Policy Research Institute page The Current State of Japanese Academia from the Perspective of Research Power

Printable PDF

Academia plays an important role as a starting point for drug discovery. This paper summarizes the current status of academia as confirmed at this point in time. As a result, the number of papers in Japan has stagnated since the 2000s. In addition, the number of internationally comparable researchers has shown a flat to slow downward trend since the 2000s. In particular, the number of young researchers under the age of 40 has been on a downward trend since 2010, and the ratio of young researchers has decreased to less than half since 1971. Furthermore, Japan's R&D expenditures have remained almost flat since the 2000s, and the growth rate over the past decade was inferior to that of other major countries*1. The current state of academia could be viewed as a general tide turning after the 2000s. The following is a report of our survey.

1. Introduction

As indicated in the February 15, 2024 press conference*2 by the head of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Japan, the style of drug discovery is changing with the change of modalities. Conventional drug discovery by a single company is becoming difficult, and collaboration with multiple partners is considered essential. The drug discovery ecosystem needs to be built as a place to realize this, and academia plays an important role as a starting point for drug discovery (e.g., seed creation). Therefore, we investigated the current state of academia, including international comparisons, focusing on the number of papers, the number of researchers, and R&D expenditures, which are all indicators of research strength.

2. current status of the number of papers

One way to quantify and compare research strength is to look at changes in the number of papers, which is the output of research and development. Figure 1 shows the changes in the number of papers*3 in all fields in major countries using the fractional count method. To make it easier to understand the changes in Japan, a graph excluding the U.S. and China is also shown. The fractional count method is a method in which the international coauthored papers are aggregated proportionally by the countries involved, and shows the contribution of each country to the production of papers. In addition, when looking at research strength, it is desirable to look at both quantitative and qualitative perspectives. It is common practice to use the total number of papers as the quantitative perspective, and the number of papers that are cited many times by other papers (Top 10% corrected papers, Top 1% corrected papers (hereafter Top10 number and Top1 number)) as the qualitative perspective.

Figure 1 Number of Papers, Top 10, and Top 1 in Major Countries
Source: Processed and prepared by the National Institute of Biomedical Innovation Policy based on "Science and Technology Indicators 2023 Statistics," National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology

As can be read from the graph, China's growth in the number of all papers, Top10, and Top1 was remarkable from the late 1990s, and it surpassed the U.S. to become No. 1 in the world in 2017 for the number of all papers, 2018 for the number of Top10, and 2019 for the number of Top1. The number of all papers in Japan showed growth exceeding that of major European countries in the 1980s and 1990s, and at one time was ranked second in the world after the U.S. However, a stagnant trend was seen after the 2000s, and the number of all papers in Japan showed an upward trend again after the latter half of the 2010s. On the other hand, Japan's Top 10 and Top 1 countries competed with Germany after the U.S. and U.K. from the 1980s to the 1990s, but stagnated after the 2000s, and the gap with the U.S., China, U.K., and Germany widened. Figure 2 shows the number of papers in the major countries and the number of T Figure 2 shows the chronological changes*4 in the world rankings of the number of papers, Top 10, and Top 1 of the major countries, and in 2020, they were ranked 5th in total number of papers, 13th in Top 10, and 12th in Top 1. Although the behavior differs depending on the number of papers, Top10, and Top1, it was confirmed that Japan's research power in terms of both quantitative and qualitative aspects has been stagnant or in a downward trend since the 2000s.

These figures for the number of papers, Top 10, and Top 1 are for Japan as a whole, including public institutions, companies, and non-profit organizations other than universities. The share of the university sector is stable at around 70% (78-69%) *4, indicating that the university sector plays an important role in the production of research papers. It seemed safe to regard the problem of Japan's research strength in terms of the number of papers as mainly a problem of academia such as universities.

Figure 2 Time-series changes in world ranks (number of papers, Top 10, and Top 1) of major countries
Source: "Benchmarking of Scientific Research 2023 (Survey Data - 329)" (August 2023), National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology

We continued to check the number of papers in the fields of clinical medicine and basic life sciences, which are considered to be particularly relevant to drug discovery research. The results are shown in Figures 3 and 4. To make it easier to understand the changes in Japan, the graphs excluding the U.S. and China are also shown at the same time. It should be noted that due to data limitations, these figures are for Japan as a whole.

