State Rankings Part 3: Research
11/01/2006
The map and the charts below comprise the third installment of our ongoing series that ranks the U.S. states for their micro- and nanotechnology development.
The category presented here - research - is one of five categories used to generate a state’s overall score. In the previous two issues, analyses of venture capital investment and micro and nanotech density were presented. A compilation of the current series of individual categories is scheduled for the July/August 2007 issue of Small Times magazine.
null
1. California
Due to its sheer size and the diversity of its economy, California took the lead not only in the overall research category, but also in three out of the four micro- and nanotech-specific measures evaluated in the charts on the facing page.
However, California’s third-place slot in the measure that compares each state’s number of micro-nano grants to its overall number of grants may well be the most impressive showing. Ohio and Virginia edged out California for the top spot in that category, virtually tying. But their overall grant figures - both in number of grants and dollars awarded - are a mere fraction of that of the Golden State. The fact that California has a sizeable percent of its grant money going toward micro- and nanotech is an impressive achievement given the size of the state.
2. Illinois
Illinois stepped up a notch in the research category this year, moving from the third to the second slot, just barely nudging its way past Massachusetts. It did so on the basis of a strong, balanced showing across the board. It was in the top-five in all four of the micro- and nanotech-specific categories, and was in the top-two in one of them. By contrast, most other states had more checkered performances. In addition, Illinois benefited from strong overall expenditures on research relative to its gross state product.
3. Massachusetts
Massachusetts also moved up one rung from last year in the research category, shifting from fourth to third. The Bay State took a hit in the measure that compares the number of micro-nano grants to the state’s overall grants, just barely missing the top-10 while other, smaller states made the list. But it was second only to California for its share of micro-nano dollars compared to the country’s overall allocations, and its plethora of micro- and nano-related research centers pushed it up further, enough to overtake New York by a comfortable margin.
4. New York
Illinois and Massachusetts had closely trailed New York state in the research category of the 2005 state rankings but they got a leg up over the Empire State this year. Like Massachusetts, New York takes a hit for having a big economy, and it also just missed a top-10 slot in the measure that compares the number of micro-nano grants to a state’s overall grants. However, top-four performances in all the other categories made it a solid fourth, just ahead of Pennsylvania.
5. Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania benefited from a high density of micro-nano grant activity compared to its overall grants. It was third in the measure that evaluates both number of grants and dollars compared to the U.S. as a whole. A mixed bag of industry, clusters both in eastern and western Pennsylvania, and a burgeoning biotech hub in the east are fueling the effort.
6. Texas
Texas made strong strides, moving to the number six slot from ninth in the research category last year. The state posted strong results in all the micro- and nanotech-specific categories.
7. Maryland
Maryland fell from the fifth slot in 2005 to the seventh slot this year. Though it wasn’t in the top-10 in two out of the four categories shown, in both cases it was just shy of the list. Moreover, strong expenditures on R&D relative to the state’s gross state product helped it pull ahead of Michigan even though Michigan fared better in most of the micro- and nano-specific categories.
8. Michigan
Michigan moved onto the top-10 in the research category by eking into the top-10 in all four of the categories presented here, though it never scored better than eighth in any individual measure.
9. Ohio
Ohio managed to top one of the measures used to compute the research category score by besting California in the category that compares a state’s number of micro-nano grants to its overall number of grants. It posted strong showings in the two measures that evaluate a state’s performance as a percent of overall U.S. activity, but it suffered in the research center tally, where it didn’t make the top-10. Nevertheless, it moved to ninth in research from tenth last year.
10. Virginia
Virginia followed Ohio with a strong showing in its number of micro-nano grants relative to overall grant activity. That, and an eighth-place showing in one of the other categories, helped it creep into the top-10.
- David Forman
Four micro- and nano-specific measures are used to generate the research scores reflected in the map. Individual scores for the top-10 in each measure are reflected in the charts below.
In addition to the four measures below, data on overall academic, federal and industrial R&D expenditures are also factored into a state’s final score in the research category. These data are compared to a state’s gross state product.
The final scores on the map are calculated by taking the average of the four scores shown here as well as a final score for the overall R&D expenditures (not shown), then normalizing the result on a 100-point scale.
Comparison of number of micro-nano grants to state's overall grants
null
Comparison of state's dollars from micro-nano grants to total U.S. dollars
null
Comparison of number of micro-nano grants to total U.S. micro-nano grants
null
Comparison of state's number of research centers to total U.S. centers
null
Sources: Small Times uses proprietary data for each state’s individual micro-nano activities, in addition to data from the National Science Foundation and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.