{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031313818924438394, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02722940776038121, 'mean_word_length': 5.074380165289257, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Global estimates of high‐level brain drain and deficit

Brain drain, the international migration of scientists in search of better opportunities, has been a long‐standing concern, but quantitative measurements are uncommon and limited to specific countries or disciplines. We need to understand brain drain at a global level and estimate the extent to which scientists born in countries with low opportunities never realize their potential. Data on 1523 of the most highly cited scientists for 1981–1999 are analyzed. Overall, 31.9% of these scientists did not reside in the country where they were born (range 18.1–54.6% across 21 different scientific fields). There was great variability across developed countries in the proportions of foreign‐born resident scientists and emigrating scientists. Countries without a critical mass of native scientists lost most scientists to migration. This loss occurred in both developed and developing countries. Adjusting for population and using the U.S. as reference, the number of highly cited native‐born scientists was at least 75% of the expected number in only 8 countries other than the U.S. It is estimated that ~94% of the expected top scientists worldwide have not been able to materialize themselves due to various adverse conditions. Scientific deficit is only likely to help perpetuate these adverse conditions.—Ioannidis, J. P. A. Global estimates of high‐level brain drain and deficit. FASEB J. 18, 936–939 (2004)