Figure 3 Trends in the number of papers, Top 10, and Top 1 in the field of clinical medicine in major countries
Source: Processed and prepared by the National Institute of Biomedical Innovation Policy based on "Benchmarking of Scientific Research 2023" by the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)

In the field of clinical medicine, the U.S. remains No. 1 in the world in terms of the number of all papers, which is a quantitative measure, although China's growth in recent years has been remarkable. On the other hand, in terms of the number of Top 10 and Top 1 papers, which are considered from a qualitative perspective, the U.S. has not lost its dominance at this point, but in 2021, the U.S. will have approximately 2.2 times the number of Top 10 (12,350 vs. 5633) and 4.1 times the number of Top 1 (1498 vs. 364), showing a large difference from China.

Japan's number of all papers showed rapid growth in the 1980s and 1990s, temporarily stagnated in the 2000s, and showed a trend of growth again in the 2010s and thereafter. On the other hand, the number of Top 10 countries showed a temporary stagnation in the early 2000s, but maintained an increasing trend during the rest of the decade. However, the gap with the U.S., China, the U.K., and Germany is widening, and the gap with South Korea is narrowing. The gap with other major countries has been widening. Currently, it is competing with South Korea for the 7th place.

As described above, Japan's research strength in terms of the number of papers in the field of clinical medicine is expected to maintain an increasing trend in terms of quantity (total number of papers), while improving in terms of quality (Top 10 and Top 1).

Figure 4 Trends in the number of papers, Top 10, and Top 1 in major countries in basic life sciences
Source: Processed and prepared by the National Institute of Biomedical Innovation Policy based on "Benchmarking of Scientific Research 2023" by the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)

In the field of basic life sciences, China made remarkable progress in terms of quantity (total number of papers), surpassing the U.S. to become the world's No. 1 in 2020. In terms of quality, the U.S., which had been stagnant since the late 2010s, maintained its No. 1 position in the Top 10 in 2020, but China is rapidly catching up, and if this trend continues, it is expected to reverse the trend in recent years. If this trend continues, a reversal in recent years could be expected.

Looking at the situation in Japan, the number of total papers showed rapid growth in the 1980s and 1990s, and at one time occupied the second place in the world, but it showed a stagnant to declining trend after the 2000s, and then showed a growth trend again in the 2020s. Currently, it is competing with Germany for the third place after the U.S. and China. On the other hand, the Top 10 increased in the 1980s and 1990s, but showed a stagnant trend after the 2000s, and the gap with the U.K. and Germany widened. The number of Top 1s showed a stagnant trend in the 2000s, followed by a downward trend in the 2010s, and the gap with the U.K. and Germany has been widening. Currently, it is competing with South Korea for the 7th place.

As described above, Japan's research strength in the field of basic life sciences in terms of the number of papers is expected to maintain an upward trend in terms of quantity (total number of papers) from the 2020s onward, while improving in terms of quality (Top 10 and Top 1) as in the field of clinical medicine.

3) Constraints on research performance in academia

As we have seen in the previous chapter, it was thought that Japan's research strength in terms of the number of papers can be broadly understood as having undergone a general turn of the tide after the 2000s.

So, how do academia themselves feel about the constraints in improving their research performance? The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) conducts a "Survey on Full-Time Equivalent Data at Universities, etc. " *5 about once every five years. The survey is originally conducted for the purpose of obtaining coefficients for adjusting the number of researchers at universities and other institutions to internationally comparable full-time equivalent data (full-time equivalent coefficients: FTE coefficients), but the survey includes a section on research performance. The survey categorizes the factors in which faculty members feel constrained in improving their research performance into four categories: research personnel, research hours, research environment, and research funding, and surveys the degree to which they feel constrained on a 5-point scale*6. The most recent survey was conducted in FY 2018 and the results were released in June 2019. The results are shown in Figure 5. The majority of respondents (76.4%) indicated that "research time" was a constraint, followed by "research funding" (56.1%), "research personnel" (48.7%), and "research environment" (40.5%).

Figure 5 Most limiting factor for research performance
Source: MEXT Survey on full-time equivalent data at universities, etc., FY 2008 (summary)

Looking at the details in the order of the most frequent responses, the largest number of faculty members felt that "university administrative duties" (participation in faculty meetings and other internal meetings and related duties) were a constraint on their "research time," followed by "excessive teaching load. In terms of "research funding," the most common response was "Insufficient basic expenses," followed by "Difficulty in obtaining external research funds such as competitive grants. In terms of "research human resources," the most common response was "Insufficient master's and doctoral students," followed by "Insufficient young researchers (post-doctoral fellows). In terms of "research environment," the largest number of faculty members felt that "lack of research assistants and technicians to utilize and maintain research equipment and samples" was a constraint, followed by "availability of research equipment such as experimental equipment and large computers.

