The 2011 Scientific American Worldview Overall Scores

As the preceding components reveal, success in biotechnology depends on many factors, from brain drain and gain to venture capital and beyond. In a world dominated by lists—whether batting averages or Oscar nominees—we all wonder how things stack up overall. Not designed to simply follow such list trends, our scorecard presents the broadest possible assessment of the leading countries when it comes to biotechnology.

The final results arise from a collection of averages and totals. As a quick summary: Each country received a score in five categories—IP, Enterprise Support, Intensity, Education/Workforce and Foundations—that were composed of a set of components. Based on 0–10 scores, for lowest to highest, we averaged the component scores to determine the category score. The overall innovation score represents a simple sum of the category averages.

The normalization involved in calculating the category and overall scores considers each component and each category on equal weighting. In short, this scorecard gives equal importance to a business friendly environment, public biotechnology companies per capita, Ph.D. graduates in life sciences per capita and every other component of the categories. In addition, any gaps in the individual components were ignored in calculating the averages for each category. This represents a slight alteration of methodology relative to our 2009 scorecard, and it produces different absolute scores. Nonetheless, the comparative position of the countries is similar in most cases, and any significant changes are due to either a change in conditions since last year or the impact of the new measures.

While reviewing the overall innovation scores, if one captures your attention, be sure to flip back through the preceding category pages to explore the results in more detail. As you shall see, a country that receives a lower overall score can place higher in specific categories. Likewise, even a country that ranks high in the overall score will exhibit areas that could use improvement when analyzed in the category scores.

As in the 2009 and 2010 Scientific American Worldview Scorecards, the U.S. landed at the top of the list in overall innovation. Nonetheless, the U.S. only received the top score for two of the five categories: IP and Education/Workforce. On the other hand, Russia finished near the bottom of the overall innovation scorecard, but this country can celebrate some brighter spots, including a spot in the top 25 in the category of Education/Workforce. This reveals the need to consider the overall innovation score like a high-altitude view of a country’s potential in biotechnology, and the individual categories as close-ups that expose hidden details. In the end, the balance of overall capabilities and specific strengths and weaknesses determine how well a country will fare in the international field of biotechnology.

As you review your country’s position on the innovation scorecard and its ranking in each category, think of specific changes—action items, if you will—that would push your country into a more competitive position.

For the first time, we list the Scientific American Worldview overall innovation scores in numerical order from the highest scoring country to the lowest—ranging from 39.04 down to 8.09. As shown here, the top five countries are the U.S., Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia. Notably, Switzerland and Finland scored within fractions of a point of placing fifth themselves.

A closer inspection of the overall innovation scores reveals many examples of countries in close clumps. For example, the innovation scores for all of the countries ranked fifth through tenth vary by less than 7 percent. Even across wider distances in the scorecard, many countries earned scores that vary by less than might be expected. For instance, the country coming in at number 20, Austria, received an overall innovation score that is only about 15 percent lower than France at number ten. Such close scores exist in many spots on this scorecard. Another example arises around the number 25 spot, where five countries—Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Estonia and Malaysia—received overall scores that lie within a roughly 5 percent range. Around the number 30 position, another clump of similar scores appear, wherein China, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Italy, the Slovak Republic, Lithuania and South Africa received overall innovation scores that vary by less than 10 percent.

Where a country lies on any biotechnology list, however, does not ensure overall success or failure. No one knew that better than baseball player Hammerin’ Hank Aaron. Three years into his professional career, his Atlanta Braves won the World Series in 1957. After his final season in 1976, Aaron held many records. He finished his career with a then all-time high of 755 home runs, being the first to break Babe Ruth’s home run record of 714. He also banged out 150 hits or more for 17 consecutive seasons. He still holds the record for the most bases in a career, the most extra-base hits and the most runs batted in. All of those home runs, bases and hits, though, were never enough to bring Aaron another World Series championship.

Likewise, a country might look great according to statistics in a biotech “record book” and never win the “World Series.” For example, Hong Kong grabbed the top spot on this year’s Enterprise Support index, with an overall score of 9.78, but it placed only 17th on the overall innovation score, due to poorer scores in our other categories.

A country can also finish near the top one year, and tumble down the list the next. For example, Singapore received the second spot on the overall innovation list in our 2010 edition with a score of 31, but it landed in eighth this year, with a score of 27.90. Although Singapore scored a bit higher in Enterprise Support and Intensity in 2011 versus 2010, its score fell by almost half in Education/Workforce, and it scored lower in Foundations as well.

Rather than simply focusing on this overall index, remember that the category and component scores tell us as much or more—just like Hank Aaron’s individual stats reveal the most luster from his stunning career.