In May 2023 over 90,000 developers responded to our annual survey about how they learn and level up, which tools they're using, and which ones they want.

Welcome to the 2023 Developer Survey! For 13 years, we've delivered industry-leading insights regarding the developer community.

This is the voice of the developer. Analysts, IT leaders, reporters, and other developers turn to this report to stay up to date with the evolving developer experience, technologies that are rising or falling in favor, and to understand where tech might be going next.

This year, we went deep into AI/ML to capture how developers are thinking about it and using it in their workflows. Stack Overflow is investing heavily in enhancing the developer experience across our products, using AI and other technology, to get people to solutions faster. Stack Overflow Labs is where we're sharing all we're doing - check it out for a deep dive on AI/ML insights as well as see what we're experimenting with so far.

Happy reading!

Learning to code from online resources increased from 70% to 80% since the 2022 survey.

Respondents 18 and under are those most frequently selecting online resources (e.g., videos, blogs, forums) to learn from. Respondents 25 - 34 were the top age cohort to have learned from online courses or certifications (52%) but still learn more from traditional school (55%).

This year, Docker is the top-used other tool amongst all respondents (53%) rising from its second place spot last year.

People learning to code are more likely to be using npm or Pip than Docker (50% and 37% respectively vs. 26%). Both are used alongside languages that are popular with students (JavaScript and Python respectively).

Why complicate it? Jira and Confluence are the top two async tools amongst all developers similar to last year, but this year a new addition to the list broke top three: 27% of respondents use markdown files as an async tool.

People who are learning to code are using GitHub Discussions more than markdown files (31% vs. 29%) and turn to Notion (26%) and Trello (23%) more than professional developers.

Rust is the most admired language, more than 80% of developers that use it want to use it again next year. Compare this to the least admired language: MATLAB. Less than 20% of developers who used this language want to use it again next year.

Phoenix is the most admired web framework and technology; more developers would choose to work with Phoenix again than those who have used the three most common: React, Node.js, and Next.js.

More respondents want to continue using Cargo next year than the top competitors (top 6 tools that respondents want to use next year), however, Docker has almost double the proportion of respondents that want to use it next year compared to all other options.

42% of ChatGPT users want to use Google Bard or Bing AI next year. These users are enjoying their experience: 79% want to use ChatGPT again next year.

Zig is the highest-paid language to know this year (a new addition), while Clojure gets knocked from the top spot with a 10% decrease from 2022.

Dart and SAS saw the highest increase in median pay during 2023, growing more than 20% year-over-year.

70% of all respondents are using or are planning to use AI tools in their development process this year. Those learning to code are more likely than professional developers to be using or use AI tools (82% vs. 70%).

For all respondents this year we see a slight increase in “Independent contractor, freelancer, or self-employed” and equal-sized decrease in full-time students (1 percentage point) compared to last year and other employment status' changing less than that.

The costs of investing in oneself has risen with inflation in 2023 but not enough to sway many from the opportunity to level up their developer skills.

Hybrid is here to stay for larger organizations; over half of employees in 5,000+ organizations are hybrid. The smaller organizations are most likely to be in-person, with one out of five organizations with fewer than 20 people report being in-person.

More developers this year are working in-person this year than last year (+2%). Return to office initiatives aside, coding easily lends itself to fully remote work and one third or more of all organization sizes are still fully remote.

63% of all respondents spend more than 30 minutes a day searching for answers or solutions to problems. People managers are more likely to spend less time searching than individual contributors (42% vs. 36% spend 30 minutes or less).

Developer Profile

What we know about the global community of developers

  • Education →
  • Learning to code →
  • Experience →
  • Developer roles →
  • Key territories →
  • Demographics →

Most developers (84%) have a post-secondary education, having some college or more.

Educational attainment

Most professional developers have attained a Bachelor's degree (47%) with a quarter attaining a Master's degree (26%).

For the developers who are learning to code, more than half are between 18-24 years old, so it makes sense that they are more likely to not have a Bachelor's degree. They are likely still in school.

Learning to code

There are as many ways to learn to code as there are coders. Developers use a variety of tools and resources to build their skills.

Learning how to code

Online resources to learn how to code.

Like previous years, technical documentation and Stack Overflow are the top online resources people use when learning to code, with blogs rounding out the top three. Well-written documentation, an active community providing solutions, and regular posts are the trifecta of enabling people to teach themselves about a technology.

Developers see value in a variety of other resources like how-to videos, written tutorials, books, forums—they piece together the resources and formats that work best for their learning style.

Online course platforms to learn how to code

Udemy maintains its place as the most popular online course or certification program for learning how to code.

The majority of developers are in their early to mid-career stage.

Years coding

48% of respondents have been coding for less than ten years.

Australia and the United Kingdom respondents are the most experienced, with an average of 17.5 and 17 years of experience coding respectively.

Years coding professionally

A majority of respondents (71%) have been working for 14 or fewer years as professional developers, and 24% have worked 15 to 29 years. This shows developers in the survey have started to skew more experienced compared to last year where 75% worked 14 or less years and 20% 15-29 years.

Years of professional coding experience by developer type

Senior executives have the highest average years of professional coding experience (17.4), followed by desktop or enterprise applications developers (16.4) and educators (15.8).

Developer roles

Few developers consider themselves to be a single developer type and instead showcase a diversity of skills.

Developer type

Full-stack, back-end, front-end, and desktop/enterprise app developers continue to account for the majority of all respondents. We asked about developer advocates for the first time this year—almost .3% classify themselves as this type of developer.

Key territories

Across the world, developers and technologists turn to Stack Overflow to gain and share knowledge. Our survey received responses from almost every country on Earth.

The United States and Germany provided the highest volume of survey responses (30% combined), followed by India and UKI (UK and Northern Ireland).

The top ten countries account for 60% of all respondents. Germany overtook India to move into second place this year, a reverse of 2022's placement. Australia broke into the top ten, coming in at ninth and displacing Spain this year.

Demographics

We reduced the number of demographic questions this year, only asking about age.

43% of Professional Developers are 25-34 years old. But we see that more than half of the respondents learning to code are 18-24 years old.

Each year we explore the tools and technologies developers are currently using and the ones they want to use.

This year, we included new questions about AI tools.

We also introduce a new way to look at the relationship between Worked With vs. Want to Work With, calling this Admired and Desired.

  • Most popular technologies →
  • Admired and Desired →
  • Worked with vs. want to work with →
  • Top paying technologies →

Most popular technologies

This year, we're comparing the popular technologies across three different groups: All respondents, Professional Developers, and those that are learning to code.

Programming, scripting, and markup languages

2023 continues JavaScript’s streak as its eleventh year in a row as the most commonly-used programming language. Python has overtaken SQL as the third most commonly-used language, but placing first for those who are not professional developers or learning to code (Other Coders).

A few technologies moved up a spot this year (Bash/Shell, C, Ruby, Perl, and Erlang) with two moving up two spots (Elixir and Lisp). The big mover, gaining seven spots since 2022 was Lua, an embeddable scripting language.

Professional developers top three technologies are the same as last year—JavaScript, HTML/CSS, and SQL.

But it’s a different picture for those learning to code. HTML/CSS and JavaScript are almost tied as the most popular languages for people learning to code. Student developers use Python more than SQL (59% vs. 37%), while professional developers report using SQL more than Python (52% vs 45%).

Compared to Professional Developers, those learning to code are more likely to report using Java (37% vs 31%), C++ (32% vs 20%), and C (32% vs 17%).

This year, PostgreSQL took over the first place spot from MySQL. Professional Developers are more likely than those learning to code to use PostgreSQL (50%) and those learning are more likely to use MySQL (54%).

MongoDB is used by a similar percentage of both Professional Developers and those learning to code and it’s the second most popular database for those learning to code (behind MySQL).

Cloud platforms

AWS remains the most used cloud platform for all respondents. AWS handily makes it to the top spot, almost doubling the percentange of the second most used cloud platform for all respondents, Azure.

People learning to code are using AWS (19%) at parity with two other cloud platforms (19% Google Cloud and 19% Firebase) but use Azure much less than all respondents (11% vs. 26%). Interestingly, Heroku was the most used cloud platform last year by those learning to code but it dropped to fifth most used this year.

You can see the inroads that Azure has with organizations—almost three times as many professional developers are using Azure compared to people who are learning to code (28% vs. 11%).

Web frameworks and technologies

Node.js and React.js are the two most common web technologies used by all respondents.

Professional Developers use both fairly equally and those learning to code use Node.js more than React (52% vs. 48%). jQuery and Express are the next two popular web technologies for all respondents, and jQuery is used more by Professional Developers than those learning to code (24% vs 18%), whereas Express is used more by those learning than professionals (25% vs. 20%).

Next.js moved from 11th place in 2022 to 6th this year, likely driven by its popularity with those learning to code.

Other frameworks and libraries

This year we disaggregated .NET to be more specific, and specifically .NET (5+) is top of the list again this year for other frameworks and libraries. Those learning to code are using NumPy and Pandas more than .NET (5+).

We added a few new options this year as well, and see RabbitMQ is fairly popular with professionals (14%). Python-compatible libraries continue the trend of scoring higher in this category amongst those learning to code, like last year, but interspersed amongst old favorites and new options, we see Opencv and OpenGL rise up into the top 10 list (13% and 11% respectively).

Other tools

Integrated development environment.

Visual Studio Code remains the preferred IDE across all developers, increasing its use among those learning to code compared to professional developers (78% vs. 74%).

Asynchronous tools

Synchronous tools.

The three most popular synchronous tools are universal for all respondents: Microsoft Teams, Slack, and Zoom. Zoom was top of the list last year but is third place this year with about 10 percentage points fewer people having worked with it in the past year.

For those learning, Discord and Whatsapp are used more than any of the top three (70% and 45% respectively).

Operating system

Windows is the most popular operating system for developers, across both personal and professional use.

AI Search Tools

This is a new section this year, and respondents' top choice for AI search tools is ChatGPT: 83% of respondents have used it in the past year. This is above and beyond the second choice of Bing AI with 20% having used it.

The hype around emerging AI search technology has room to grow while the ChatGPT competitors grow their user base; only four tools had 10% or higher selection for those that want to try it in the next year.

AI Developer Tools

In addition to asking about search tools beginning this year, we also asked about AI developer tools. GitHub Copilot is the overall pick for most used AI developer tool with 55% of respondents using it this past year, quadrupling the second top pick of Tabnine at 13%.

Those learning are using Tabnine a little more (18%) and Copilot a little less (45%), possibly due to costs associated with Copilot.

Admired and Desired

In addition to reporting what popular technologies developers used in the past year, we have some technologies/tools that developers are currently using and know they want to use again in the future.

This year we added a new section to the survey results for technology trends for those who have used or want to use programming languages, tools, environments, libraries, etc. that we have dubbed “Admired and Desired”. To better gauge hype versus reality, we created a visualization that shows the distance between the proportion of respondents who want to use a technology (“desired”) and the proportion of users that have used the same technology in the past year and want to continue using it (“admired”). Wide distances means that momentum generated by the hype grows with hands-on use, and shorter distances means that the hype is doing much of the heavy lifting as far as general popularity is concerned. For example, we can see JavaScript, our most used programming language since 2011, has a relatively short distance between admired and desired (<10 percentage points), while Rust, a top choice for developers who want to use a new technology for the past 8 years, shows a wide distance (>60 percentage points); Rust is a language that generates for desire to use it once you get to know it than JavaScript. Seeing this growth in admiration for certain technologies gives us insight into what has staying power and what needs help in order to generate coveted evangelists to convert new users that will stick around.

This new visualization of the data replaces the old Loved, Dreaded, Wanted analysis.

PostgreSQL, Redis, and Datomic are the most admired databases with Datomic having the least users. That kind of admiration should push others to consider Datomic as a viable option.

Hetzner and Vercel have a large proportion that have used and want to continue using them (69%+); more developers would choose to work with these two cloud platforms over those that would choose to and have worked with the top three (AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud).

The most admired of the other frameworks and libraries category are Tauri, Hugging Face Transformers and .NET(5+). .NET(5+) is the most popular of it's category this year, while Tauri and Hugging Face Transformers are much less well known but have more admiration among its users.

Visual Studio Code is the preferred IDE as far as what users want but Neovim has a higher proportion of users that want to continue using it next year (81% vs 77%).

Markdown files are the second most desired asynchronous tool and the most admired asynchronous tool. Markdown files can be deployed in various hosted instances and show an opportunity for paid solutions to reduce friction for sharing information.

Microsoft Teams and Zoom have the lowest proportion of users that want to continue using given first-hand experience out the top five solutions users want to use next year.

Developers want to keep using ChatGPT for their AI Search. Other tools they want to use are Phind and WolframAlpha.

Developers want to continue using GitHub Copilot and, in a flip, we see more developers overall who want to try it over the next year than those currently using Copilot.

Worked with vs. want to work with

Developers are naturally curious and interested in new technologies. We look at what technologies they are interested in trying based on what they are using now.

A lot of our top used programming languages are popular because those that use them want to use them again. JavaScript, TypeScript, and HTML/CSS users all selected these three languages as their top three they want to use next year.

Minimum 5,000 respondents per connection.

Minimum 500 respondents per connection.

~11K PostgreSQL users want to use Redis next year and ~9K Redis users want to use PostgreSQL next year, an indication of complementary database environments among our top ten.

~14K AWS developers—a little less than half—want to develop in Google Cloud or Microsoft Azure next year.

Minimum 1,000 respondents per connection.

Minimum 100 respondents per connection.

More jQuery users want to use Node.js or React next year rather than jQuery.

Minimum 4,000 respondents per connection.

Minimum 400 respondents per connection.

The top three selections .NET(5+) users want to use next year are .NET(5+), .NET MAUI, and .NET Framework (1.0 - 4.8). .NET favoritism is strong within their community.

We see a lot of people working with npm, Kubernetes, and Docker who also want to work with those same technologies.

More than half of Visual Studio users want to use VS Code next year, while just 20% of VS Code users want to use Visual Studio next year. VS Code has a wide array of extensions and plugins unlike Visual Studio, making it more compatible for more developer needs.

Jira and Confluence are most closely interconnected, which makes sense given they are under the same company.

We see interest in working with other asynchronous tools, likely because each of these tools serves a different purpose in a developer’s workflow.

Discord is the third pick for synch tools users want to use next year for all three of the top synch tools users have used this past year: Microsoft Teams, Slack, and Zoom.

70%+ of GitHub Copilot users want to use it again next year.

Top paying technologies

Change in salaries between 2022 and 2023.

Median salary for all respondents increased 10% and increased 11% for professional developers.

This was a new section for 2023 – we have a deeper dive into all of this data on our Stack Overflow Labs write-up .