From the above, it was confirmed that academia firstly feels constraints in "research time" to improve research performance, and in "research personnel," they feel constraints in "human resources," such as a shortage of master's and doctoral students and young researchers. In addition, the respondents also felt constrained in terms of "money," such as basic expenses and external research funds. In addition, they wanted research assistants and research equipment as part of the "research environment," but this could be interpreted as an indirect "human" and "financial" issue. Therefore, we proceeded to investigate the current status of "people" and "money" in academia.

4. current status of research hours and human resources in academia

As we will discuss later, the limitation of "research hours" is directly related to the number of researchers, which is deeply related to "human resources. First, we checked the number of researchers in the university sector in major countries. Figure 6 shows the results as described in the "Science and Technology Indicators 2023" *7 published by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).

Figure 6 Trends in the number of researchers in university departments in major countries
Note: Since the definition and measurement methods of researchers differ from country to country, caution should be exercised when making international comparisons. See "Science and Technology Indicators 2023" for differences.
Source: Partially modified from the "Science and Technology Indicators 2023 Full Report," National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology

The increase in the number of researchers in China since the 2000s is a conspicuous result, and all major countries except the U.S. showed an increasing trend over time. What is odd is that there are three types of data (old standard, HC, and FTE) for Japan, and their behavior is different: the old standard before 2001 shows the total number of faculty members, postdoctoral fellows, medical staff, and other researchers; HC after 2002 means Head Count, and FTE means FTE. FTE after 2002 means Full Time Equivalent, which is the number of researchers who have actually dedicated their time to research work, and is calculated by multiplying the number of researchers in the old standard by the FTE factor. As already mentioned, the FTE coefficient (Full Time Equivalent) is obtained from the "Survey on Full Time Equivalent Data at Universities, etc." conducted by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). The number of FTE researchers is the value that can be compared internationally. In other words, the number of researchers in the university sector in Japan since the 2000s has consistently increased in terms of the number of HC researchers, while the number of FTE researchers, which is internationally comparable, has shown a flat to slowly decreasing trend. Figure 7 shows the change in the ratio of time spent on professional activities*5 of university faculty members, and it was assumed that the decrease in the ratio of time allocated to research activities was the cause of this trend.

Figure 7 Trends in the ratio of work activity hours of university and other faculty members
Source: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Survey on Full-time Equivalent Data at Universities and Other Institutions in FY 2008 (summary)

We continued our survey on the current status of the number of researchers in Japan by academic discipline. Table 1 shows the results. In the fields of science, engineering, and agriculture, there was no significant change in both the number of FTE researchers and the number of HC researchers. However, in the health field, which is assumed to be more closely related to drug discovery research capabilities, the number of HC researchers increased significantly (from 48,058 in 2002 to 65,585 in 2018), while the number of FTE researchers decreased (from 22,237 in 2002 to 19,519 in 2018). The number of FTE researchers decreased (from 22,237 in 2002 to 19,519 in 2018).

Table 1 Trends in the number of university faculty members by field of study
Source: MEXT Survey on full-time equivalent data at universities, etc., FY 2008 (summary)

Figure 8 shows the change in the percentage of time spent on professional activities of university faculty in the health field, and it was assumed that the decrease in the number of FTE researchers was due to the decrease in the percentage of time spent on research activities and the increase in the percentage of social service activities (other: medical practice activities, etc.), which is mainly responsible for the decrease in the number of FTE researchers. Although it is desirable to secure "research hours" to improve research performance in academia, the current decline in the proportion of time spent on research activities is offset by the increase in the number of personnel, and this is a problem that should not be underestimated.

Figure 8 Trends in the ratio of work activity hours of university faculty members in the health field (health)
Source: MEXT Survey on full-time equivalent data at universities, etc., FY 2008 (summary)

In the area of "research human resources," many academia felt constrained by the "human" aspect, such as the lack of master's and doctoral students and young researchers, but it was pointed out that the number of young researchers has a significant relationship to excellent research activities. The National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (now the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy) has surveyed the characteristics of research activities that have produced excellent results*8 and profiled top researchers*9. According to the survey, more than 70% of top researchers are affiliated with universities, and the average age is 39.9 years old, with more than half of them under 40 years old, indicating that there are relatively many "young" top researchers. The survey also pointed out the importance of overseas experience in fostering excellent researchers, as 27% of the respondents had post-doctoral experience and 37% had overseas work experience, with the majority of the former group having had post-doctoral experience overseas.

Figure 9 shows the number and composition of university main faculty by age group. It should be noted that these figures are the result of the Statistical Survey of School Teachers*10 and represent the number of full-time faculty members. As can be understood from the list, while the number of faculty members aged 40 and above has been increasing over time, the number of young faculty members under 40 has shown a flat trend in the mid-40,000 since the 1980s, and has been declining since the 2010s. In terms of composition, the percentage of young faculty under 40 has consistently declined, falling from 48.1% in 1971 to less than half of the total to 22.1% in 2019.

