[srvmshr]

If you ask my personal opinion/ experience, I would factor 3 things

1. The presence of top research institutions across a wide spectrum of science & technology.

2. The footprint of this research in reputable publications & conferences.

3. The amount of capital investment to bring ideas to products.

If we consider this practical yardstick - US is ahead by a fair margin to any other country.

[palmetieri2000]

Attributing all of this to the US simply because it occurs in the US is wrong and fails to acknowledge the contributions of other countries without which the innovations could not occur. How many top research institutions are staffed from people 100% US educated? My guess is none. How many US innovations occur without the input of other countries through educated individuals, resources or capital? Why isn't their contribution recognized and all credit given to the US?

[srvmshr]

That unfortunately is the nature of credit assignment. US is a melting pot for different demographics & has conducive environment for attracting global talent with resources, opportunity & salaries. Any research funded & operated by them will be claimed by them - human resources aren't staked in claims. Research & capital resources are.

A better question to ask is why other countries (e.g. India, China Japan) aren't doing better to retain their talented scientists & engineers

[palmetieri2000]

No, the 'better' question is why the logic of the US taking credit for an initiative that isn't (entirely or solely) theirs is considered an acceptable norm.

[srvmshr]

And how do you suppose intellectual credit be assigned? Let me illustrate my question

I did my schooling in India, college in US & doctorate in Japan. Had I made a novel discovery, who should be apportioned the majority credit? The schools which taught me the basics, the college which taught me engineering or the specialization which earned me the hypothetical achievement?

I think the credit assignment based on institution of incidence is the most practical way of recognition since they happen to have an outsized influence on the outcome in terms of labor, capital & collaboration. Economics of technology is known to have little room for moral discourses. I understand the point you make, but there are no better objective and granular ways to understand achievement & progress.

[palmetieri2000]

I think the majority of credit should be assigned to you. You clearly acknowledge that your learning is multinational and thus not evidence of the exceptionalism of the specific country your discovery occurred in but evidence of YOUR (and your teams) exceptionalism which has been facilitated by many nations regardless of the ultimate location of the discovery.

Take the story of Newton and the Apple, (I know its probably not accurate historically, but bare with me a moment). Are we concerned with if Newton was in London/Sicily/Barcelona/Paris when the proverbial apple fell? How about who owned the apple tree? No, the observation could have been made in any location. The variable which caused the "innovation" was the observer, not his location.

[srvmshr]

That would be extremely benevolent to recognize individual achievement only

But then this situation begs the question on what basis research institutions & corporation will ask for continuing support. If all credit is apportioned to individual how is research funding to be justified? This answer will again lean on the individual's affiliation who has incidence within the institution where the discovery was made. We will be back to square one.