We wanted to gain insight into the real sentiments behind this year’s surge in AI popularity. Is it making a real impact in the way developers work or is it all hype?

  • Sentiment and usage →
  • Developer tools →

Sentiment and usage

We asked a number of questions this year about perceptions of AI, how AI tools may or may not impact developer workflows, and more. We have a deeper dive into all of this data on our Stack Overflow Labs write-up

AI tools in the development process

Ai tool sentiment.

77% of all respondents are favorable or very favorable of AI tools for development. Professional developers are more likely to be indifferent than those learning to code (17% vs. 15%).

Developer tools

Benefits of ai tools.

Increasing productivity is the biggest benefit that developers see from AI tools. Speeding up learning and greater efficiency are tied for secondary benefits.

Accuracy of AI tools

We see developers split on their trust in the accuracy of the AI output from tools. About 42% trust the accuracy of the output, while 31% are on the fence.

AI in the development workflow

Those currently using AI tools mostly report benefits for writing code, while those not interested in using AI tools find this the least beneficial. This disconnect most likely is with the fundamental difference of type of developers not interested in using these tools with those that are interested and have more applicable use cases for the current functionality available.

AI tools next year

Regardless of being a professional developer or someone learning to code, people believe that their development workflow will be different in a year because of AI tools.

  • Employment →
  • Company info →
  • Purchasing technology →
  • Coding outside of work →

Employment status

Employment status by geography.

Full-time employment has gone down in the top five countries while Independent contractor, freelancer, or self-employed has gone up (all less than 1%).

Work environment

Company info, company size.

40% of respondents work for an organization that has less than 100 employees.

Salary by developer type

Senior roles like c-suite executives and engineering managers tend to have the highest salaries.

In Germany, engineering managers make comparable salaries to c-suite executives, and in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada we see that Developer Experience professionals have as high or higher salaries than c-suite.

Median yearly salary in USD

Salary and experience by developer type

Years of experience continues to be the determining factor in higher salaries. The three highest-paid roles have, on average, more than 11 years of experience.

Salary and experience by language

Zig developers are paid the most per years of experience compared to other languages (11 years average) with the same or more experience. Raku and Cobol developers have much more experience (19 years average) but make at least 25% less.

Purchasing technology

Influence on technology purchases.

Similarly to last year, 66% of Professional Developers have at least some influence over their organization’s purchases of new technologies.

Developer positions with the most influence are senior executives and engineering managers; 99% of senior-level positions have some or a great deal of influence when purchasing new technologies, followed by 86% of engineering managers.

Short list or investigate new tech purchases

Most respondents investigate new technology purchases on their own (80%) instead of relying on a list provided to them.

Researching new tools and technologies

Starting a free trial is the most common way to evaluate new tools and is up 2% among all respondents from last year's survey.

Full-stack and mobile developers prefer to start a free trial, while SRE and embedded application developers are more likely to ask a colleague/friend, indicating a need for different perspectives in the research process for certain roles.

Coding outside of work

Most Professional Developers code outside of work as a hobby (70%), but 37% code outside of work for professional development or self-paced learning from online courses.

Community is at the center of all that we do. Here we take a look at how people use Stack Overflow and how connected they feel to the community.

  • Stack Overflow site use →

Stack Overflow site use

Visiting sites across stack overflow and stack exchange.

Less than 1% of respondents have never visited Stack Overflow or the Stack Exchange Network. For those learning, it's 4%.

Developers learning to code are mostly using online resources, but are also more likely to use online courses to learn and get up-to-speed on questions they may ask or search for on Stack Overflow.

Frequency of visiting Stack Overflow

92.5% visit Stack Overflow at least weekly or a few times a month.

Have an account on Stack Overflow

Seven out of ten respondents have a Stack Overflow account.

Frequency of participation on Stack Overflow

Of those with a Stack Overflow account, a majority (39%) are participating on the site less than once per month or monthly.

Feel like a part of the Stack Overflow community

30% of respondents consider themselves “somewhat” or “definitely” a member of the Stack Overflow community. Of these respondents, 63% are between the ages of 25-44 and most likely have enough but not too much work experience to ask and answer questions compared to their more junior or senior counterparts.

Percent who consider themselves definitely or somewhat part of the Stack Overflow community.

Professional Developers

We asked Professional Developers to tell us about what impacts their productivity at work, how often it happens, and how much time that takes out of their day. We also asked them about the developer experience at work—do they have the processes, tools, and programs to make it easier to do their jobs?

  • Productivity impacts →
  • Developer Experience →

Productivity impacts

Participation in professional developer series.

49% of all respondents agreed to participate in this year's professional developer series, resulting in over 43,000 responses—6K more than last year.

Individual contributor or people manager

The vast majority of respondents (86%) are individual contributors.

Years of professional work experience

27% of respondents are 5-9 years into their professional careers.

This is inline with the majority response individual contributors (28% for 5-9 years), rather than people managers (21% for 5-9 years).

Most respondents are individual contributors and are in the IT industry (49%), followed by financial services and supply chain.

Ability to find knowledge and information within their organization

83% of respondents agree or strongly agree that they have interactions outside of their immediate team. The collaboration among developers and coworkers to find solutions at work is strong.

People managers more so than individual contributors (75% vs 66%) agree or strongly agree that they know which system or resource to use to find the answers they need. Managers help remove blockers for their team so this makes sense.

Interactions with team members and managers aren't enough to help developers as more than half (53%) of developers agree or strongly agree that they are slowed down at work waiting on answers.

In a new question this year, we asked if people feel like they have what they need to quickly understand and work on any area of their company's code. About half of developers say they have what they need, which means that the other half don't feel confident they have what they need to quickly understand and work on a new area.

Frequency of productivity frictions

90% of developers interact with members outside their team at least once per week.

People Managers more frequently than individual contributors need help from members outside their team: 22% (vs. 12%) find themselves doing this three or more times per week.

Daily time spent searching for answers/solutions

Daily time spent answering questions.

49% of all respondents spend more than 30 minutes a day answering questions.

We would expect people managers are more likely to spend more time each day answering questions; 36% versus only 16% of individual contributors spend an hour or more answering questions.

Developer Experience

Developer experience: processes, tools, and programs within an organization.

Most Professional Developers report having CI/CD, automated testing, and DevOps available at their organization.

Slightly more developers report having observability tools than a developer portal to make it easy to find tools and services (39% vs. 37%).

16% of organizations have AI-assisted technology.

Methodology

How we planned and analyzed our survey

  • Participants →

This report is based on a survey of 89,184 software developers from 185 countries around the world. This is the number of responses we consider “qualified” for analytical purposes based on consenting to share their information in this survey and finishing all the required questions; approximately 2,000 responses were not included in this analysis.

The survey was fielded from May 8, 2023 to May 19, 2023.

The median time spent on the survey for qualified responses was almost 18 minutes, an increase we expected this year because of additional questions asked.

Respondents were recruited primarily through channels owned by Stack Overflow. The top sources of respondents were onsite messaging, blog posts, email/newsletter subscribers, banner ads, and social media posts. Since respondents were recruited in this way, highly-engaged users on Stack Overflow were more likely to notice the prompts to take the survey over the duration of the collection promotion.

Due to United States transport/export sanctions, our survey was, unfortunately, inaccessible to prospective respondents in Crimea, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria, due to the traffic being blocked by our third-party survey software. While some respondents used VPNs to get around the block, the limitation should be kept in mind when interpreting survey results.

Many questions were only shown to respondents based on their previous answers. For example, questions about jobs and work were only shown to those who said they were working in a job.

We asked respondents about their salaries. First, we asked what currency each respondent typically used. Then we asked the respondents what their salary was in that currency annually.

The salary question, like most on the survey, was optional. There were 48,026 respondents who gave us salary data. Salary comparisons in the Technology section bring in all salaries provided by respondents that were associated with having worked with a particular programming language. Salary comparisons in the Work section only compare salaries for those that indicated their developer role, excluding write-in responses, regardless of whether they provided a salary.

We converted salaries from user currencies to USD using the exchange rate on June 2, 2023.

Less than 1% of salaries inside and outside of the US were excluded because they exceeded threshold values.

To identify which technologies to include in the survey this year, included those used in the previous year and added popular ones written in as "Other". We submitted this list to our Meta community to solicit feedback and finalize a collection of technologies.

The questions were organized into several blocks of questions, which were randomized in order.

Free form text responses are primarily used to influence future survey choices but are not included in the published results.

Corrections to the results site since June 13, 2023: Updated the salary filter for sample size so that subsets of 30 or less are filtered from results, updated the AI section for 'AI Tools next year' as it was erroneously displaying professional coder responses in the all responsents tab, and updated Professional Developers section to display a new question this year for industry.

How do you feel about the length of the survey this year?

The majority of respondents felt like this year’s survey was an appropriate length.

How easy or difficult was this survey to complete?

2% of respondents felt like this year’s survey was difficult.

Participants

Who participated in this survey.

Similar to previous years the overwhelming majority of respondents are a developer by profession.

UNESCO

  • Toggle navigation
  • Explore Themes
  • Document Library
  • Visualisation Gallery
  • Methodology
  • Data for Sustainable Development - UIS Blog
  • Training and Workshops
  • UNESCO website

Launch of the 2022 Survey of Research and Experimental Development Statistics for SDG 9.5

The UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) has just launched its 2022 Survey of Research and Development (R&D) Statistics for the reference year 2021 to ensure the timely collection of data for the monitoring of SDG 9.5. The questionnaire and related materials are available on the UIS website at: http://uis.unesco.org/uis-questionnaires .

As part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Agenda 2030, countries have pledged to “build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation”. In particular, SDG Target 9.5 calls upon nations to encourage innovation and substantially increase the numbers of researchers, as well as public and private spending on R&D. The UIS, as the custodian agency, collects data and produces two key indicators to monitor progress towards this SDG target – i) SDG 9.5.1 R&D expenditure as a proportion of GDP and ii) SDG 9.5.2 Researchers (in full-time equivalent) per million inhabitants . To reduce the reporting burden on Member States, only the essential data points needed to produce the above indicators are collected in the Survey.

Country-level data and indicators from this Survey will be released by the UIS in 2023 through its data portal (UIS.stat), and the UIS Bulk Data Download Service (BDDS) . As the official source for R&D data for the United Nations, you will also find UIS data cited in many global indices, reports and databases.

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Home

  •   Facebook
  •   Twitter
  •   Linkedin
  •   Digg
  •   Reddit
  •   Pinterest
  •   Email

Latest Earthquakes |    Live WebChat   Share Social Media  

Climate R&D - 2023 Year in Review

2023 was another productive year for the USGS Climate Research & Development Program! Below are some summaries and highlights of Program work from the past year.

Mission and Goals

The Climate Research & Development Program (Climate R&D) is at the frontier of interdisciplinary and integrated scientific research understanding patterns, processes, and impacts (past, present, and future) of changing climate, environment, and land use on the Earth system. Current goals are:

  • Understanding the processes that influence cycling of water, nutrients, and carbon in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems including the impacts of environmental extremes and disturbance;
  • Documenting patterns of change, developing a process-based understanding of drivers of change, as well as predicting ecosystem responses to change in land use/land cover, environmental conditions, and climate;
  • Using paleoclimate and instrumental records to document magnitudes, patterns, and impacts of past and recent change on North American ecosystems and using this knowledge to improve future climate models. 

To address these goals, research is carried out in many ecosystems, including wetlands, tundra and sea ice, rangelands, forests, drylands, freshwater, coastal and marine systems, and mountain ecosystems, as well as some urban areas, across North America with the help of partners around the world.

Selected Program Stats

Sustained 39 research projects, published over 200 scientific articles and data releases, mentored over 100 interns or students, supported over 150 scientific researchers and technicians.

Program scientists also updated the National Climate Change Viewer (NCCV), a premier web application for visualizing climate projects across the contiguous United States. The updated tool incorporates the latest CMIP6 climate change models and integrates new guidance on model summarization and weighting. 

Science Spotlights

Below we've highlighted a handful of exciting accomplishments and work completed by Program scientists this past year. 

Coastal Wetland Resilience and Sea Level Rise

coastal wetland plants in an estuary

Coastal wetlands have the ability to keep pace with moderate amounts of sea level rise by trapping sediments and sequestering carbon, raising their surface elevation. However, there has been ongoing scientific debate about how much sea level rise coastal wetlands can handle. A new study published in Nature by USGS scientists and their academic partners from around the world, examines how with rising temperatures, sea level rise rates will increase faster, and this will impact the resilience of coastal wetlands. The study determined that at rates above 7mm/year, which are predicted with 2 degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels, most coastal wetlands will reach a tipping point that exceeds their capacity to adjust to these rising sea levels and very likely drown. This research has important implications for management and coastal communities around the world who rely on wetlands as natural protection against storms, erosion, and flooding.

Saintilan, N., Horton, B., Törnqvist, T.E., Ashe, E.L., Khan, N.S., Schuerch, M., Perry, C., Kopp, R.E., Garner, G.G., Murray, N., Rogers, K., Albert, S., Kelleway, J., Shaw, T.A., Woodroffe, C.D., Lovelock, C.E., Goddard, M.M., Hutley, L.B., Kovalenko, K., Feher, L., and Guntenspergen, G., 2023, Widespread retreat of coastal habitat is likely at warming levels above 1.5 °C.  Nature,  v. 621, p. 112–119, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06448-z

Modeling Fire in the Western U.S.

Image: Prescribed Fire at Sunset in the Jemez Mountains, New Mexico

Fire is a major disturbance across the western United States. Annual area burned has increased along with temperatures during recent decades leading to record-breaking fire seasons during warm, dry years. Anticipating how wildfire patterns may respond to projected climate changes is a top priority because wildfires have many societal (human-health and economic) and ecological consequences. USGS scientists identified thresholds in annual aridity that distinguish years with limited, moderate, and extensive area burned. The scientists used this observation to develop a new model that simulates annual area burned under a range of potential future conditions. The results indicated that the frequency of extreme fire years and annual area burned will continue to increase under most scenarios in the coming decades, and under all scenarios after 2060.  Importantly, the model is very adaptable and can readily incorporate new data or be applied at broader scales making it useful for many different managers.

Henne, P.D., and Hawbaker, T., 2023, An aridity threshold model of fire sizes and annual area burned in extensively forested ecoregions of the western USA. Ecological Modelling , v. 477, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2023.110277

Human History and Paleo Environment

USGS scientists and their partners published two separate papers this past year that contribute to our understanding of human migration into North America and the climate conditions that may have impacted their survival.

Storm clouds and rain during a convective storm over the tundra with water and ice on the coastal plain of Alaska.

