadily increased its R&D intensity (spending as a percentage of GDP) to 2.4% in 2020, a record high for the country . This approaches the levels of Western economies (the EU average ~2.3%, though still below the U.S. ~3.4%) and meets China’s own short-term targets . In short, China is devoting resources to science on an unprecedented scale, backed by government commitment and industrial investment.
Massive investment has translated into prolific scientific output. China went from being a minor player in research publications to producing the world’s largest volume of scientific articles. It surpassed the U.S. in annual research paper publications in 2017 , and the gap has continued to grow. Between 2009 and 2021, China’s publication output increased five-fold, far outstripping the growth of the U.S. or EU . By 2022, China was publishing 40% more citable research papers than the United States . Crucially, this is not just a story of quantity – research quality indicators have also risen. A recent Japanese NISTEP analysis found that China accounted for 27.2% of the world’s top 1% most-cited papers (2018–2020 average), slightly surpassing the U.S. (24.9%) . In the early 2000s, China’s share of such elite papers was in the single digits ; reaching parity with or exceeding the U.S. on this metric marks a dramatic improvement in impact. Likewise, China’s Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) – a cross-field measure of citation quality – has steadily risen and is now comparable to that of the U.S. and Europe . These figures indicate that Chinese research is increasingly on the cutting edge, garnering international recognition and citations.
China has achieved these gains through strategic planning and targeted initiatives. The government’s long-term science plans (such as the Medium- to Long-Term Plan for S&T (2006–2020) and the Innovation-Driven Development strategy) set clear goals for becoming an innovation leader. One famous policy, “Made in China 2025,” announced in 2015, outlines the path to world leadership in high-tech manufacturing and industries (robotics, aerospace, renewable energy, medical devices, etc.) . To support these goals, China invested heavily in relevant R&D fields and built domestic champions. For example, China now dominates in telecommunications (5G) – with firms like Huawei leading in patents and infrastructure – and in renewable energy tech, producing the most solar panels and wind turbines. It has made landmark achievements in space (first soft landing on the far side of the Moon in 2019), quantum communication (launching the world’s first quantum satellite in 2016), and supercomputing (for a time China housed the world’s fastest supercomputers). In artificial intelligence, China’s national AI plan (2017) aimed to be the global leader by 2030 , and already China leads in some metrics (for instance, China accounts for the largest share of AI-related patent publications and has more AI patents annually than the U.S. in recent years ). Indeed, in 2022 China overtook the U.S. in international patent filings for the first time: Chinese inventors filed about 68,600 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications vs. ~58,200 from the U.S. . This reflects a rapid maturation – Chinese entities are not just filing simple patents at home (where they now process 1.59 million applications a year) but are increasingly seeking patents globally for cutting-edge inventions . It’s worth noting that many Chinese domestic patents in the past were for minor tweaks (encouraged by pro-patent policies) , but the surge in PCT filings and citations suggests China’s patent output is shifting to higher-value innovation. (In 2020 China still lagged on the very high-end metric of triadic patents – 5,897 triadic families vs. 13,040 for the U.S. – indicating room to improve in globally dominant inventions . But this gap has been closing steadily.)
Beyond numbers, China’s rise is evident in its growing share of global talent and industrial innovation. China now has the world’s largest pool of researchers; it overtook the U.S. in sheer number of researchers around 2013 . By 2018, China accounted for 21.1% of the world’s researchers, nearly on par with the EU’s share (23.5%) and well above the U.S. (16%) . Each year China produces hundreds of thousands of STEM graduates, including PhDs, many of whom fuel domestic labs and high-tech companies. The country has also been successful in attracting back Chinese scientists from abroad (the “reverse brain drain”), through programs like the Thousand Talents Plan, offering competitive salaries and labs. All these factors contribute to China’s ability to innovate across sectors. For instance, Chinese companies hold leading positions in electric vehicles (EVs) and batteries, drone technology (DJI dominates the global drone market), and biotechnology (BGI in genomics, advancements in CRISPR gene-editing trials, etc.). Chinese tech startups and firms have created a vibrant innovation ecosystem – China is home to about 43% of the total valuation of the world’s unicorn startups (billion-dollar startups) , rivaling the U.S. Silicon Valley in entrepreneurial dynamism.
In sum, over 20 years China has transformed from a peripheral player to a science and technology heavyweight. Key ingredients of this rise include massive and sustained R&D investment, top-down strategic priority-setting (focusing on fields deemed critical for economic and national security), and leveraging global knowledge (through collaborations and by sending students abroad, many of whom returned). The impactful innovations emerging from China range from tangible products (high-speed rail networks, advanced nuclear reactors – China is on track to have the world’s largest nuclear power capacity by 2030 ) to scientific breakthroughs (e.g. contributing a large share of highly cited research in materials science, AI, and chemistry). Challenges remain – such as improving efficiency of R&D spending and fostering more original basic research – but global indices now consistently show China closing the gap with or even surpassing Western nations on many innovation metrics. For example, China’s share of top 10% most-cited papers reached 29% by 2021, higher than the U.S.’s 20% . By global innovation indexes, China has moved into the top ranks (though countries like Switzerland and the U.S. still lead in overall innovation environment). The trajectory suggests that China is not experiencing the stagnation that worries some in the U.S. – on the contrary, it is in a phase of rapid scientific advancement, altering the global balance of scientific power.
