Origins and Reliability of the Claim That China's Scientific Research Commercialization Rate Is 10%

In recent years, as the momentum for translating China’s scientific research achievements into practical applications has grown increasingly strong, one particular statistic has come repeatedly into view, namely"China's Scientific Research Achievement Conversion Rate"Currently, there are two prevalent claims regarding this data: one is “10%,” and the other is “15%.”

This is no mere rumor; numerous mainstream media outlets, academic journals, and even official reports have lent their credibility to these two figures. This raises the question: which of the two figures is actually correct? And how was each one calculated?

Setting aside the accuracy of the data for now, let us first clarify the exact sources of these two figures.

Let’s start with “15%.” This figure originates from the following statement—““According to World Bank statistics, the average conversion rate of scientific and technological achievements in China is only 15%.”

At first glance, it seems quite persuasive, but in fact,The World Bank has never conducted statistics on the national-level rate of transformation of scientific and technological achievements, nor has it released such data.Therefore, the “15%” figure is inherently not credible.

So, is the 10% figure accurate? The facts suggest otherwise.

“The 10%” figure first appeared in 2015, when a speaker at the “China Economic Annual Conference (2013–2014)” held that year stated,"China's rate of conversion of scientific and technological achievements into practical applications is only about 10%."Since then, the figure of “10%” has been widely circulated in China’s technology market.

Although numerous information platforms, including Baidu Baike, cite this figure, the reality is that its origin remains unclear. It lacks detailed statistical data, specific methodology, and official certification. Its widespread repetition stems largely from uncritical adherence to popular opinion.

After all, when they cite this data, the preceding qualifier is mostly just the phrase “according to statistics,” without even mentioning the specific statistical agency, which speaks volumes about the reliability of their data.

Since both “10%” and “15%” are baseless figures, what exactly is the rate of translation of scientific research achievements in China?

In fact, this data cannot be obtained, or rather, it is impossible to calculate an accurate value. This is because the "conversion rate of scientific research achievements" is merely a management term,It can only be calculated and used on a small scale under the premise that the criteria for defining the numerator and denominator are clearly established,For example, the proportion of R&D outcomes funded by a given fund that have been industrialized and widely adopted.

However, if this calculation method is generalized and used as a statistical indicator for the entire society, it clearly reflects an oversimplified understanding of the commercialization of scientific and technological achievements. In fact, to systematically calculate the conversion rate of scientific research achievements in China, we must first clarify the following three questions:

The first question is how to define “scientific research achievements”?

In China, the definition of scientific research achievements is very broad. The scientific research community generally considers that scientific and technological achievements refer to creative results obtained through experimental research, design research, manufacturing, or investigation, which have been confirmed by appraisal and possess certain scientific value, application value, and economic value. In simple terms, valuable research topics, patents, papers, etc., are collectively referred to as scientific research achievements.

In recent years, China has further categorized scientific research achievements into theoretical research outcomes and applied technological outcomes, thereby establishing new products, new processes, and new materials as a distinct category separate from those based on ideas and theories.

However, when calculating the actual rate of research achievement commercialization, Chinese research institutes and universities currently only include applied technological achievements that can be readily commercialized, excluding theoretical research outcomes characterized by long translation cycles and low success rates. This approach is evidently one-sided, rendering the resulting data detached from its original significance.

The second question is how to define “achievement transformation”?

In response to this issue, some have proposed that only products that have undergone pilot-scale testing and have established production lines should be regarded as successfully translated outcomes.

However, certain achievements applied in high-end, cutting-edge fields can meet market demand without requiring mass production. If judged by the standards of “pilot-scale testing,” they would be difficult to classify as successful commercialization, yet the value they generate cannot be replaced by mass-produced outcomes.

On the other hand, China has not yet introduced relevant policies to establish a unified metric for “achievement transformation,” as it is difficult in practice to determine at which step or stage a scientific research outcome can be considered successfully transformed.

The third question is how to measure the conversion of scientific and technological achievements?

Having defined the “numerator” and “denominator,” the next question is how to compile statistics for these two metrics.