The first new study published in PNAS explores how humans could have gotten to North America earlier than previous estimates when ice sheets blocked the interior continental route. It explores historic environmental conditions, including presence of glaciers, ocean sea ice, strength of ocean currents, and climate conditions, and suggests that a coastal route is a likely option for how humans got to North America, pointing to places where scientists could look for evidence of human migration some twenty thousand years ago. The results suggest that 24,500 to 22,000 and 16,400-14,800 years ago were the most environmentally favorable windows of time for a coastal migration route to have been available (when interior routes were blocked). The study suggests that humans may have taken advantage of winter sea ice that connected islands and coastal refugia since there would have been rich food supply at marine ice edges and traveling on coastal ice could have been easier than trying to take a boat or cross on land over glaciers. These paleoenvironmental insights could help focus archaeological reconnaissance efforts to find evidence for human occupation around the North Pacific Rim along paleoshorelines and now-submerged islands.

Praetorius, S.K., Alder, J.R., Condron, A., Mix, A., Walczak, M., Caissie, B.E., and Erlandson, J., 2023, Ice and ocean constraints on early human migrations into North America along the Pacific Coast. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , v. 120, no. 7, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2208738120

Photo of footprints found in White Sands National Park

The second new study builds on USGS research from September 2021. At that time, USGS researchers and an international team of scientists announced that ancient human footprints discovered in White Sands National Park, NM were between 21,000 and 23,000 years old. This discovery pushed the known date of human presence in North America back by thousands of years and implied that early inhabitants and megafauna co-existed for several millennia before the terminal Pleistocene extinction event. In a follow-up study this year, published in Science, researchers used two new independent approaches to date the footprints, both of which resulted in the same age range as the original estimate. Now that three separate lines of evidence point to the same approximate age, it is highly unlikely that they are all incorrect or biased and, taken together, provide strong support for the 21,000 to 23,000-year age range for the footprints. Their continued studies at White Sands focus on the environmental conditions that allowed people to thrive in southern New Mexico during the Last Glacial Maximum.

Pigati, J.S., Springer, K.B., Honke, J.S., Wahl, D., Champagne, M.R., Zimmerman, S.R.H., Gray, H.J., Santucci, V.L., Odess, D., Bustos, D., and Bennett, M.R., 2023, Independent age estimates resolve the controversy of ancient human footprints at White Sands. Science , v. 382, no. 6666, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh5007

Interior Wetlands and Methane Emissions

Overhead view of a series of lakes surrounded by green crops.

Wetlands naturally produce methane in their o2-free soils. As the international community works to reduce greenhouse gases to achieve climate-mitigation targets, understanding these natural emissions and any future changes are key to meeting targets.  A new study published in Science Advances  by USGS researchers determined that methane emissions from wetlands in the prairie pothole region (North America’s largest wetland complex) are likely to increase by 2-3 times by 2100 due to warming temperatures. This means that natural sources of greenhouse gases are going to increase in the future, possibly canceling out mitigation actions to cut human emissions. Therefore, efforts to decrease greenhouse gases in the atmosphere need to jointly account for human emissions as well as natural emissions in order to meet climate-mitigation targets.

Bansal, S., Post van der Burg, M., Fern, R., Jones, J., Lo, R., McKenna, O.P., Tangen, B., Zhang, Z., and Gleason, R.A., 2023, Large increases in methane emissions expected from North America’s largest wetland complex. Science Advances , v. 9, no. 9, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ade1112

A Paleoclimate Perspective on a Seasonally Ice-free Arctic Ocean

Sunset view of calm Chukchi Sea waters with sea ice

Arctic sea ice plays an important role in helping to keep the Arctic cool and moderating global climate. Recently, Arctic sea ice has been rapidly declining and models predict seasonally ice-free conditions by mid-century. Arctic sea ice loss has consequences not only for global climate, but also ocean circulation, Arctic wildlife and ecosystems, and Indigenous communities. To better understand sea ice change, scientists look to the past, specifically back to the Last Interglacial (LIG) (~129-115 thousand years ago) when summer Arctic temperatures were ~4-5 o C warmer than today. However, there is still some debate and uncertainty around the extent and seasonality of sea ice during that time. In a recent paper published in Nature Geoscience , USGS researchers and their colleagues at Stockholm University used data from microfossils in sediment cores to fill data gaps and demonstrate seasonally ice-free conditions in the Arctic during the LIG. Using data from across the central Arctic Ocean, they show that sea-ice extent was substantially reduced, and summers were probably ice free. The results reinforce that the LIG is a prime analogue for studying seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean conditions and impacts. 

Vermassen, F., O’Regan, M., de Boer, A., Schenk, F., Razmjooei, M., West, G., Cronin, T.M., Jakobsson, M., and Coxall, H.K., 2023, A seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean during the Last Interglacial. Nature Geoscience , v. 16, p. 723–729, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-023-01227-x .

Shen, Z., Zhou, W., Li, J.  et al.  A frequent ice-free Arctic is likely to occur before the mid-21st century.  npj Clim Atmos Sci,  v. 6, no.103 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-023-00431-1

River Management Impacts on Transport of Microplastic

Fast moving stream with rapids in upper, more mountainous part of Boulder Creek Watershed, Colorado

The prevalence of microplastics throughout the environment is quickly becoming a topic of concern for society. They are considered a contaminant of concern and have been found in every environmental compartment across the globe. Yet, the way they enter, move through, and where they eventually end up in the environment is not fully understood. In order to better understand how microplastics move and accumulate in river systems, USGS researchers and colleagues compared microplastic abundance between two nearby river systems , one in a highly urbanized watershed and the other in a less urbanized watershed, and analyzed microplastic concentrations from the upstream to downstream. They found that the degree of urbanization does affect microplastic patterns along a river with the urbanized watershed containing higher levels. They also found that river diversions (removing water for societal use) removed microplastic particles from the river reducing loads downstream. In cases where water was diverted for drinking purposes, many of the microplastics may get removed since water treatment plants are able to move the vast majority of microplastics, but when water is diverted for agriculture, the microplastics are dispersed to the wider terrestrial environment and the particles could eventually wash back into rivers. The implications of this work point to the need to consider the way that microplastics are redistributed back into a watershed in large scale models that look to quantify plastic fate and transport to the oceans. It may be that more microplastics are being distributed into terrestrial ecosystems than the ocean then previously thought. Water management practices can have a significant impact on microplastic fate and transport.

Kukkola, A., Runkel, R.L., Schneidewind, U., Murphy, S.F., Kelleher, L., Smith, G.S., Nel, H.A., Lynch, I., and Krause, S., 2023, Prevailing impacts of river management on microplastic transport in contrasting US streams: Rethinking global microplastic flux estimations. Water Research, v. 240, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2023.120112

Get Our News

These items are in the RSS feed format (Really Simple Syndication) based on categories such as topics, locations, and more. You can install and RSS reader browser extension, software, or use a third-party service to receive immediate news updates depending on the feed that you have added. If you click the feed links below, they may look strange because they are simply XML code. An RSS reader can easily read this code and push out a notification to you when something new is posted to our site.

Climate News

Climate Research and Development Program News

Ecosystems News

Thank you for closing the message box.

General Authority for Statistics

Last update 20 / 02 / 2024

Research and Development Statistics Survey

research and development survey 2023

It is an annual statistics report that focuses on the fields of research and development in Saudi Arabia, with the aim of providing economic indicators for research and development.

  • Providing data on research and development expenditures and their sources for all sectors.
  • Providing data on those employed in the field of research and development for all sectors.

Spending on research and development: 

It includes all expenses related to research and development activities carried out within an economic sector., workers of research and development:, all individuals who directly participate in research and development activities, as well as those who provide direct services to these activities such as research and development managers, administrative personnel, technicians, and office employees. individuals who provide indirect support and assistance services such as restaurant, maintenance, administrative, and security staff are excluded., researchers:,  professionals involved in designing and innovating new knowledge. researchers conduct research and improve or develop concepts, theories, models, technologies, devices, software, or operating methods. managers and administrators involved in planning and managing the scientific and technical aspects of research are also classified as "researchers". doctoral students working in research and development should also be counted as "researchers".,  technicians:.

Individuals whose main tasks require technical knowledge and expertise in one or more fields such as engineering, physical sciences, life sciences (technicians), social sciences, humanities, and arts. They participate in research and development to carry out scientific and technical tasks that require the application of operational concepts and methods and the use of research equipment, usually under the supervision of researchers.

An employee who works fewer hours than the usual working hours (8 hours per day).

25% of working hours:,  an employee who works full time (8 hours per day) for period of three months or a research employee who works for a quarter-time (2 hours per day) for a year., 50% of working hours:, an employee who works full time (8 hours per day) for a period of six months or a research employee who works for a quarter-time (2 hours per day) for a year., what are the main objectives of the survey, providing data on expenditures and sources of research and development for all sectors., providing data on individuals working in the field of research and development for all sectors., determining the percentage of spending on research and development from the gross domestic product., who has to complete the questionnaire, the employee responsible for reports, financial statements, and salary disclosure (company accountant)., how long does it take to complete the questionnaire, it takes 8-10 minutes to complete it., start of data collection: 09/07/2023, end of data collection: 26/08/2023, computer-assisted telephone interviewing (cati)..

https://fesurvey.stats.gov.sa/economic-survey/auth

Your information today is the development of tomorrow. 

التقيم لتوعوية للمسوح.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics

  • All previous cycle years

The HERD Survey is the primary source of information on research and development expenditures at U.S. colleges and universities that expended at least $150,000 in separately accounted for R&D in the fiscal year.

Survey Info

  • tag for use when URL is provided --> Methodology
  • tag for use when URL is provided --> Data
  • tag for use when URL is provided --> Analysis

The HERD Survey is the primary source of information on research and development expenditures at U.S. colleges and universities. The survey collects information on R&D expenditures by field of research and source of funds and also gathers information on types of research, expenses, and headcounts of R&D personnel. The survey is an annual census of institutions that expended at least $150,000 in separately accounted for R&D in the fiscal year.

Areas of Interest

  • Higher Education Research and Development
  • Research and Development

Survey Administration

The FY 2021 survey was conducted by ICF under contract to the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.

Survey Details

  • Survey Description (PDF 129 KB)
  • Data Tables (PDF 26.3 MB)

Featured Survey Analysis

Universities Report Largest Growth in Federally Funded R&D Expenditures since FY 2011.

Universities Report Largest Growth in Federally Funded R&D Expenditures since FY 2011

Image 1775

HERD Survey Overview

Data highlights, the department of health and human services (hhs) was the largest federal source of r&d expenditures ($27.5 billion) for higher education institutions in fy 2021..

Figure 1

In the News

Image 1607

Top 25 American Universities for R and D Spending; Johns Hopkins #1 Again

Image 1608

State of the States 2023

Methodology, survey description, survey overview (fy 2021 survey cycle).

The Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey is the primary source of information on separately accounted for research and development (R&D) expenditures within higher education institutions in the United States and outlying areas.

Data collection authority

The information is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The Office of Management and Budget control number is 3145–0100, with an expiration date of 31 August 2022. The survey is sponsored by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Major changes to recent survey cycle

No major changes were made to the FY 2021 survey.

Key Survey Information

Initial survey year.

In 2010, the HERD Survey replaced a previous annual collection, the NSF Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges (Academic R&D Expenditures Survey), which was conducted from FY 1972 through FY 2009.

Reference period

The academic fiscal year ending in 2021; for most institutions this was 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021.

Response unit

Establishment; U.S. academic institutions reporting at least $150,000 in R&D expenditures in the previous fiscal year.

Sample or census

Population size.

A total of 910 institutions.

Sample size

The survey was a census of all known eligible universities and colleges.

Key variables

Key variables of interest are listed below.

  • R&D expenditures by field and source of funds (i.e., federal government, state and local government, business, nonprofit, institutional, and other)
  • R&D expenditures funded from foreign sources
  • R&D expenditures within medical schools
  • Clinical trial R&D expenditures (Phases I–III)
  • R&D expenditures by type of R&D (i.e., basic research, applied research, and experimental development)
  • Total and federally funded R&D expenditures passed through to subrecipients or received as a subrecipient
  • Federally funded R&D expenditures by field and federal agency
  • R&D expenditures by cost categories (e.g., salaries, software, equipment, indirect costs)
  • Total and federally funded R&D equipment expenditures by field
  • Headcounts and full-time equivalents of R&D personnel functions (researchers, R&D technicians, and R&D support staff)
  • Institutional characteristics (i.e., highest degree granted, historically Black college or university [HBCU], high Hispanic enrollment [HHE], public or private control)
  • Geographic location within the United States

Survey Design

Target population.

Public and private nonprofit postsecondary institutions in the United States, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands that granted a bachelor’s degree or higher in any field, expended at least $150,000 in separately accounted for R&D in FY 2021, and were geographically separate campuses headed by a president, chancellor, or equivalent.

Sampling frame

The survey is a census of all eligible institutions as defined above. In the FY 2021 cycle, there were 910 academic institutions surveyed.

Sample design

Not applicable.

Data Collection and Processing

Data collection.

The FY 2021 survey was conducted by ICF under contract to NCSES. Surveys were distributed to designated contacts at each institution. The data collection period was from December 2021 through August 2022. Respondents submitted their data using a Web-based data collection system. Telephone and e-mail were used for follow-up contacts with respondents.

Data processing

Respondents were contacted and asked to resolve possible self-reporting issues themselves. Questionnaires were carefully examined by survey staff upon receipt. Reviews focused on unexplained missing data and explanations provided for changes in reporting patterns. If additional explanations or data revisions were needed, respondents were sent personalized e-mail messages asking them to provide any necessary revisions before the final processing and tabulation of data.

Estimation techniques

Missing values were imputed based on the previous year’s data and the reported data of peer institutions in the current cycle.

Survey Quality Measures

Sampling error, coverage error.

Coverage error of large research institutions is minimal because comprehensive lists exist. These institutions are easily identified using the NCSES Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions. However, institutions with smaller amounts of R&D expenditures have been more difficult to identify because they often do not receive federal funding for R&D.

NCSES annually screens all 4-year and above institutions reporting nonzero amounts of research expenses to the Department of Education Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) to determine if new institutions qualify for inclusion in the survey.

Nonresponse error

The unit nonresponse was 4.9% in FY 2021. The item nonresponse rates for questions recurring from FY 2019 varied from 0.0% for Question 1, total R&D expenditures by source of funds; Question 9, federal expenditures by R&D field; and for Question 11, R&D expenditures from nonfederal sources, to 6.8% for Question 6, R&D expenditures by type of R&D (basic research, applied research, and experimental development). Questions 15 and 16, which were new or greatly revised from FY 2019, had nonresponse rates of 13.4% and 32.6% respectively.