Comparative Metrics: U.S. vs. Europe vs. China
To quantify these trends, the table below compares key indicators of scientific funding, output, and impact across the United States, the European Union (EU), and China. These data illustrate the shifting balance in global science and the differences in approach:
AnewzSources: OECD, Eurostat, UNESCO, NSF Science & Engineering Indicators, WIPO, etc. (See citations in table)
This comparison highlights a few key points:
Conclusion
The past 20–30 years have thus seen a rebalancing in global science. The United States, while still a scientific superpower, faces internal challenges of stagnation and misaligned incentives that may be slowing the pace of breakthrough innovation. Europe is actively positioning itself as a haven for science, attempting to correct course by importing talent and increasing collaboration, even as it grapples with its own systemic hurdles. China’s experience demonstrates how strategic investment and focus can yield swift gains in scientific capability and output – albeit within a very different political and economic system. Whether the U.S. can rejuvenate its innovation engine, whether Europe can combine incoming talent with deeper reforms, and how China sustains its momentum are critical questions for the coming decade. What is clear is that the global scientific enterprise is more geographically diversified than at the turn of the millennium. Addressing “scientific stagnation” and boosting real-world innovation will likely require all regions to rethink incentives and funding structures, fostering an environment where quality matters more than quantity and where bold, high-impact research is rewarded. The competition and collaboration between the U.S., Europe, and China in science will be a defining factor in tackling global challenges and advancing technology in the 21st century. Each brings different strengths – and by learning from each other’s failures and successes, they can collectively accelerate the progress of science for society.
Russia has accused Ukraine, with backing from some European countries, of taking actions that threaten ongoing peace talks between the two nations. These direct talks, held on May 16 for the first time in over three years, ended without a ceasefire agreement.
German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius has said Donald Trump did not intentionally betray Europe, but rather overestimated his power and misjudged his role during talks with Vladimir Putin.
Once seen as an unshakeable pillar of liberal democracy, free speech in Europe is facing increasing scrutiny and constraints.
Germany and Italy say Europe is still focused on ending the war in Ukraine — not on sending soldiers.
As European NATO countries rush to strengthen their armed forces, large pension bills threaten to divert funds from urgently needed military hardware.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed strong support for Azerbaijan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity while congratulating the country on its Independence Day.
French President Emmanuel Macron is set to meet Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto in Jakarta to discuss strengthening defence cooperation and mining partnerships between the two countries.
SpaceX's latest Starship launch from Texas ended in an uncontrolled spin before completing key mission goals, highlighting fresh challenges for Elon Musk’s ambitious Mars program.
U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has moved to terminate all remaining federal contracts with Harvard University, directing agencies to review and possibly reallocate contracts worth approximately $100 million.
French police arrest 24 over kidnapping plots targeting crypto figures
AnewZ takes to the streets of Yerevan and Baku to ask a simple yet deeply complex question: How do you see peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan? In the first part of our special report, we hear the hopes, doubts, and scars still shaping people’s perspectives on both sides.
Anton Kobyakov, adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, claimed at the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum that the USSR’s dissolution was legally invalid and that the Soviet Union still exists under constitutional law, framing the Ukraine war as an “internal process.”
A car drove into crowds of Liverpool fans celebrating the club’s Premier League title in the city centre on Monday evening, injuring dozens including 4 children. A 53-year-old man believed to be the driver was arrested at the scene.
Kyiv faced a large-scale Russian drone and missile assault overnight, with explosions and gunfire echoing throughout the city, forcing residents to shelter in subway stations.
In a region long defined by conflict and complex history, AnewZ set out to hear the voices that matter most- those of the people.
With less than a week until Poland’s decisive 1 June run-off, every new survey suggests the country is heading for its tightest presidential finish in a generation.
French President Emmanuel Macron is set to meet Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto in Jakarta to discuss strengthening defence cooperation and mining partnerships between the two countries.
U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has moved to terminate all remaining federal contracts with Harvard University, directing agencies to review and possibly reallocate contracts worth approximately $100 million.
French police arrest 24 over kidnapping plots targeting crypto figures
Sudan is on the brink of a serious health disaster as cholera and other deadly diseases spread across the country, warns aid group International Rescue Committee (IRC).
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed strong support for Azerbaijan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity while congratulating the country on its Independence Day.
French President Emmanuel Macron is set to meet Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto in Jakarta to discuss strengthening defence cooperation and mining partnerships between the two countries.
SpaceX's latest Starship launch from Texas ended in an uncontrolled spin before completing key mission goals, highlighting fresh challenges for Elon Musk’s ambitious Mars program.
U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has moved to terminate all remaining federal contracts with Harvard University, directing agencies to review and possibly reallocate contracts worth approximately $100 million.
French police arrest 24 over kidnapping plots targeting crypto figures
You can download the AnewZ application from Play Store and the App Store.
What is your opinion on this topic?
Leave the first comment