Seeing this, some may ask: China’s achievement registration system was established in the 1990s; isn’t it straightforward to compile the total number of registered achievements?

In fact, this is not the case. Setting aside the ambiguity surrounding the definitions of “achievements” and “translation,” there is a key variable that significantly affects the accuracy of statistical data collection.

This constitutes the statistical cycle. As is well known, the timeline for a scientific research achievement—from project initiation to practical implementation—can range from as short as three to five years to as long as over a decade. Therefore, statistical analysis requires continuous, longitudinal tracking of research projects, which in turn demands a large-scale team and standardized protocols for data retention and statistical analysis. However, for us, who are just beginning our journey in the translation of scientific research achievements into practical applications, it remains challenging at present to implement long-term tracking of individual achievements.

Therefore, in light of these three issues, it is currently not feasible to accurately calculate the conversion rate of scientific and technological research achievements in China.

Therefore, to avoid issues such as conceptual ambiguity and insufficiently detailed data associated with the “conversion rate of scientific and technological achievements,” China’s science and technology authorities have adopted long-term, statistically trackable figures as a reference—National Technology Market Transaction Volume. Another reference indicator is the statistics on China’s patent implementation rate and patent transfer rate compiled by the China National Intellectual Property Administration, which are used to measure and assess the level of activity in technology transaction and commercialization.

Generally, mainstream media, academic journals, and even official reports, when presenting data on China’s rate of transformation of scientific and technological achievements, typically follow it with the corresponding rate for foreign countries.

This data is equally bewildering, with some figures citing “80%” and others “50%.” Regardless of the specific percentage, the underlying message is clear: China currently lags significantly behind foreign countries in the translation of scientific research achievements.

This is indeed an indisputable fact, yet the data lacks authenticity. Take the United States, a frequent benchmark for comparison: it does not even have the concept of “translation of scientific and technological achievements,” let alone a specific rate for such translation.

In the United States, specific research on the translation of scientific and technological achievements typically employs concepts such as technology transfer, knowledge transfer, or commercialization of outcomes.

Furthermore, research on scientific and technological achievements typically focuses only on publicly funded research entities such as universities and research institutes. There have been no statistical surveys or assessments conducted on the commercialization of scientific and technological achievements across society as a whole, nor has an indicator for the commercialization rate of such achievements been established. Therefore, claims that the United States has a commercialization rate of scientific and technological achievements of 50% or 80% are incorrect.

So, how does the United States evaluate the translation of research findings?

In fact, the United States has a deep-rooted emphasis on economic development, forming its“Scientific and technological achievements are created for the purpose of achieving translation into practical applications.”mindset, the United States typically evaluates technology transfer outcomes based on commercialization and industrialization.

Specifically, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) first compiles a registry of all R&D projects enrolled throughout the year, and then determines how many of these projects are ultimately adopted by industry sectors, thereby calculating the commercialization success rate of scientific research outcomes, also known as the technology transfer rate.

In fact, not only the United States, but the whole of Europe also lacks the concept of “conversion rate of scientific and technological achievements.”

In Europe, the evaluation of scientific research outcomes primarily relies on the Expert Committee for Knowledge Transfer Metrics. This committee assesses the extent of technological achievement transformation over a given period using seven core indicators: the number of R&D collaboration agreements, disclosed inventions, patent applications, granted patents, technology licenses, licensing revenues, and spin-off companies established.

In fact, at the current stage, it holds little substantive significance for China to fixate on the metric of “conversion rate of scientific and technological achievements.” The purpose of deriving such a figure is not the data itself, but rather to analyze future development trends through this data and formulate corresponding measures to either increase or decrease it.

Although the current rate of commercialization of scientific and technological achievements in China remains unknown, as do the corresponding figures for the United States and Europe, one fact is certain: European and American countries possess greater experience and expertise than we currently do in promoting the translation of research outcomes, and are more adept at maximizing the local commercialization of scientific and technological achievements.

Behind this lies the guidance of core policies, the impetus of transformation models, and the support of market-oriented resources—precisely what we, who have just embarked on the path of translating scientific research achievements into practical applications, should strive to learn from. At present, fixating on elusive data holds little substantive value.