Measurement error

Potential sources of measurement errors include incomplete administrative data or differing categories used by the institutions.

Data Availability and Comparability

Data availability.

Annual data are available for FYs 1972–2021.

Data comparability

When the review for consistency between each year’s data and submissions in prior years reveals discrepancies, it is sometimes necessary to modify prior years’ data. This is especially likely to affect trends for certain institutions that fail to report every year, because current-year data are used to impute prior-year data.

For accurate historical data, use only the most recently released data tables. Individuals wishing to analyze trends other than those in the most recent data tables are encouraged to contact the Survey Manger for more information about comparability of data over time.

Data Products

Publications.

Data tables from this survey are published annually in the series Higher Education Research and Development . The most recent report in this series is available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvyherd/ . Information from this survey is also included in Science and Engineering Indicators .

Electronic access

Microdata beginning with the FY 2010 survey are available in NCSES’s interactive data tool . Public use files beginning with the FY 1972 are available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/herd/pub_data.cfm .

Technical Notes

Survey overview (fy 2021 survey cycle), data collection and processing methods, data comparability (changes), definitions.

P urpose. The Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey is the primary source of information on separately accounted-for R&D expenditures within higher education institutions in the United States and outlying areas.

Data c oll ec tion authorit y . The information is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The Office of Management and Budget control number is 3145-0100, with an expiration date of 31 August 2022.

Survey contractor . ICF.

Survey sponsor . The HERD Survey is sponsored by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation.

Frequency. Annual.

Initial survey year . In 2010, the HERD Survey replaced a previous annual collection, the Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges (Academic R&D Expenditures Survey), which was conducted from FY 1972 through FY 2009.

Reference period. The academic fiscal year ending in 2021; for most institutions, this was 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021.

Response unit . Establishment; U.S. academic institutions reporting at least $150,000 in R&D expenditures in the previous fiscal year.

Sample or census . Census.

Population size . A total of 910 institutions.

Sample size . The survey was a census of all known eligible universities and colleges.

Target population . Public and private nonprofit postsecondary institutions in the United States, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands that granted a bachelor’s degree or higher in any field; expended at least $150,000 in separately accounted-for R&D in FY 2021; and were geographically separate campuses headed by a president, chancellor, or equivalent. A list of all accredited, degree-granting institutions in the United States (the Higher Education Directory ) was obtained from Higher Education Publications (HEP). More information about HEP and its sources can be found at https://hepinc.com/about/ .

The survey population was reviewed before data collection began to ensure that each institutional classification was accurate. Characteristics of the schools were reviewed before and during the survey to determine whether changes had occurred (e.g., name; highest degree granted; school openings, closings, or mergers). Table A-1 shows all institution name changes or mergers between the FY 2020 and FY 2021 surveys.

After data collection closed, institutions were reviewed to verify that only those reporting at least $150,000 in separately-accounted-for R&D were included in the population. Of the 935 institutions surveyed, 25 completed the survey but reported total R&D expenditures of less than $150,000. These institutions were excluded from the population, and their data are not included in the FY 2021 survey totals. The total and federally funded R&D expenditures for these 25 institutions are listed in table A-2 .

Sampl ing frame . The frame for the FY 2021 HERD Survey included (1) all institutions considered in scope for the FY 2020 survey, (2) institutions that granted a bachelor’s degree or higher and reported an amount greater than $0 for research on the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 2019 Finance Survey, (3) all U.S. service institutions that granted a bachelor’s degree or higher and were not already part of the HERD Survey population, and (4) institutions that granted doctoral degrees but did not report to IPEDS and were not already part of the HERD Survey population. The information in the Higher Education Directory was used to locate institutions meeting the conditions listed in 3 and 4. When FY 2020 R&D expenditures were not known, institutions in the frame were sent a brief questionnaire asking whether the institution had R&D expenditures during FY 2020 and FY 2021 and whether those expenditures were less than $150,000, were $150,000 to $999,999, or were $1 million or more.

The population review screener was sent to 141 institutions. A total of 18 institutions were added to the survey population during the population review. Eight other institutions were added when representatives of university systems contacted data collection staff about campuses that newly qualified for the survey. During data collection, 31 institutions were removed from the population after they indicated that their R&D expenditures were less than $150,000 for FY 2021, or that they did not qualify for the survey for another reason. After accounting for these additions and subtractions, the number of academic institutions in the final population decreased from 915 in FY 2020 to 910 in FY 2021 ( table A-3 ).

Sample design . The FY 1997 survey was the last one conducted as a sample survey. Since FY 1998, the survey has been a census of all known eligible universities and colleges.

Data collection. The FY 2021 survey questionnaires were sent by e-mail in November 2021. Respondents could choose to submit a questionnaire downloaded from the Web or use a Web-based data collection system to respond to the survey. Every effort was made to maintain close contact with respondents to preserve both the consistency and continuity of the resulting data. Survey data reports for each institution were available on the survey website; these showed comparisons between the current and 2 prior years of data and noted any substantive disparities. Questionnaires were carefully examined for completeness upon receipt. Respondents were sent personalized e-mail messages asking them to provide any necessary revisions before the final processing and tabulation of data. These e-mail messages included a link to the HERD Survey Web-based data collection system, allowing respondents to view and correct their data online.

Respondents were asked to explain significant differences between current-year reporting and established patterns of reporting verified for prior years. They were encouraged to correct prior-year data, if necessary. When respondents updated or amended figures from past years, NCSES made corresponding changes to trend data in the 2021 data tables and to the underlying microdata. For accurate historical data, use only the most recently released data tables.

Mode . Respondents could choose to submit a questionnaire downloaded from the Web or use the Web-based data collection system to respond to the survey. All institutions submitted data using the Web-based survey.

Response rates . By the survey’s closing date in August 2022, forms had been received from 865 universities and colleges out of a population of 910, a response rate of 95.1%. Responses were received from 97.3% of all doctorate-granting institutions. The R&D expenditures reported by these doctoral institutions constituted 99.1% of the estimated national R&D expenditures for FY 2021. Table A-4 displays a detailed breakdown of response rates by survey form and highest degree granted, and table A-5 displays a breakdown of response rates for each survey question.

Data editing . The HERD Survey was subject to very little editing. Respondents were contacted and asked to resolve possible self-reporting issues themselves. Questionnaires were carefully examined by survey staff upon receipt. Reviews focused on unexplained missing data, expenditures that were outliers compared to those of peer institutions, and explanations provided for changes in reporting patterns. If additional explanations or data revisions were needed, respondents were sent personalized e-mail messages asking them to provide any necessary revisions before the final processing and tabulation of data.

Imputation. Missing values were imputed based on the previous year’s data and the reported data of peer institutions in the current cycle. For the 43 institutions that had not responded by the closing date of the survey and had been included in the FY 2020 HERD Survey population, R&D expenditures were imputed by applying inflator and deflator factors to the prior year’s key totals. The key totals for FY 2021 included total R&D expenditures, federal R&D expenditures, expenditures received as a subrecipient from higher education sources, expenditures received as a subrecipient from non-higher education sources, expenditures passed through to higher education entities, and expenditures passed through to non-higher education entities. Imputation factors were ratios derived from the 2-year-trend data of responding institutions with similar characteristics, including highest degree granted, type of institutional control (public or private), and level of total R&D expenditures. Other values that were not identified as key totals were imputed by applying ratios from the previous year’s data.

For two institutions that were new to the survey population, no past-year data were available. For these institutions, total R&D expenditures were assumed to be $150,000 or $1,000,000 based on the institutions’ responses to the population review screener. Other values were then imputed as a proportion of total R&D expenditures based on the data of institutions with similar characteristics. Data for partial nonresponse were imputed using similar techniques.

Table A-6 through table A-18 present imputed amounts for each applicable survey variable. The dollar amount imputed is displayed, along with the percentage it represents of the national estimate for universities and colleges for a variable. The imputed total R&D was $106 million, or 0.1%, of the $89.9 billion in total R&D expenditures ( table A-6 ).

Several surveyed institutions have responded intermittently in past years. For years in which no response was received, data have been imputed as previously described. Although the imputation algorithm accurately reflects national trends, it cannot account for specific trends at individual institutions. For this reason, a re-imputation of institutional data for prior years is also performed. For each institution, previously imputed values from the HERD Survey (FYs 2010–20) were recomputed to ensure that the imputed data are consistent with reporting patterns from the FY 2021 survey. These procedures result in much more consistent reporting trends for individual institutions but have little effect on aggregate figures reflecting national totals. In the data tables, the letter i is used to identify imputed data.

R&D expenditures from unspecified federal agencies (Question 10) and capitalization thresholds for software and equipment (Question 13) were not imputed. Response summaries for these questions can be found in table A-19 and table A-20 .

Weighting . Survey data were not weighted.

Variance estimation . No variance estimation techniques were used.

Sampling error . Because the FY 2021 survey was distributed to all institutions in the universe, there was no sampling error.

Coverage error . Coverage error of large research institutions is minimal because of comprehensive lists. These institutions are easily identified using the NCSES Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions. However, institutions with smaller amounts of R&D expenditures have been more difficult to identify because they often do not receive federal funding for science and engineering (S&E) R&D.

Non response error . Forty-five universities and colleges did not respond in FY 2021, out of a total of 910 eligible institutions, for a nonresponse rate of 4.9%. Table A-4 displays a detailed breakdown of response rates by survey population and highest degree granted.

The item nonresponse rates for questions recurring from FY 2019 varied from 0.0% for Question 1, total R&D expenditures by source of funds; Question 9, federal expenditures by R&D field; and for Question 11, R&D expenditures from nonfederal sources, to 6.8% for Question 6, R&D expenditures by type of R&D (basic research, applied research, and experimental development). Questions 15 and 16, which were new or greatly revised from FY 2019, had nonresponse rates of 13.4% and 32.6% respectively. Table A-5 displays a breakdown of response rates for each question in each of the two surveys. See section “Imputation” for mitigation of item nonresponses. Table A-6 through table A-18 present imputed amounts for each applicable survey variable.

Measurement error . The most likely source of measurement error is institutional records containing categories different from those on the survey. For example, institutions were asked to report all R&D expenditures by field. The NCSES-designed fields do not always translate to an institution’s departmental structure, and adjustments must be made by the institution in order to complete the survey. Fields were revised for the FY 2016 survey to better reflect the R&D currently being conducted at universities and colleges and make HERD Survey fields more consistent with those used by other NCSES surveys as well as with the National Center for Education Statistics’ Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes. Details of this change are included in the methodology report and technical notes for the FY 2016 survey. Minor revisions were also made in FY 2020.

Another source of error is the survey’s category of institutionally funded research. The survey requests that institutions report discretionary internal funds used for research. NCSES discovered through debriefings conducted at the conclusion of the FY 2010 survey that there were varying definitions of what should be included on the HERD Survey as institutionally funded research. Some institutions included all expenditures from separate accounts designated for research; others included only internal R&D projects that are competitively awarded and have detailed budgets. A workshop was held in summer 2012 to discuss these differences in definitional interpretation. Based on the findings from the workshop, the FY 2012 survey was modified to clarify that all expenditures designated for research can be included in this category. This includes expenditures for organized research and expenditures of other funds designated for research but not categorized as organized research. A checklist question (Question 1.1) was also added to encourage the inclusion of all eligible expenditures and to determine the full extent of the variations in reporting across institutions. This question has been on the survey since FY 2012. An analysis of Question 1.1 responses from FY 2016 indicated that most institutions that reported some institutionally funded R&D were including research funds that would not be considered organized research (e.g., 77% included startup funds, bridge funding, or seed funding, and 79% included other departmental funds designated for research). However, many institutions reported that they still could not report institutionally funded research that was not organized research because those funds were not separately accounted for. Therefore, survey totals are missing expenditures for R&D that come from multipurpose accounts, and as such, they represent an undercount of the total amount of internal discretionary funding that institutions make available to conduct R&D.

The reporting of unrecovered indirect costs is another known source of error. The survey requests that the total amount of indirect costs associated with a research grant or contract be calculated and reported, including costs that were not reimbursed by the external funding source. The unrecovered indirect cost is calculated by multiplying the institution’s negotiated indirect cost rate by the corresponding base and then subtracting the actual indirect cost recovery, preferably on a project-by-project basis. In FY 2021, 5.4% of respondents reported unrecovered indirect costs as unavailable. Respondents who were unable to provide values were asked to provide information on their nonresponse. Based on the collected information, survey guidance is revised to encourage response.

It should also be noted that because institutions were asked to include funds passed through to higher education institutions as well as subrecipient funding from higher education institutions, there is double counting included in national and group totals. For example, Institution A’s survey included the $2 million passed through to Institution B, and Institution B’s survey also included the $2 million in subrecipient funding that it received from Institution A. Overall, institutions reported $4.2 billion in expenditures from subrecipient funding received from other universities in FY 2021 and $4.1 billion in funds passed through to higher education subrecipients in FY 2021. Adjustments are made to R&D totals presented in the NCSES National Patterns of R&D Resources publications ( https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/natlpatterns/ ).

Annual data are available for FYs 1972–2021. When the review for consistency between each year’s data and submissions in prior years reveals discrepancies, it is sometimes necessary to modify prior years’ data. This is especially likely to affect trends for certain institutions that fail to report every year, because current-year data are used to impute prior-year data. For accurate historical data, use only the most recently released data tables. Individuals wishing to analyze trends other than those in the most recent data tables are encouraged to contact the Survey Manager for more information about comparability of data over time.

Changes in s urvey c overage and p opulation . Before FY 2010, the population included only institutions with R&D expenditures and degree programs in S&E fields. Institutions that performed R&D in only non-S&E fields were excluded from the population. Although not a change in the coverage or population, each campus headed by a campus-level president, chancellor, or equivalent began completing a separate survey in 2010 rather than combining its response with the responses of other campuses in the university system. As a result, the overall number of academic institutions in the population increased from 711 in FY 2009 to 742 in FY 2010.

To compare HERD Survey data across university systems by aggregating member campuses, table 6 shows all institutions in the FY 2021 population, including short-form survey institutions, by state, institutional control, and system.

Universities and colleges can merge or separate, possibly resulting in large changes in data from previous years.