Figure 9 Trends in the number and composition of full-time university faculty members by age group
Source: MEXT "Statistical Survey of School Teachers", processed and prepared by the Pharmaceutical Industry Policy Institute

Figure 10 shows the number and composition of full-time university faculty by age group in the health field, which is assumed to be more closely related to drug discovery research capabilities, and shows that while the number of faculty over 40 years old has increased almost over time, the number of young faculty under 40 years old increased more than that of other age groups until the mid-1980s, but since then the number of young faculty under 40 years old has increased by around 20,000 Since then, however, the number has remained flat at around 20,000. In terms of composition, the percentage of young faculty members under the age of 40 remained stable until the mid-1980s, but since then the percentage has been decreasing over time, falling from 64.4% in 1971 to less than half, 30.1%, in 2019.

Figure 10 Trends in the number and composition of full-time university faculty members in the health field by age group
Source: MEXT "Statistical Survey of School Teachers", processed and prepared by the Pharmaceutical Industry Policy Institute

As described above, the number of researchers in academia in Japan (the number of HC researchers) was increasing. However, because the percentage of time dedicated to research activities has decreased over time, the number of internationally comparable FTE researchers in Japan has shown a flat to slow downward trend, while the number of FTE researchers in other major countries (excluding the U.S.) has been on the increase. Furthermore, in terms of the age structure of researchers, the percentage of young researchers under the age of 40, which used to account for more than half of the top researchers, has decreased to less than half since the beginning of the 1970s. It was confirmed that the current situation of "human resources" in Japanese academia is problematic both in terms of research time and research personnel.

In the profiles of top researchers, it was also pointed out that overseas experience is important for the development of excellent researchers. Figure 11 shows the number of researchers dispatched overseas in Japan. As can be understood from the list, the total number of researchers sent abroad was on an increasing trend until the COVID-19 pandemic (2019). However, the number of mid- to long-term researchers sent abroad for more than 30 days showed a decreasing trend after 2000 and remained almost flat in the low 4,000s since the late 2000s. The fact that overseas experience, which is important for fostering excellent researchers, has become limited could be interpreted as a further problem with the current state of "human resources" in Japanese academia.

Figure 11 Trends in the number of researchers dispatched overseas
Note: Short-term: within one month (30 days); medium- to long-term: for periods longer than one month (30 days)
Source: Partially modified from "Survey Report on Researcher Exchange - Status of International Research Exchange in FY2021 (March 2023)" *11, Institute for Future Engineering

5. current status of research funding in academia 6. current status of research funding in academia in Japan

As for the current status of "money" in Japanese academia, we proceeded to investigate research funding. First, Figure12*12 shows the trends of university sector R&D expenditures (nominal amount in terms of purchasing power parity of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)) in major countries. The results confirm that the U.S. is the world's number one country by a wide margin in terms of both value and growth. China (data missing since 2019) was assumed to be in second place and Germany in third. Japan was estimated to occupy fourth place, along with the United Kingdom (data missing for 2021).

Figure 12: Trends in University Sector R&D Expenditures in Major Countries
Note: The definition of the university sector differs from country to country, so care should be taken when making international comparisons. See "Science and Technology Indicators 2023" *7 for definition.
Source: Processed and prepared by the National Institute of Biomedical Innovation Policy based on "Science and Technology Indicators 2023 Statistics," National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

However, while other major countries' R&D expenditures have been growing over time, Japan's reached a record high in 1998 and have remained largely flat since the 2000s. Japan's R&D expenditure growth rate of 102% over the past 10 years (2011 vs. 2021) was lower than that of other major countries (133% in the US, 13250% in China*, 156% in Germany, 132% in France, and 177% in Korea), suggesting that the situation is worrisome from the perspective of international competition.

In order to confirm the situation in the health sector, which is assumed to be more closely related to drug discovery research capabilities, we continued our survey of university sector R&D expenditures and composition ratios by academic discipline in Japan. The results are shown in Figure 13. It should be noted that these figures are not adjusted for faculty personnel expenses by FTE coefficients. Therefore, the share of the health sector has also expanded over time, from 25.1% in 1981 to 34.3% in 2021.

Figure 13 Trends in R&D Expenditures and Composition Ratio of University Sectors by Academic Field in Japan
Note: This figure is the amount without adjusting for personnel expenses using FTE coefficients.
Source: Compiled by the National Institute of Biomedical Innovation Policy based on the "Science and Technology Indicators 2023 Statistics," National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).

