In a nutshell, the overall scores for each country are derived from the simple average of all the category scores, and the category scores are the simple average of the individual metric scores.
The seven categories are Productivity, Intellectual Property Protection, Enterprise Support, Intensity, Education/Workforce and Foundations, Policy and Stability. Each is comprised of a number of metrics.
The metric scores are calculated by measuring the performance of each country and assigning the highest-ranked country a '10' and the lowest-ranked country a '0'. These metric scores are shown at the bottom of each Category page, and the overall category score is the simple average of the metrics. For countries for which no data is available for a metric, then that metric is excluded from the average — there is no penalty for missing data.
The category scores are averaged to produce an overall score for each country, and that overall score is normalized to a range from 0-100. As with the metric scores, when no data is available for a given category it is excluded from the average. So, there is no penalty for missing data.
The use of simple averages, as opposed to weighed averages, gives each metric and each category equal weighting. This means that the scorecard gives equal importance to intellectual property strength, to business friendly environment, etc.
The rationale for this unweighted average is for transparency. If a weighting were applied, it would imply that an appropriate algorithm for weighing the factors exists—and it doesn't. Further, using a neutral weighting makes it possible for you to apply your own weighting. For example, if you consider Enterprise Support to be of primary importance, then the unweighted scorecard makes it easy for you to evaluate the final scores in your own context.
|Productivity||Publicly-traded company revenues||Morrison, C., Lahteenmaki, R., Public biotech 2014—the numbers. Nature Biotechnology 33 (703-709), and company disclosures|
|Number of publicly-traded companies||Morrison, C., Lahteenmaki, R., Public biotech 2014—the numbers. Nature Biotechnology 33 (703-709), and company disclosures|
|IP Protection||Patent strength||Park, W.G., International patent protection: 1960–2005, Res Policy (2008) 37:4 (761-766)|
|Perceived IP protection||World Economic Forum|
|Intensity||Publicly-traded companies / capita||Morrison, C., Lahteenmaki, R., Public biotech 2014—the numbers. Nature Biotechnology 33 (703-709), company disclosures|
|Publicly-traded company employees / capita||Morrison, C., Lahteenmaki, R., Public biotech 2014—the numbers. Nature Biotechnology 33 (703-709), and company disclosures|
|Publicly-traded company revenues / GDP|
|Biotechnology patents / total patents||OECD|
|Value added of knowledge-and technology-intensive industries||National Science Foundation|
|Business expenditures on biotechnology R&D||OECD|
|Enterprise Support||Business friendly environment||The World Bank|
|Biotechnology venture capital||OECD|
|VC availability||World Economic Forum|
|Capital availability||Milken Capital Access Index|
|Education and Workforce||Post-secondary science graduates / capita||UNESCO|
|PhD graduates in life sciences / capita||OECD|
|R&D personnel / employment||UNESCO|
|Talent retention||National Science Foundation|
|Foundations||Business expenditures on R&D (% of GDP)||OECD|
|Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (% of GDP)||UNESCO|
|Infrastructure quality||World Economic Forum|
|Entrepreneurship and opportunity||Legatum Prosperity Index|
|Policy and Stability||Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism||World Bank Group|
|Government effectiveness||World Bank Group|
|Regulatory quality||World Bank Group|
|Rule of law||World Bank Group|