  • FYs 2015–20. For FY 2015, the Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) reporting line was changed from the Chancellor of the Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis (IUPUI) campus to the President of Indiana University. As such, the research expenditures for IUSM are now included in the Indiana University–Bloomington figures, resulting in an increase in total R&D expenditures of approximately $280 million for this campus. IUPUI total R&D expenditures decreased from $324 million in FY 2014 to $56 million in FY 2015. In September 2015, Yeshiva University relinquished control of Albert Einstein College of Medicine to Montefiore Health System. As a result, FY 2016 data for Yeshiva University included only 2 months (July–August 2015) of R&D expenditures from the college of medicine. Albert Einstein College of Medicine reported separately for its entire FY 2016 (January–December 2016). Because of this change, FY 2016 research expenditures for Yeshiva University decreased by $260 million. For FY 2017, Yeshiva University included no expenditures from the college of medicine, and total research expenditures decreased by $43 million. In 2016, the Maryland General Assembly approved legislation to create a strategic partnership between University of Maryland (UMD) College Park and UMD Baltimore. The two schools began reporting as one unit, University of Maryland, in FY 2019. In FY 2018, UMD Baltimore reported over $475 million in total R&D expenditures, and UMD College Park reported over $540 million in total R&D expenditures. In FY 2019, the new combined institution reported $1,096 million in total R&D expenditures. In 2019, University of Tennessee reorganized University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Institute of Agriculture, and University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The two schools began reporting as one unit, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, in FY 2020. In FY 2019, University of Tennessee, Institute of Agriculture reported over $71 million in total R&D expenditures, and University of Tennessee, Knoxville reported over $240 million in total R&D expenditures. In FY 2020, the new combined institution reported $320 million in total R&D expenditures.
  • FY 2021. In FY 2021 the University of South Florida consolidated its three separate institutions, University of South Florida, Tampa; University of South Florida, St. Petersburg; and University of South Florida, Sarasota-Manatee into one, singularly-accredited university. The three schools began reporting as one unit, University of South Florida, in FY 2021. In FY 2020, University of South Florida, Tampa reported over $333 million in total R&D expenditures, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg reported over $18 million in total R&D expenditures, and University South Florida, Sarasota-Manatee reported over $2 million in total R&D expenditures. In FY 2021, the new combined institution reported over $405 million in total R&D expenditures. In FY 2021 the University of Colorado Denver and Anschutz Medical Campus began reporting to the survey separately. Prior to FY 2021 the two campuses reported as one unit. In FY 2020, the combined unit reported over $554 million in total R&D expenditures. In FY 2021, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus reported over $562 million in total R&D expenditures and University of Colorado Denver reported over $18 million in total R&D expenditures.

Changes in q uestionnaire . Tables include data from the Academic R&D Expenditures Survey (FYs 1972–2009) and the HERD Survey (FYs 2010–20). Analysts should be cautious when examining trend data. Although many variables are similar across the two surveys because of clarification of which funds are to be included in the definition of R&D and the inclusion of non-S&E expenditures, exact comparisons may be misleading. In prior years, the Academic R&D Expenditures Survey collected expenditures for S&E and non-S&E fields separately. Institutions were not always able to provide non-S&E expenditures, and those data were not imputed previously. Also, revisions to the instructions on what types of activities are included as R&D in 2010 may have influenced reported values to varying degrees, depending on the numbers of clinical trials and training grants at an institution. Specific changes are described below:

  • For the FY 2012 data collection, NCSES modified the survey instructions to clarify what types of institutionally funded activities should be included in reported data. The instructions explained that all expenditures for R&D from an institution’s current operating funds that are separately accounted for should be reported. This includes expenditures separately budgeted for organized research and expenditures of other funds designated for research but not categorized as organized research. The instructions also specified that funds from an institution’s 501(c)3 foundation should be reported under institutionally financed research.
  • For the FY 2013 collection, the instructions were revised to clarify that funds from foreign and U.S. universities and colleges should be reported under All other sources (Question 1, row f). The instructions also specified that gifts designated by donors for research should be included in Question 1, row f.
  • Several changes were made to the FY 2016 questionnaire:
  • Question 16 on the FY 2015 questionnaire, regarding the number of postdocs paid from R&D expenditures, was removed from the survey. Question 2, regarding foreign funding of R&D, was expanded to identify sources of foreign funding. The question now collects R&D expenditures funded by foreign governments, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and higher education (see the definition foreign sources for additional information).
  • Questions 9, 11, and 14 include revisions to the fields of R&D that better reflect the R&D currently being conducted at universities and colleges. The revisions make the HERD Survey fields more consistent with those used by other NCSES surveys as well as with the CIP codes.
  • For the FY 2017 collection, the instructions were revised to clarify that funding from federally funded R&D centers (FFRDCs) should be reported as direct federal funding from the FFRDC’s sponsoring agency.
  • For the FY 2018 collection, the instructions were revised to clarify that expenditures for institution research administration and support (e.g., office of sponsored programs) should be excluded from the institutionally financed research totals.
  • Several changes were made to the FY 2020 questionnaire:
  • Question 15, which asked for a headcount of research personnel, was revised to ask for a headcount by three R&D functions: researchers, R&D technicians, and R&D support staff (see the definition R&D functions for additional information). Subfields for sex, citizenship status, and education level were collected for those functioning as researchers.
  • Question 16, which asked for the full-time equivalents (FTEs) by three R&D functions, was added to the survey.
  • Institutions were given guidance to include throughout the survey equipment-only R&D awards, such as Major Research Instrumentation grants.
  • Questions 9, 11, and 14 include revisions to the fields of R&D that better reflect the R&D currently being conducted at universities and colleges. The revisions make the HERD Survey fields more consistent with those used by other NCSES surveys.

Changes in r eporting p rocedures or c lassification . In order to reduce the burden for institutions with minimal amounts of R&D expenditures, NCSES introduced a shorter version of the HERD Survey, beginning with the FY 2012 collection. The short-form survey includes four core questions. For the FY 2021 cycle, the short-form population included 262 institutions that reported R&D expenditures between $150,000 and $1 million during FY 2020. The remainder of the institutions (648) received the full version of the survey.

Short-form survey data for FYs 2012–2021 appear only in those tables that specify in their title that the data presented include data from the short-form version of the survey. Data from the short-form survey population are included in the year totals prior to FY 2012, aggregated under “all other surveyed institutions.” The total FY 2021 R&D expenditures reported by institutions in the short-form survey population ($149 million) represent 0.2% of the expenditures reported by all institutions ($89.9 billion).

  • Clinical trials. Research studies designed to answer specific questions about the effects of drugs, vaccines, medical devices, tests, treatments, or other therapies for patients. Clinical trials are used to determine safety and effectiveness. Includes Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III clinical trials with human patients but excludes Phase IV clinical trials.
  • Contracts. Legal commitments in which a good or service was provided by the reporting institution and benefited the sponsor. The sponsor specified the deliverables and gained the rights to the results.
  • Federal agency. Any agency of the U.S. government. Expenditures were reported by six specific agency funding sources (the Department of Agriculture; Department of Defense; Department of Energy; Department of Health and Human Services, including the National Institutes of Health; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and National Science Foundation). Any expenditures funded by other federal agencies were reported under Other. The names of agencies included in the Other category are also requested.
  • F ield s of R&D . A list of the 40 fields of R&D reported on can be found on the survey questionnaire. In the data tables, the fields are grouped into 10 major areas: computer and information sciences; engineering; geosciences, atmospheric sciences, and ocean sciences; life sciences; mathematics and statistics; physical sciences; psychology; social sciences; other sciences; and non-science and engineering.
  • Fiscal year. Institution’s financial year.
  • Foreign sources :
  • Foreign government. All levels of foreign government, including national, regional, municipal, or other local government.
  • Business. Foreign for-profit organizations. Projects sponsored by a U.S. location of a foreign company were not considered foreign. Funds from a company’s nonprofit foundation were not reported here; they were reported under Nonprofit organizations.
  • Nonprofit organizations . Foreign nonprofit foundations and organizations, except higher education institutions. Funds from foreign universities were reported under Higher education.
  • Higher education. Foreign colleges and universities and units owned, operated, and controlled by such institutions.
  • All other sources. International governmental organizations located in the United States, such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, and all other entities sending funds to the United States from a location outside the United States and its territories.
  • Full-time equivalents (FTEs) . Calculated as the total working effort spent on research during a specific period divided by the total effort representing a full-time schedule within the same period.
  • Medical schools . A medical school awards MD or DO degrees. Expenditures from projects assigned to the medical school or to research centers that were organizationally part of the medical school were included.
  • Pass-through entity. Organizations that pass through grant or contract funds to subrecipient organizations. Vendor relationships were not included.
  • Research and development (R&D). R&D activity is creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge—including knowledge of humankind, culture, and society—and to devise new applications of available knowledge. R&D covers three activities: basic research, applied research, and experimental development. R&D does not include public service or outreach programs, curriculum development (unless included as part of an overall research project), or non-research training grants. R&D as measured on this survey does not include capital projects (i.e., construction or renovation of research facilities).
  • R&D expenditures. Expenditures for R&D activities from the institution’s current operating funds that were separately accounted for. For the purposes of the survey, R&D includes expenditures for organized research as defined by 2 CFR 220 Part 200 Appendix III and expenditures from funds designated for research. Expenditures came from internal or external funding and included recovered and unrecovered indirect costs. Funds passed through to subrecipient organizations were also included. R&D was excluded if it was conducted by university faculty or staff at outside institutions and was not accounted for in the reporting institution’s financial records.
  • R&D functions :
  • Researchers. Professionals engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge, products, processes, methods, and systems and also in the management of the projects concerned. Researchers contribute more to the creative aspects of R&D , whereas technicians provide technical support .
  • R&D technicians. Persons whose main tasks require technical knowledge and experience in one or more fields of science or engineering, but who contribute to R&D by performing technical tasks such as computer programming, data analysis, ensuring accurate testing, operating lab equipment, and preparing and processing samples under the supervision of researchers.
  • R&D support staff. Employees who are not directly involved with the conduct of a research project, but who support the researchers and technicians. These employees might include clerical staff, financial and personnel administrators, report writers, patent agents, safety trainers, equipment specialists, and other related employees.
  • Sources of funds :
  • U.S. federal government. Any agency of the U.S. government. Federal funds that were passed through to the reporting institution from another institution were included.
  • State and local government. Any state, county, municipality, or other local government entity in the United States, including state health agencies. State funds that supported R&D at agricultural and other experiment stations were included. Public institutions reported state appropriations restricted for R&D activities in this category.
  • Business. Domestic or foreign for-profit organizations. Funds from a company’s nonprofit foundation were not reported here; they were reported under Nonprofit organizations.
  • Nonprofit organizations. Domestic or foreign nonprofit foundations and organizations, except universities and colleges. Funds from the reporting institution’s 501(c)3 foundation were reported under Institutional funds. Funds from other universities and colleges were reported under All other sources.
  • Institutional funds. Includes institutionally financed research (all R&D funded by the institution from accounts that are only used for research, excluding institution research administration and support), cost sharing (committed), and unrecovered indirect costs (the portion of indirect costs associated with a sponsored project that was not reimbursed by the sponsor in accordance with the institution’s negotiated indirect cost rate).
  • All other sources. Sources not reported in other categories, such as funds from foreign governments, foreign or U.S. universities, and gifts designated by the donors for research.
  • Subrecipient. The subrecipient for an award carries out the work but receives the funds from a pass-through entity rather than directly from the original funding source. Subrecipients tend to be the coauthors of publications, writers of technical reports discussing findings, inventors, and similar. Vendor relationships were not included.
  • T ype of cost. R&D expenditures were reported in the following categories:
  • Salaries, wages, and fringe benefits. Includes compensation for all R&D personnel whether full time or part time; temporary or permanent; including salaries, wages, and fringe benefits paid from institution funds and from external support.
  • Software purchases, noncapitalized and capitalized. Includes payments for all software — both purchases of software packages and license fees for systems.
  • Capitalized equipment. Includes payments for movable equipment exceeding the institution’s capitalization threshold, including ancillary costs such as delivery and setup.
  • Pass-throughs to other organizations. See the definition for s ubrecipient .
  • Other direct costs. Other costs that do not fit into one of the above categories, including (but not limited to) travel, tuition waivers, services such as consulting, computer usage fees, and supplies.
  • Indirect costs. Includes both recovered and unrecovered indirect costs.
  • Type of R&D. R&D expenditures were reported in the following categories:
  • Basic research. Experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts, without any particular application or use in view.
  • Applied research. Original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new knowledge. It is directed primarily toward a specific, practical aim or objective.
  • Experimental development. Systematic work, drawing on knowledge gained from research and practical experience and producing additional knowledge, which is directed toward producing new products or processes or toward improving existing products or processes.

Technical Tables

Questionnaires, view archived questionnaires, key data tables.

Recommended data tables

Higher education R&D expenditures reported by all institutions (standard form and short form populations)

Higher education r&d expenditures within standard form population, institution rankings, by all r&d expenditures, institution rankings, by federally financed r&d expenditures, data tables, higher education r&d expenditures by selected area, institution rankings, by nonfederally financed r&d expenditures, institution rankings, by special focus, higher education r&d expenditures in science fields, ranked by fy 2021 total, higher education r&d expenditures in engineering fields, ranked by fy 2021 total, higher education r&d expenditures in non-s&e fields and subfields, ranked by fy 2021 total, federally financed expenditures, ranked by federal agency total, by r&d field: fy 2021, geographic distribution: fys 2010–21, geographic distribution, by institutional control and institution: fy 2021, higher education r&d expenditures passed through to and received as subrecipients: fy 2021, ftes and r&d personnel at higher education institutions, higher edcuation r&d expenditures in science and engineering fields only: fys 2010–21, higher education r&d expenditures reported by the short form population, general notes.

This report provides data from the FY 2021 Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey. The survey is an annual census of institutions that expended at least $150,000 in separately accounted-for research and development (R&D) in the fiscal year.

The tables present data on R&D expenditures at higher education institutions across all academic disciplines and include R&D expenditures by institution, R&D field, geographic area, source of funds, type of R&D (basic research, applied research, and experimental development), cost categories (salaries, software, equipment, and indirect costs), and trends over time.

Acknowledgments and Suggested Citation

Acknowledgments, suggested citation.

Michael T. Gibbons of the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) developed and coordinated this report under the guidance of Gary Anderson, NCSES Acting Program Director, and the leadership of Emilda B. Rivers, NCSES Director; Vipin Arora, NCSES Deputy Director; and John Finamore, NCSES Chief Statistician. Jock Black (NCSES) reviewed the report.

Under contract to NCSES, ICF conducted the survey and prepared the data. ICF staff members who made significant contributions include Kathryn Harper, Project Director; Rebecca Atkinson, Deputy Project Director; Jennifer Greer, Data Management Lead; Sindhura Geda, Data Management Specialist; Bridget Beavers, Data Management Specialist; Cameron Shanton, Data Collection Specialist; Audrey Nankobogo, Data Collection Specialist; Vladimer Shioshvili, Survey Systems Lead.

NCSES thanks the research-performing academic institutions that provided information for this report.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2022. Higher Education Research and Development: Fiscal Year 20 2 1 . NSF 23-304. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23304/ .

