In addition to the state R&D statistics summarized above, the state profiles listed in this report contain other data (from both NSF and non-NSF sources) relating to economic activity within each State in 52 one-page S&E profiles (including ones for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico). NSF survey indicators include numbers of doctoral scientists and engineers, doctorate degrees awarded by major science and engineering (S&E) field, S&E graduate students and postdoctorates, amounts of Federal R&D obligations by agency and performer, total and industrial R&D expenditures, and academic R&D expenditures by major S&E field. Indicators from non-NSF sources include population, civilian labor force, per capita personal income, total Federal expenditures (not just on R&D), higher education expenditures, patents, small business innovation research (SBIR) awards, and GSP by originating economic sectors. In these profiles, State rankings and totals are provided for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Because data on total and industrial R&D expenditures are not available for Puerto Rico, rankings for those two variables exclude Puerto Rico.
Of the 17 main indicators ranked by State in the profiles (excluding the rankings in the bottom half of each profile involving Federal R&D obligations by State and performer), California ranked first in each except in personal income per capita, where it ranked 13th. New York ranked second in eight of the indicators and ranked no lower than 8th in the others. Michigan ranked second in total R&D performance and second in industry R&D, but ranked between sixth and twenty-first in the other indicators. Texas ranked between second and seventh in all of the 17 indicators, with the exception of personal income per capita, where it ranked twenty-sixth.
In this report, when States are ranked by a particular statistic, two or more States may have the same value for that statistic. When such ties occur, the tied States are given the same rank, and the next lowest State is given a rank equal to the number of higher ranked States plus one. For example, if two States are tied for 27th place, they both receive a rank of “27,” no State is given a rank of “28,” and the next lowest State is given a rank of “29.”
For many survey statistics used in this report, some fraction of the survey totals could not be allocated to specific geographic regions, or were for U.S. areas other than the 52 listed in this report (e.g., territories). Consequently, U.S. totals reported here may differ from those reported in the underlying surveys. Also, because of rounding, the sum of the gross State product sector percentages may not equal 100 percent.
For some States, reported levels of R&D expenditures and levels of doctoral scientists and engineers are relatively small. For these cases, sampling error in the surveys associated with these statistics may have bearing on the precision of these data, including State rankings. Particular caution in this regard should be used in comparisons among States with low levels of doctoral scientists and doctoral engineers. For example, South Dakota is ranked lowest in doctoral engineers with an estimated number of 103 in the State, and Wyoming is the next to lowest, with 108. However, according to the survey of doctorate recipients from which these data were obtained, any estimate of 100 doctoral engineers is subject to a standard error of 50, implying that the difference between these two States for this variable is not statistically significant. For 1,000 doctoral engineers, there is a standard error of 150. For doctoral scientists, the standard error for 100 scientists is 40, and for 1,000 scientists it is 140. Readers should consult with the original sources of these data, as listed below, for additional information on standard errors associated with these and other statistics reported.
For information about State Science and Engineering Profiles and R&D Patterns: 1997-98, please contact:
Richard J. Bennof
Research and Development Statistics Program
Division of Science Resources Studies
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 965
Arlington, VA 22230
 “Environmental Sciences” for S&E doctorate degree data are the sum of earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences. “Life Sciences” for S&E doctorate degree data were defined as including both biological and agricultural sciences. Medical or health-related data are collected but non-S&E health fields are excluded.
 Such ties are only treated as such when there are no numberical differences between any two statistics. Alternatively, ties could have also been identified whenever two numbers differ from each other, but by an amount that is not statistically significant. If this other definition had been applied, then many more ties would have been found.
 For two variablespersonal income per capita and gross State productthe data sources for Puerto Rico differ from those used to obtain State data.
 See “Methodological Report of the 1997 Survey of Doctorate Recipients,” National Opinion Research Corporation, March 1999.
Skip to text links
Select a state from this clickable imagemap to display its S&E profile in Excel (.xls) format. See Help for information about viewing publications in different formats.
[Alabama] [Alaska] [Arizona] [Arkansas]
[California] [Colorado] [Connecticut]
[Delaware] [District of Columbia]
[Idaho] [Illinois] [Indiana] [Iowa]
[Maine] [Maryland] [Massachusetts] [Michigan] [Minnesota] [Mississippi] [Missouri] [Montana]
[Nebraska] [Nevada] [New Hampshire] [New Jersey] [New Mexico] [New York] [North Carolina] [North Dakota]
[Ohio] [Oklahoma] [Oregon]
[Pennsylvania] [Puerto Rico]
[South Carolina] [South Dakota]
[Washington] [West Virginia] [Wisconsin] [Wyoming]