In the previous chapter, we mentioned that the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) conducted a survey*8 on the characteristics of research activities that produced excellent results, and also analyzed research funding. According to the analysis, the median and mode of the research funds used to calculate the Top 10% corrected papers were 4.9 million yen and 1 million yen, respectively, indicating that many studies were conducted with relatively small amounts of research funds. In addition, 46.5% of the Top 10% corrected papers were the results of research using Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI), indicating that relatively small amounts of KAKENHI play an important role. However, it was pointed out that statistical data strongly indicated that the Top 1% corrected papers with particularly high citations tended to be generated from expensive research funds (20 million yen or more). In a similar study, the University of Tsukuba and Hirosaki University investigated the relationship between research funding and research results in the life science and medical fields*14. The results showed that the higher the research funding, the more research results can be generated, but that the generation of research results reached a plateau at 50 million yen or more, and that as for the efficiency of generating research results in relation to the total investment, allocating a small amount of research funding of 5 million yen or less to a large number of researchers is more efficient than allocating a large amount of research funding to a small number of researchers. The study also showed that the allocation of small research funds of less than 5 million yen to a large number of researchers produced more research results than the allocation of high research funds to a small number of researchers.

In Chapter 2, we mentioned that it is desirable to focus on both quantitative and qualitative aspects of Japan's research strength in terms of the number of papers. If more emphasis is placed on the quantitative perspective, it would be desirable to widely distribute relatively small amounts of research funds of about 5 million yen. On the other hand, if more emphasis is placed on the qualitative aspect, it was considered desirable to allocate a certain amount of research funds (20-50 million yen). While ensuring that the amount and growth rate of research funds are not inferior to international competition, it is desirable to strategically consider the allocation of such funds from qualitative and quantitative perspectives.

6. a discussion of the research power of japanese academia

In quantifying and comparing the research strength of Japanese academia, we looked at the current situation by focusing on changes in the number of research papers, which is the output of R&D. We confirmed that it is important to clearly distinguish and be aware of two perspectives when looking at the number of papers: quantitative (total number of papers) and qualitative (number of Top 10 and Top 1 revised papers). The results of the survey confirmed that it is important to clearly distinguish and be aware of the two perspectives: quantitative (total number of papers) and qualitative (Top 10 and Top 1 corrected papers). In addition, when looking at "human resources," which is thought to have an impact on Japan's research strength, it is important not to simply look at the number of researchers, but to distinguish between the number of FTE researchers, which takes into account the percentage of time dedicated to research work, and the number of HC researchers, which is simply the number of researchers. Furthermore, when looking at "money," it is important to distinguish and be aware that R&D expenditures include OECD estimates in which faculty personnel costs are corrected by the FTE coefficient (full-time equivalent (FTE) coefficient) and R&D expenditures in which faculty personnel costs are fully accounted for.

Taking a broad view of the current state of Japanese academia, we may conclude that the tide has turned almost since the 2000s in several areas, including research power in terms of the number of papers, research hours, research personnel, international exchange, and research funding.

Conclusion

If we consider only the perspective of extending the healthy life expectancy of the Japanese people through innovative drug discovery, it is not necessary for the Japanese pharmaceutical industry, which is exposed to global competition, to rely on Japanese academia, and it is possible to think that global industry-academia collaboration should be pursued. In a study by Sadao Nagaoka, Research Advisor and Junichi Nishimura, Visiting Fellow*15 of the Policy Research Institute (PIRI), in Policy Research Institute News No. 71, it is pointed out that approximately 90% of scientific papers on which the Japanese pharmaceutical industry relies are foreign papers, and that the ability to absorb global developments in science is important. At the same time, however, it is also pointed out that Japan has a leading advantage in utilizing domestic science, and that it is important to take advantage of this advantage. In order to take advantage of this leading edge, it is important for Japan's pharmaceutical industry to contribute as much as possible to improving the research capabilities of Japanese academia.

Furthermore, the Japanese pharmaceutical industry is also expected to play a role in contributing to Japan's economic growth. Considering Japan's economic growth, improving the research capabilities of Japanese academia is important not only for Japan's pharmaceutical industry, but also for other industries and social development. I thought that it is important for Japan's pharmaceutical industry to make feasible contributions to academia and grow hand in hand with it, not only to improve Japan's drug discovery capabilities, but also to improve the country's national strength and social development.

( Minoru Ito, Senior Researcher; Yosuke Takahashi, Senior Researcher; Hodai Okada, Kiyoshi Morimoto, Shinji Tsubakihara, Pharmaceutical and Industrial Policy Research Institute)

Back to Newsletter Top

TOP