Featured Analysis

Ncses data explorer, related content, related collections, survey contact.

For additional information about this survey or the methodology, contact

Get e-mail updates from NCSES

NCSES is an official statistical agency. Subscribe below to receive our latest news and announcements.

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to FDA Search
  • Skip to in this section menu
  • Skip to footer links

U.S. flag

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

  •   Search
  •   Menu
  • FDA Organization
  • Oncology Center of Excellence
  • OCE Annual Reports
  • 2023 OCE Annual Report

Oncology Regulatory Review 2023

AR Regulatory Review Blue

The OCE collaborates with three FDA product centers reviewing drugs, biologic therapies, and devices to develop and execute an integrated regulatory approach to enhance the cross-center coordination of oncology product clinical review. Several of OCE's regulatory programs and projects addressing important topics also provide short annual updates below.

  • Drugs and Biologic Therapies: CDER

Cellular Cancer Therapies: CBER

  • 2023 Oncology Approvals Table

Oncology Devices: CDRH

OCE Regulatory Programs:

Project Orbis

Pediatric oncology program, rare cancers program, oncology labeling program, project renewal, project confirm, drugs and biologic therapies: office of oncologic diseases, cder.

The Office of Oncologic Diseases (OOD) in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) approved 13 novel drugs (new medical entities or biologics) for treatment of various types of cancer including colorectal, prostate, lung and low-grade gliomas. Among the novel drug approvals were three first-in-class entities—drugs with mechanisms of action different from those of existing therapies:

  • Talquetamab-tgvs injection (Talvey) to treat adults with refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma who have received other therapies.
  • Nirogacestat (Ogsiveo) for adults with progressing desmoid tumors who require systemic treatment. This is the first FDA-approved treatment for desmoid tumors.
  • Capivasertib (Truqap) with fulvestrant for adults with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with one or more PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-alterations, as detected by an FDA-approved test.

OOD also completed 67 other approval decisions to expand the use or patient population of previously approved drugs. Several therapies were approved for various pediatric and rare cancers (see sections below). OOD clinical reviewers published an article describing the 2023 oncology approvals:  Highlights of FDA Oncology Approvals in 2023: Bispecific T-cell Engagers, Pediatric Indications, and Inclusive Drug Development  (covering approvals from November 8, 2022, to October 6, 2023).

The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) reviews and regulates cellular cancer therapies in partnership with OCE. 

In 2023, CBER and OCE approved one new cellular therapy product for hematologic malignancy in 2023, omidubicel-only (OMISIRGE) . The product is approved to reduce the time to neutrophil recovery and the incidence of infection in adults and children receiving umbilical cord blood transplants following myeloablative conditioning as treatment for hematologic malignancies. CBER and OCE also approved an efficacy supplement for axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), and a safety supplement for brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus).

2023 CDER and CBER Oncology Approvals 

AAid: Assessment Aid; BLA: Biologics License Application; NME: new molecular entity; RTOR: Real-Time Oncology Review.

The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) reviews and regulates oncology devices, including in vitro diagnostics (IVDs), in partnership with OCE. In 2023 CDRH in collaboration with OCE authorized 118 oncology devices including 61 IVDs, with 26 IVDs having new indications and of those 15 having new companion diagnostic indications. Additionally, 41 radiation oncology and diagnostic imaging devices were authorized as well as other oncology devices including: breast cancer sentinel lymph node identification, tumor ablation, biopsy, soft tissue markers, and orthopedic devices. Some of the pre-market submission highlights include:

  • Invitae Common Hereditary Cancers Panel De Novo, the first authorization for a qualitative high-throughput sequencing based in vitro diagnostic test system intended for analysis of germline human genomic DNA extracted from whole blood for detection of substitutions, small insertion and deletion alterations, and copy number variants in a panel of targeted genes. This test system is intended to provide information for use by qualified health care professionals, in accordance with professional guidelines, for hereditary cancer predisposition assessment and to aid in identifying hereditary genetic variants potentially associated with a diagnosed cancer.
  • Over the counter 23andMe Personal Genome Service Cancer Predisposition Genetic Health Risk Report for BRCA1/BRCA2 (Selected Variants) to expand the number of BRCA1/2 variants detected to 44 and cleared a predetermined change control plan to add more BRCA1/BRCA2 variants without the need for additional premarket review.
  • EasySep Human Bone Marrow CD138 Positive Selection Kit intended to enrich CD138+ cells from bone marrow collected from patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma.
  • Bladder EpiCheck Kit, which detects a novel biomarker for bladder cancer monitoring. The kit is intended for the qualitative detection of DNA methylation patterns of 15 loci in human DNA (from urine specimens) that are associated with transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. It is indicated for use as a non-invasive method to monitor for tumor recurrence in conjunction with cystoscopy in patients previously diagnosed with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.
  • Idylla MSI Test, an IVD that detects a novel microsatellite instability biomarker. The text detects seven monomorphic biomarkers (ACVR2A, BTBD7, DIDO1, MRE11, RYR3, SEC31A and SULF2) and is indicated for the qualitative identification of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer tumors, indicative of mismatch repair deficiency, and as an aid in the identification of probable Lynch syndrome to help identify patients that would benefit from additional genetic testing to diagnose Lynch syndrome.
  • BRAHMS CgA II Kryptor an IVD to measure Chromogranin A in human serum and used as an aid in monitoring of disease progression in patients with gastroentero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs, grade 1 and grade 2).
  • Elecsys Tg II an IVD to measure Thyroglobulin to use an aid in monitoring for the presence of persistent or recurrent/metastatic disease in patients who have differentiated thyroid cancer and have had thyroid surgery (with or without ablative therapy).
  • RefleXion Medical Radiotherapy System, a combination linear accelerator and positron emission tomography system that can treat targets in lung and bone using biology-guided radiation therapy.
  • P-Cure Proton Beam Therapy System, a new proton system that can deliver a proton beam to targets in the head, neck, and thorax in patients that are in a seated position.
  • HistoSonics Edison System for the non-invasive destruction of liver tumors, including unresectable liver tumors, using a non-thermal, mechanical process of focused ultrasound. This is a novel ablation method that generates cavitation and differs from high-intensity focused ultrasounds which uses heat to destroy tissue.

In March 2023, FDA issued two safety communication updates, UPDATE: Reports of Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC) in the Capsule Around Breast Implants , sharing information from the FDA's review of literature and medical device reports about SCC in the capsule around breast implants. FDA informed health care providers that they can now submit case reports of SCC, various lymphomas, and any other cancers in the capsule around breast implants to the Patient Registry and Outcomes for Breast Implants and Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (ALCL) Etiology and Epidemiology (PROFILE) .

CDRH held an advisory panel meeting on November 29 on the design of multi-cancer detection (MCD) in vitro diagnostic devices as well as potential study designs and study outcomes of interest that could inform the assessment of the probable benefits and risks of MCD screening tests. The committee’s discussion and recommendations from this meeting will help inform future Agency regulatory efforts for these novel tests.

Project Orbis remains an active OCE program with 19 unique approvals in 2023. In addition, OCE sought to expand interactions with existing regulatory partners. FDA Oncology has collaborated with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) since 2004 and 2014, respectively, via a monthly teleconference involving six regulatory health authorities. 

In May 2023, an FDA OCE delegation traveled to EMA in Amsterdam, Netherlands. A visit to PMDA in Tokyo, Japan, followed in November 2023. During these visits, the agencies discussed expanding regulatory cooperation into other areas of oncology drug development, including EMA and PMDA joining Project Orbis as observers. OCE will focus on cultivating these new areas of collaboration with EMA and PMDA in 2024.

FDA approved the following drug-indication combinations through Project Orbis in 2023. Visit Oncology (Cancer)/Hematologic Malignancies Approval Notifications for further information on these approvals.

  • Two or more separate applications associated with approval.
  • New Molecular Entity (NME) or new/original biologic.
  • No OCE approval announcement issued.

The OCE Pediatric Oncology Program works to promote the development of new safe and effective drugs and biologics to treat cancer in children and adolescents. With the authority granted by the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA), the OCE Pediatric Oncology Program aims to increase the number and timeliness of molecularly targeted pediatric cancer investigations for certain new targeted therapies under development for treatment of adult cancers.

This program also leverages the authority under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) to encourage voluntary conduct of pediatric trials of new cancer drugs and biologics much earlier in the development timeline by issuing Written Requests for these studies. The Pediatric Oncology Program also provides community outreach and works with a variety of international stakeholders to facilitate timely global pediatric cancer drug development programs.

In 2023, there were 11 approvals of 7 different drugs and biologics to treat pediatric patients with cancer. Notable approvals include:

  • Eflornithine to reduce the risk of relapse in pediatric and adult patients with high-risk neuroblastoma.
  • Dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for the treatment of pediatric patients 1 year of age and older with low grade glioma harboring a BRAF V600E mutation who require systemic treatment.
  • New pediatric formulations of entrectinib, dabrafenib, and trametinib for patients unable to swallow tablets or capsules.

See OCE Pediatric Oncology Drug Approvals  for more information.

Launched in late 2021, the OCE Rare Cancers Program aims to leverage OCE’s ongoing initiatives to promote development of safe and effective new drugs and biologics to treat patients with rare cancers.

In conjunction with Project Community, the Rare Cancers Program participated in a Conversations on Cancer discussion, “Beginning the Rare Cancer Journey: Charting the Best Path to an Accurate Diagnosis,” to increase public awareness regarding the challenges to receiving a timely, correct diagnosis experienced by some patients with rare cancers and encourage dialogue to mitigate these challenges.

Other outreach activities in 2023 included participation in a Project Community Quarterly Advocacy Meeting with patients with rare cancers, and in programming related to rare cancer drug development during FDA Rare Disease Day.

As discussed during an initial public transparency meeting held in August, the Rare Cancers Program is working with OCE’s Project Catalyst, the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, and the National Cancer Institute to form a public- private partnership to develop new anti-cancer therapies for ultra-rare cancers.

Notable Office of Oncologic Diseases 2023 approvals of drugs or biologics for rare cancers or other rare diseases included:

  • Nirogacestat for the treatment of patients with progressing desmoid tumors.
  • Ivosidenib for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed/refractory myelodysplastic syndromes with an IDH1 mutation.
  • Dabrafenib/trametinib for pediatric patients with BRAFV600E mutant low-grade glioma.
  • Eflornithine for the treatment of pediatric patients with high-risk neuroblastoma.

In 2023, the Oncology Labeling Program :

  • Served as the core team for the FDA Draft Guidance for QTc Information in Human Prescription Drug and Biologic Product Labeling (August 2023)
  • FDA Guidance for the Dosage and Administration Section of Labeling (January 2023)
  • Labeling for Dosing Based on Weight or Body Surface Area for Ready-to-Use Containers—“Dose Banding” (October 2023)
  • Draft Drug Interactions Section of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products—Content and Format
  • Draft Combined Hormonal Contraceptives for Prevention of Pregnancy—Labeling for Health Care Providers and Patients
  • Updated Labeling for Biosimilar and Interchangeable Biosimilar Products
  • Draft Pharmacokinetics in Patients with Impaired Hepatic Function—Study Design, Data Analysis, and Impact on Dosing and Labeling; Revised Draft 
  • Advanced oncology labeling awareness through engagement with the external community and key stakeholders by presenting at the 2023 Global Labeling and Regulatory Symposium and at the 2023 FDA-ASH Regulatory Workshop.
  • Core review team for Project Renewal to ensure the use of published data is translated accurately into clinically meaningful and scientifically up to date drug information in labeling.
  • Collaborated across FDA Centers on two Citizen’s Petitions resulting in labeling revisions to improve the safe use of oncology products for cancer patients.
  • Collaborated across FDA Centers for drug interactions with food, drug disposal information, and dosing of patients with organ impairment where these intersect with oncology product labeling.

Since its launch in 2018, Project Renewal has updated two long-standing, off-patent oncology drug labels as part of OCE’s ongoing public health commitment.

Multidisciplinary teams of FDA review staff, practicing oncologists, hematology/oncology fellows in training, oncology pharmacists, and other scientific staff review the publicly available data that informs the safe and effective use of older oncology drugs. Ultimately, FDA oncologists independently review the available data to ensure revised labeling provides adequate directions for contemporary use.

In 2023, Project Renewal:

  • Approved the updated labeling for Temodar on September 14, 2023, under six supplemental NDAs.
  • As of the end of 2023, 14 NDA supplements have been filed and approved under Project Renewal.
  • Initiated review of additional oncology products, including evaluating 8 potential new or updated uses.
  • Collaborated with FDA Office of Generic Drugs to update generic oncology product labeling under the Making Objective Drug Evidence Revisions for New (MODERN) Labeling Act.
  • Expanded collaborations with a division in FDA Office of New Drugs to assist in the updated labeling of non-oncologic drugs.

Six academic oncologists and 5 clinical fellows from 11 institutions across the US participated in labeling evaluation as part of our on-going effort to improve awareness and education of FDA and product labeling. Thirteen oncologists and fellows who participated in Project Renewal also have participated in additional OCE educational efforts including the FDA-AACR Oncology Educational Fellowship .

Project Confirm , begun in October 2021, is an OCE initiative to increase the transparency of outcomes related to accelerated approval for oncology indications.

The cornerstone of Project Confirm is a searchable public database updated in real-time, listing all accelerated approvals granted in oncology since 1992. The database is divided into separate pages that list accelerated approvals that are ongoing, those that have verified clinical benefit and have been granted traditional approval, and those that have been withdrawn. The project aims to continue to facilitate evaluation of ongoing accelerated approvals and to continue efforts to increase public awareness of the program and its outcomes.

In 2023, Project Confirm supported internal projects including FDA's efforts related to the implementation of accelerated approval provisions described in the recent Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act legislation, as well as external discussions, presentations, and publications on the accelerated approval program.

KPMG Logo

  • Global (EN)
  • Albania (en)
  • Algeria (fr)
  • Argentina (es)
  • Armenia (en)
  • Australia (en)
  • Austria (de)
  • Austria (en)
  • Azerbaijan (en)
  • Bahamas (en)
  • Bahrain (en)
  • Bangladesh (en)
  • Barbados (en)
  • Belgium (en)
  • Belgium (nl)
  • Bermuda (en)
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina (en)
  • Brasil (pt)
  • Brazil (en)
  • British Virgin Islands (en)
  • Bulgaria (en)
  • Cambodia (en)
  • Cameroon (fr)
  • Canada (en)
  • Canada (fr)
  • Cayman Islands (en)
  • Channel Islands (en)
  • Colombia (es)
  • Costa Rica (es)
  • Croatia (en)
  • Cyprus (en)
  • Czech Republic (cs)
  • Czech Republic (en)
  • DR Congo (fr)
  • Denmark (da)
  • Denmark (en)
  • Ecuador (es)
  • Estonia (en)
  • Estonia (et)
  • Finland (fi)
  • France (fr)
  • Georgia (en)
  • Germany (de)
  • Germany (en)
  • Gibraltar (en)
  • Greece (el)
  • Greece (en)
  • Hong Kong SAR (en)
  • Hungary (en)
  • Hungary (hu)
  • Iceland (is)
  • Indonesia (en)
  • Ireland (en)
  • Isle of Man (en)
  • Israel (en)
  • Ivory Coast (fr)
  • Jamaica (en)
  • Jordan (en)
  • Kazakhstan (en)
  • Kazakhstan (kk)
  • Kazakhstan (ru)
  • Kuwait (en)
  • Latvia (en)
  • Latvia (lv)
  • Lebanon (en)
  • Lithuania (en)
  • Lithuania (lt)
  • Luxembourg (en)
  • Macau SAR (en)
  • Malaysia (en)
  • Mauritius (en)
  • Mexico (es)
  • Moldova (en)
  • Monaco (en)
  • Monaco (fr)
  • Mongolia (en)
  • Montenegro (en)
  • Mozambique (en)
  • Myanmar (en)
  • Namibia (en)
  • Netherlands (en)
  • Netherlands (nl)
  • New Zealand (en)
  • Nigeria (en)
  • North Macedonia (en)
  • Norway (nb)
  • Pakistan (en)
  • Panama (es)
  • Philippines (en)
  • Poland (en)
  • Poland (pl)
  • Portugal (en)
  • Portugal (pt)
  • Romania (en)
  • Romania (ro)
  • Saudi Arabia (en)
  • Serbia (en)
  • Singapore (en)
  • Slovakia (en)
  • Slovakia (sk)
  • Slovenia (en)
  • South Africa (en)
  • Sri Lanka (en)
  • Sweden (sv)
  • Switzerland (de)
  • Switzerland (en)
  • Switzerland (fr)
  • Taiwan (en)
  • Taiwan (zh)
  • Thailand (en)
  • Trinidad and Tobago (en)
  • Tunisia (en)
  • Tunisia (fr)
  • Turkey (en)
  • Turkey (tr)
  • Ukraine (en)
  • Ukraine (ru)
  • Ukraine (uk)
  • United Arab Emirates (en)
  • United Kingdom (en)
  • United States (en)
  • Uruguay (es)
  • Uzbekistan (en)
  • Uzbekistan (ru)
  • Venezuela (es)
  • Vietnam (en)
  • Vietnam (vi)
  • Zambia (en)
  • Zimbabwe (en)
  • Financial Reporting View
  • Women's Leadership
  • Corporate Finance
  • Board Leadership
  • Executive Education

Fresh thinking and actionable insights that address critical issues your organization faces.

  • Insights by Industry
  • Insights by Topic

KPMG's multi-disciplinary approach and deep, practical industry knowledge help clients meet challenges and respond to opportunities.

  • Advisory Services
  • Audit Services
  • Tax Services

Services to meet your business goals

Technology Alliances

KPMG has market-leading alliances with many of the world's leading software and services vendors.

Helping clients meet their business challenges begins with an in-depth understanding of the industries in which they work. That’s why KPMG LLP established its industry-driven structure. In fact, KPMG LLP was the first of the Big Four firms to organize itself along the same industry lines as clients.

  • Our Industries

How We Work

We bring together passionate problem-solvers, innovative technologies, and full-service capabilities to create opportunity with every insight.

  • What sets us apart

Careers & Culture

What is culture? Culture is how we do things around here. It is the combination of a predominant mindset, actions (both big and small) that we all commit to every day, and the underlying processes, programs and systems supporting how work gets done.

Relevant Results

Sorry, there are no results matching your search., research & development tax credit 2023 year in review.

research and development survey 2023

Webcast overview

Over the past year, there have been many developments regarding the research and development (R&D) tax credit and other tax treatment of R&D that can mean potential credits for your organization. 

Join us for our webcast, where KPMG professionals discuss a variety of topics, including:

  • Pilot models and recent developments in the courts
  • Research under contract and 2023 guidance
  • IRS refund claims and proposed changes to Form 6765
  • IRS examinations/appeals hot topics

Meet our webcast team

Image of Hogan Humphries

Explore more

research and development survey 2023

Credits, Grants, and Incentives Services

Tax credits abound. Are you capturing all of them?

research and development survey 2023

Realize tax savings for qualified research activities

The current state of the research tax credit.

research and development survey 2023

Accounting methods & credits

Tax-efficient accounting methods and credits

Thank you for contacting KPMG. We will respond to you as soon as possible.

Contact KPMG

By submitting, you agree that KPMG LLP may process any personal information you provide pursuant to KPMG LLP's Privacy Statement .

Job seekers

Visit our careers section or search our jobs database.

Use the RFP submission form to detail the services KPMG can help assist you with.

Office locations

International hotline

You can confidentially report concerns to the KPMG International hotline

Press contacts

Do you need to speak with our Press Office? Here's how to get in touch.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Global SMT Solder Paste Printing Machines Market Professional Survey by Types, Applications, and Players, with Regional Growth Rate Analysis and Development Situation, from 2023 to 2028

  • Table of Contents
  • Description
  • Related Reports

Chapter 1 Market Overview Chapter 2 Players Profiles Chapter 3 Competitive Environment: by Players Chapter 4 Industry Chain Analysis Chapter 5 SMT Solder Paste Printing Machines Market Dynamic and Trends, Marketing Strategy Analysis Chapter 6 Global SMT Solder Paste Printing Machines Market Segment by Type (2018-2023) Chapter 7 Global SMT Solder Paste Printing Machines Market Segment by Application (2018-2023) Chapter 8 Global SMT Solder Paste Printing Machines Market Segment by Region (2018-2023) Chapter 9 Global SMT Solder Paste Printing Machines Market Forecast Segment by Type Chapter 10 Global SMT Solder Paste Printing Machines Market Forecast Segment by Application Chapter 11 Global SMT Solder Paste Printing Machines Market Forecast Segment by Region Chapter 12 Appendix

Global Soldering Flux Paste Market Professional Survey by Types, Applications, and Players, with Regional Growth Rate Analysis and Development Situation, from 2023 to 2028

Global au-sn solder paste market professional survey by types, applications, and players, with regional growth rate analysis and development situation, from 2023 to 2028, global low temperature solder pastes market professional survey by types, applications, and players, with regional growth rate analysis and development situation, from 2023 to 2028, global solder paste inspection (spi) system market professional survey by types, applications, and players, with regional growth rate analysis and development situation, from 2023 to 2028, global automatic selective soldering machine market professional survey by types, applications, and players, with regional growth rate analysis and development situation, from 2023 to 2028, global printing machine market professional survey by types, applications, and players, with regional growth rate analysis and development situation, from 2023 to 2028, research assistance.

Live help

Learn how to effectively navigate the market research process to help guide your organization on the journey to success.

Other tasks

  • Printer format
  • Order by fax
  • Currency converter
  • The paths to equal
  • Towards HDR 2023
  • 2023 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)
  • 2023 Gender Social Norms Index Publication
  • Human Development Report 2021-22
  • Human Development Index
  • Country Insights
  • Human Climate Horizons data and insights platform
  • Thematic Composite Indices
  • Thematic Dashboards
  • Documentation and downloads
  • What is Human development?
  • NHDR/RHDR Report preparation toolkit

The 2023/24 Human Development Report will be launched on 13 March, 2024

research and development survey 2023

The upcoming 2023-2024 Human Development Report (HDR) titled "Breaking the Gridlock: Reimagining cooperation in a polarized world" will be launched on 13 March 2024.

The report presents ways forward that hinges on reimagining cooperation in ways that do not assume away divergent interests or opinions but work with them to deliver global public goods – where we all stand to benefit.

This report opens a new trilogy of human development reports that will explore further the layers of uncertainty identified in the latest HDR: how to address polarization (2023-24), shape our shared digital future to advance human development (2025), and marshal human aspirations to navigate the Anthropocene (2026).

warning icon

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE)

  • Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) Home
  • Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (BCS)
  • About NCSES
  • Explore Data
  • Surveys & Analysis
  • Schedule of Release Dates
  • Corrections
  • Social and Economic Sciences (SES)
  • SBE Office of Multidisciplinary Activities (SMA)
  • Get NCSES Email Updates Get NCSES Email Updates Go
  • NCSES RSS Feed What is RSS?
  • Contact NCSES
  • Research Areas
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Send as Email

Business Enterprise Research and Development Survey (BERD)

research and development survey 2023

  • About The Survey
  • Publications
  • Related Products

Survey Description

Questionnaires

  • Business Enterprise Research and Development: 2020 DATA TABLES | NSF 23-314 | May 2, 2023
  • Business Enterprise Research and Development: 2019 DATA TABLES | NSF 22-329 | April 28, 2022
  • See all [+]
  • Business Research and Development: 2018 Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 21-312 | December 16, 2020
  • Business Research and Development: 2017 Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 20-311 | February 20, 2020
  • Business Research and Development and Innovation: 2016 Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 19-318 | May 13, 2019
  • Business Research and Development and Innovation: 2015 Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 18-313 | August 30, 2018
  • Business Research and Development and Innovation: 2014 Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 18-302 | March 12, 2018
  • Business Research and Development and Innovation: 2013 Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 16-313 | August 2, 2016
  • Business Research and Development and Innovation: 2012 Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 16-301 | October 29, 2015
  • Business Research and Development and Innovation: 2011 Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 15-307 | December 30, 2014
  • Business Research and Development and Innovation: 2008–10 (A) Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 13-332 | September 18, 2013
  • Research and Development in Industry: 2006–07 (A) Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 11-301 | June 24, 2011
  • Research and Development in Industry: 2005 (A) Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 10-319 | June 25, 2010
  • Research and Development in Industry: 2004 (A) Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 09-301 | January 12, 2009
  • Research and Development in Industry: 2003 (A) Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 07-314 | February 26, 2007
  • Research and Development in Industry: 2002 (A) Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 06-322 | August 9, 2006
  • R&D in Industry: 2001 (A) Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 05-305 | March 1, 2005
  • R&D in Industry: 2000 (A) Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 03-318 | July 10, 2003
  • R&D in Industry: 1999 (A) Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 02-312 | April 1, 2002
  • R&D in Industry: 1998 (A) Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 01-305 | November 22, 2000
  • R&D in Industry: 1997 (A) Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 99-358 | November 12, 1999
  • R&D in Industry: 1995-96 (A) Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 99-312 | December 23, 1998
  • R&D in Industry: 1994 (A) Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 97-331 | January 15, 1998
  • R&D in Industry: 1993 (A) Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 96-304 | October 18, 1996
  • R&D in Industry: 1992 (A) Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 95-324 | February 16, 1995
  • R&D in Industry: 1991 (A) Detailed Statistical Tables | NSF 94-325 | January 1, 1994
  • See more in Business and Industry R&D →
  • IRIS (Industrial Research and Development Information System: 1953-2007)

Profiles Science and Engineering State Profiles State Profiles is an interactive website providing access to state-level data on science and engineering (S&E) personnel and finances and state rankings. State Profiles displays up to 7 state profiles of the user’s choice. Data are available from surveys sponsored by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics within the National Science Foundation on employed S&E doctorate holders; S&E doctorates awarded, including by major S&E fields; S&E graduate students and postdoctorates; federal research and development obligations by agency and performer; state government agency R&D expenditures; total and business R&D performance; and higher education R&D performance, including by major S&E fields. Data available from other sources include population, civilian labor force, per capita personal income, federal expenditures, patents, small business innovation research awards, and gross domestic product. All data are available for download. Data cover 2003 to present. Because of the time it takes to produce and post the Science and Engineering State Profiles data set, some source data may have been updated since these profiles were created. See the source data for the most up-to-date information.

  • Business R&D Performance in the United States Tops $600 Billion in 2021 InfoBriefs | NSF 23-350 | September 28, 2023
  • Businesses Invested $32.5 Billion in Assets to Support Their R&D Activities in the United States in 2020 InfoBriefs | NSF 23-327 | March 17, 2023
  • Labor Costs Account for Over Two-Thirds of U.S. Business R&D Performance in 2020 InfoBriefs | NSF 23-322 | February 21, 2023
  • Businesses Spent Over a Half Trillion Dollars for R&D Performance in the United States During 2020, a 9.1% Increase Over 2019 InfoBriefs | NSF 22-343 | October 4, 2022
  • Foreign R&D Reported by IT-Related Industries Account for About Half or More of U.S.-Owned R&D Performed in India, China, Canada, and Israel InfoBriefs | NSF 22-328 | April 28, 2022
  • Businesses Reported an 11.8% Increase to Nearly a Half Trillion Dollars for U.S. R&D Performance During 2019 InfoBriefs | NSF 22-303 | November 18, 2021
  • Three-Quarters of U.S. Businesses that Performed or Funded R&D Viewed Trade Secrets as Important in 2018 InfoBriefs | NSF 21-339 | September 2, 2021
  • Businesses Performed 60% of Their U.S. R&D in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2018 InfoBriefs | NSF 21-331 | June 16, 2021
  • Health-Related Applications Account for One-Quarter of 2018 U.S. Business R&D; Most Pharmaceutical R&D Focused on Biotechnology InfoBriefs | NSF 21-316 | January 6, 2021
  • U.S. Businesses Reported $441 Billion for R&D Performance in the United States During 2018, a 10.2% Increase from 2017 InfoBriefs | NSF 20-316 | August 26, 2020
  • Business R&D Performance in the United States Reached $400 Billion in 2017, a 6.8% Increase from 2016 InfoBriefs | NSF 19-326 | September 26, 2019
  • PhD Researchers in the Business Sector: Domestic and Foreign Employment and Industry-Level Characteristics of Domestic R&D InfoBriefs | NSF 19-320 | June 20, 2019
  • Software R&D: Revised Treatment in U.S. National Accounts and Related Trends in Business R&D Expenditures InfoBriefs | NSF 19-315 | April 29, 2019
  • Businesses Spent $375 Billion on R&D Performance in the United States in 2016 InfoBriefs | NSF 18-312 | September 25, 2018
  • Examining Different Industry Classification Methods for Business R&D InfoBriefs | NSF 19-324 | September 3, 2019
  • Over Half of U.S. Business R&D Performed in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2015 InfoBriefs | NSF 19-322 | June 20, 2019
  • Indicators of R&D in Small Businesses: Data from the 2009–15 Business R&D and Innovation Survey InfoBriefs | NSF 19-316 | April 17, 2019
  • Business R&D Performed in the United States Reached $356 Billion in 2015 InfoBriefs | NSF 17-320 | August 22, 2017
  • Rates of Innovation among U.S. Businesses Stay Steady: Data from the 2014 Business R&D and Innovation Survey InfoBriefs | NSF 17-321 | August 28, 2017
  • Businesses Spent $341 Billion on R&D Performed in the United States in 2014 InfoBriefs | NSF 16-315 | August 25, 2016
  • U.S. Companies Performed $73 Billion in R&D Outside the United States in 2013 InfoBriefs | NSF 17-317 | April 11, 2017
  • A Snapshot of Business R&D Employment in the United States InfoBriefs | NSF 17-302 | October 31, 2016
  • Five States Account for Half of U.S. Business R&D in 2013; New Data for Metropolitan Areas Available InfoBriefs | NSF 16-317 | September 30, 2016
  • Information and Communications Technology Industries Account for $133 Billion of Business R&D Performance in the United States in 2013 InfoBriefs | NSF 16-309 | April 13, 2016
  • Business R&D Performance in the United States Increases Over 6% to $323 Billion in 2013 InfoBriefs | NSF 15-329 | August 20, 2015
  • Business R&D Performance in the United States Tops $300 Billion in 2012 InfoBriefs | NSF 15-303 | October 28, 2014
  • Update on U.S. Business Innovation: Findings from 2011 Survey InfoBriefs | NSF 16-308 | March 8, 2016
  • 2011 Data Show U.S. Business R&D Highly Concentrated by State and Metropolitan Location (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 14-315 | August 26, 2014
  • Extramural R&D Funding by U.S.-Located Businesses Nears $30 Billion in 2011 (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 14-314 | July 22, 2014
  • Business R&D Performance in the United States Increased in 2011 (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 13-335 | September 19, 2013
  • Two NSF Surveys on R&D Document Varied Relationships between Businesses and Academia (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 13-333 | September 19, 2013
  • Business R&D Performance Remained Virtually Unchanged in 2010 (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 13-324 | June 4, 2013
  • Business R&D Performed in the United States Cost $291 Billion in 2008 and $282 Billion in 2009 (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 12-309 | March 7, 2012
  • One in Five U.S. Businesses with R&D Applied for a U.S. Patent in 2008 (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 13-307 | February 13, 2013
  • New Data on Line of Business Improve Understanding of U.S. Industry R&D Statistics (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 13-306 | November 28, 2012
  • Businesses Concentrate Their R&D in a Small Number of Geographic Areas in the United States (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 12-326 | September 4, 2012
  • Health and Defense Applications Account for 40% of Business R&D in the United States (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 12-329 | August 22, 2012
  • Business Use of Intellectual Property Protection Documented in NSF Survey (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 12-307 | February 17, 2012
  • NSF Releases New Statistics on Business Innovation (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 11-300 | October 5, 2010
  • New Employment Statistics from the 2008 Business R&D and Innovation Survey (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 10-326 | July 8, 2010
  • U.S. Businesses Report 2008 Worldwide R&D Expense of $330 Billion: Findings from New NSF Survey (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 10-322 | May 26, 2010
  • NSF Announces New U.S. Business R&D and Innovation Survey (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 09-304 | December 4, 2008
  • U.S. Business R&D Expenditures Increase in 2007; Small Companies Performed 19% of Nation's Business R&D (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 09-316 | July 10, 2009
  • U.S. Business R&D Expenditures Increase in 2006; Companies' Own and Federal Contributions Rise (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 08-313 | August 12, 2008
  • Expenditures for U.S. Industrial R&D Continue to Increase in 2005; R&D Performance Geographically Concentrated (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 07-335 | October 1, 2007
  • Revised Industry Classification Better Reflects Structure of Business R&D in the United States (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 07-313 | February 7, 2007
  • U.S. Industrial R&D Performers Report Increased Expenditures for 2004 (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 07-304 | December 20, 2006
  • Increase in US Industrial R&D Expenditures Reported for 2003 Makes Up For Earlier Decline (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 06-305 | December 19, 2005
  • Largest Single-Year Decline in Industrial R&D Expenditures Reported for 2002 (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 04-320 | May 20, 2004
  • US Industry Sustains R&D Expenditures During 2001 Despite Decline in Performers' Aggregate Sales (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 04-301 | October 9, 2003
  • US Industrial R&D Expenditures and R&D-to-Sales Ratio Reach Historical Highs in 2000 (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 03-306 | December 31, 2002
  • US Industrial R&D Performers Report Increased R&D in 1999; New Industry Coding and Size Classifications for NSF Survey (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 01-326 | May 30, 2001
  • US Industrial R&D Performers Report Increased R&D in 1998 (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 00-320 | May 10, 2000
  • 1996 US Industrial R&D: Firms Continue to Increase Their Investment (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 98-317 | June 24, 1998
  • 1995 US Industrial R&D Rises, NSF Survey Statistics Expanded to Emphasize Role of Nonmanufacturing Industries (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 97-332 | December 16, 1997
  • 1994 Company Funding of US Industrial R&D Rises as Federal Support Continues to Decline (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 96-310 | November 19, 1996
  • 1993 Spending Falls for US Industrial R&D, Nonmanufacturing Share Increases (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 95-325 | August 11, 1995
  • US Industrial R&D: NSF Announces New Information Retrieval System and Historical Database (A) InfoBriefs | NSF 01-338 | October 11, 2001
  • Women Made Up Over a Quarter of All Business R&D Employees in 2020 Other | NSF 23-328 | March 20, 2023
  • U.S. Businesses Invest $55 Billion in R&D Directed at New Business Areas and New Product Lines Other | NSF 20-315 | July 13, 2020
  • U.S. Manufacturing Industries Had over 900,000 R&D Employees in 2016 Other | NSF 20-313 | April 13, 2020
  • Innovation-Related Services Trade by Multinational Enterprises (hosted at bea.gov) Other | May 23, 2016
  • Publications Output: U.S. Trends and International Comparisons Special Reports | NSB 2021-4 | October 28, 2021
  • Science and Technology: Public Perceptions, Awareness, and Information Sources Special Reports | NSB 2022-7 | May 4, 2022
  • Academic Research and Development Special Reports | NSB 2021-3 | September 14, 2021
  • The STEM Labor Force of Today: Scientists, Engineers, and Skilled Technical Workers Special Reports | NSB 2021-2 | August 31, 2021
  • 1997 US Industrial R&D Performers (A) Special Reports | NSF 99-355 | August 30, 1999

Can't Find What You Are Looking For?

  • Search NCSES to find data and reports or browse the Publication Index .
  • See permissions for reuse of NCSES material.

Last Updated: January 2023

IMAGES

  1. 2023 Survey: Unleashing Insights for Better Decision-Making

    research and development survey 2023

  2. Global Economic Survey 2023 (GES2023) Infographic

    research and development survey 2023

  3. Economic Survey 2022-23

    research and development survey 2023

  4. Economic Survey 2023 Highlights, Complete Analysis

    research and development survey 2023

  5. Tech Survey 2023: Help KML Be Even Better For YOU!

    research and development survey 2023

  6. Leading Research Universities Report, January 23, 2023

    research and development survey 2023

VIDEO

  1. Research Methodology Workshop

  2. Day 1: Webinar on Research Methodology held on 27-05-2023 at 7 p.m

  3. Individual Research

  4. Research Module Overview

  5. CSUSB designation raised to an R2 Doctoral University: High Research Activity

  6. Undergraduate Research Experience Sharing 2021: Meeting with Undergraduate Researcher

COMMENTS

  1. Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey

    November 30, 2023 Publication ID: NSF 24-307 View Download HERD Survey Overview View and Download Data Highlights In current dollars, higher education research and development (R&D) grew at an average annual rate of 4.0% since FY 2012 However, in constant dollars, the average annual growth rate of R&D was 1.6% View analysis $97.8B

  2. Stack Overflow Developer Survey 2023

    Developer Profile Learning to code Learning to code from online resources increased from 70% to 80% since the 2022 survey. Respondents 18 and under are those most frequently selecting online resources (e.g., videos, blogs, forums) to learn from.

  3. PDF 2023 Survey of State Government Research and Development

    FY 2023 SURVEY OF STATE GOVERNMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Due Date: February 9, 2024 Need help or have questions about filling out the form? Call toll-free 1-888-340-7525, between 8:00a.m. and 5:00p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday. Email [email protected] or Visit https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sgrd/information.html

  4. PDF Ffrdc Research and Development Survey, Fy 2023

    FFRDC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SURVEY FY 2023 . Please submit your survey data by January 17, 2024. Your participation in this survey provides important information on the national level of R&D activity. The National Science . Foundation (NSF) is authorized to collect this information under the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended.

  5. Launch of the 2023 Survey of Research and Experimental Development

    The UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) has launched its 2023 Survey of Research and Experimental Development (R&D) Statistics for the reference year 2022 to ensure the timely collection of data for monitoring SDG Target 9.5 As part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Agenda 2030, countries have pledged to "build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and

  6. Launch of the 2022 Survey of Research and Experimental Development

    The UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) has just launched its 2022 Survey of Research and Development (R&D) ... Country-level data and indicators from this Survey will be released by the UIS in 2023 through its data portal (UIS.stat), and the UIS Bulk Data Download Service (BDDS). As the official source for R&D data for the United Nations ...

  7. PDF National Health Statistics Reports, Number 188, July 10, 2023

    Number 188 July 10, 2023 Comparison of Mental Health Estimates by Sociodemographic Characteristics in the Research and Development Survey 3 and the 2019 National Health Interview Survey By Leanna P. Moron, M.S., Katherine E. Irimata, Ph.D., and Jennifer D. Parker, Ph.D. Abstract

  8. Higher Education Research and Development Survey Fy 2022

    HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SURVEY FY 2022 Please submit your survey data by January 31, 2023. Your participation in this survey provides important information on the national level of R&D activity. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is authorized to collect this information under the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as ...

  9. Climate R&D

    Climate R&D - 2023 Year in Review. By Climate Research and Development Program January 31, 2024. 2023 was another productive year for the USGS Climate Research & Development Program! Below are some summaries and highlights of Program work from the past year.

  10. Research and development survey: 2022

    28 April 2023, 10:45am Research and development (R&D) statistics report on research and development activity, including expenditure and related employment across the business, government, and higher education sectors in New Zealand. Every two years, including 2022, all three sectors are surveyed.

  11. Research and Development Survey 2023

    Research and Development Survey 2023 - survey form 31 July 2023, 9:00am Your business has been selected for the Research and Development Survey 2023 (R&D). If you have already completed and posted back a paper questionnaire then you don't need to do any more - thank you for completing the R&D Survey 2023.

  12. Research and Development Statistics Survey

    Survey's definition It is an annual statistics report that focuses on the fields of research and development in Saudi Arabia, with the aim of providing economic indicators for research and development. Survey's objectives Providing data on research and development expenditures and their sources for all sectors.

  13. Research and development

    Research and development. We are an innovative medicines company with research and development at our core. Our R&D engine powers an industry-leading pipeline focused on delivering transformative medicines to fight disease, restore possibility and help people live life on their own terms. Researchers in Biomedical Research work across several ...

  14. Survey of Research and Development Carried Out in the United Kingdom

    28 April 2023. Aim of this survey. The survey of Research and Development Carried Out in the United Kingdom (Business Enterprises) (R&D) is a statutory survey. It collects information about employment and expenditure on research and development (R&D) performed within UK businesses, for both civil and defence purposes. ...

  15. CSEAN on Instagram: "We are pleased to announce the release of our

    20 likes, 2 comments - cyberexpertsng on January 13, 2024: "We are pleased to announce the release of our National Cyber Threat Forecast 2024 Our Direc..."

  16. Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey

    The HERD Survey is the primary source of information on research and development expenditures at U.S. colleges and universities that expended at least $150,000 in separately accounted for R&D in the fiscal year. Build Custom Tables Survey Info Methodology Data Analysis Key Data Tables Data Tables General Notes Data files for custom analysis

  17. Oncology Regulatory Review 2023

    The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) reviews and regulates oncology devices, including in vitro diagnostics (IVDs), in partnership with OCE. In 2023 CDRH in collaboration with OCE ...

  18. Research & Development Tax Credit 2023 Year in Review

    Over the past year, there have been many developments regarding the research and development (R&D) tax credit and other tax treatment of R&D that can mean potential credits for your organization. ... Research under contract and 2023 guidance; IRS refund claims and proposed changes to Form 6765; IRS examinations/appeals hot topics; Meet our ...

  19. Global SMT Solder Paste Printing Machines Market Professional Survey by

    Global SMT Solder Paste Printing Machines Market Professional Survey by Types, Applications, and Players, with Regional Growth Rate Analysis and Development Situation, from 2023 to - Market research report and industry analysis - 36252633. Market Research. ... Chapter 12 concludes with an explanation of the data sources and research methods ...

  20. The 2023/24 Human Development Report will be launched on 13 March, 2024

    The upcoming 2023-2024 Human Development Report (HDR) titled "Breaking the Gridlock: Reimagining cooperation in a polarized world" will be launched on 13 March 2024.. The report presents ways forward that hinges on reimagining cooperation in ways that do not assume away divergent interests or opinions but work with them to deliver global public goods - where we all stand to benefit.

  21. PDF National Science Foundation's FFRDC Research and Development Survey

    National Science Foundation s FFRDC Research and Development Survey: Fiscal Year 2022 Table of Contents 1. SURVEY POPULATION AND FRAME ......................................................................... 2 2. FFRDC R&D SURVEY (FY 2010-PRESENT) ............................................................... 3 2.1.

  22. GDP Growth

    Data and research on economy including economic outlooks, analysis and forecasts, country surveys, monetary and financial issues, public finance and fiscal policy and productivity., OECD GDP grows by 0.4% in the fourth quarter of 2023. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

  23. Mobile's next generation: 6G development finds its north star

    Looking at the country's research and development (R&D) expenditure per capita in 2022, Oulu saw €3.437bn invested, followed by Vassa (€2.703bn), the country's capital Helsinki on €2 ...

  24. Business Enterprise Research and Development Survey (BERD)

    The annual survey examines a nationally representative sample of companies in manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industries. Its predecessors were the Survey of Industrial Research and Development (SIRD) (1953-2007), the Business R&D and Innovation Survey (BRDIS) (2008-16), and the Business Research and Development Survey (BRDS) (2017-18). Note ...

  25. Environment-wide association study to identify exposure pathways of

    Bisphenol A (BPA) is an endocrine-disrupting chemical commonly used in manufacturing plastic products. Despite ongoing efforts and regulatory measures, BPA exposure among children persists. This study aimed to identify the modifiable factors associated with urinary BPA levels in Korean children and adolescents. We conducted an environment-wide association study (EWAS) using data from the ...