China Now Leads Most Critical Technology Research—What the Data Actually Shows
China now leads the world in high-impact research across most strategically important emerging technologies, according to the latest update of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s (ASPI) Critical Technology Tracker1, released in December 2025. Out of 74 critical technologies, China ranks first in 66, while the United States leads in the remaining eight. On the surface, the numbers suggest a dramatic—and unsettling—shift in global scientific leadership. But a closer look at how the tracker works reveals a more nuanced picture, one that matters deeply for researchers, universities, and policymakers alike.
ScienceBriefing.com now offers an AI-assisted way to turn long scientific papers into clear, concise briefings based on your preferences with an editorial touch.
If you’d like to see how it works, you can use the forever access code VZDTCJ9G when signing up and -50% EARlY Bird seat.
What the ASPI tracker measures—and what it doesn’t
The Critical Technology Tracker does not measure overall technological power, commercial dominance, or military capability. Instead, it focuses narrowly on research performance, using a well-defined bibliometric method: identifying the top 10% most-cited research papers worldwide in each technology area and calculating each country’s share over a five-year window (2020–2024). The full dataset includes more than 9 million papers published between 2005 and 2025, reduced to 7.7 million unique publications after removing duplicates.
ASPI is explicit that this is a lead indicator—a signal of where future scientific and technological capabilities may emerge—not a snapshot of present-day industrial or military strength. This distinction is crucial, because citation leadership does not automatically translate into market control, product leadership, or systems-level deployment.
A historic reversal in research leadership
Within this framework, the shift is undeniably real. At the start of the 2000s, the United States led more than 90% of the technologies now tracked by ASPI, while China led fewer than 5%. Two decades later, the positions have effectively reversed. China’s rise reflects persistent, long-term investment in fundamental research, backed by large institutions and sustained state support.
The 2025 update expanded the tracker to 74 technologies, adding 10 new areas identified as increasingly relevant to strategic advantage. These include fields at the heart of today’s technological competition: cloud and edge computing, computer vision, generative AI, grid integration technologies, neuroprosthetics, brain–computer interfaces, and geoengineering.
China leads in eight of these ten new technologies. Four—cloud and edge computing, computer vision, generative AI, and grid integration—are rated as having high Technology Monopoly Risk (TMR), meaning that high-impact research expertise is unusually concentrated within Chinese institutions.
Understanding “Technology Monopoly Risk”
TMR is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the ASPI tracker. A high TMR rating does not mean a country controls the global market, supply chain, or deployment of a technology. It simply indicates that cutting-edge research capacity is concentrated in a small number of institutions, often within a single country. From a strategic perspective, this concentration matters because it shapes standards-setting, talent pipelines, and long-term innovation trajectories.
Where the United States still leads
Despite China’s broad dominance in citation share, the United States retains leadership in several key areas. It ranks first in neuroprosthetics (a medium-TMR field) and geoengineering (low TMR). Neuroprosthetics is particularly notable: it is the only technology in the tracker with no Chinese institutions in the global top 10, and the top seven research institutions in this field are all US-based.
In geoengineering, the picture is more distributed. While the US leads individually, European countries—especially the UK and Germany—are major contributors, and the EU collectively outperforms the US in both total output and high-impact research.
Talent flows tell a different story
Perhaps the most important counterbalance to China’s publication dominance comes from ASPI’s newly expanded Talent Tracker. By linking highly cited papers to researchers’ career trajectories, ASPI shows where the world’s top technology researchers are actually working.
Here, the United States still holds a critical advantage. It remains the largest employer of top-tier talent, both among the top 1% and top 10% most-cited researchers across all technologies. China and the EU follow closely, with China holding a slight edge over the EU in the top 1% cohort, while the UK ranks fourth. In other words, China leads in producing and hosting high-impact research, but the US continues to act as the world’s primary talent magnet.
A multipolar research landscape
Beyond the US–China comparison, the tracker highlights a more complex global landscape. Germany now ranks in the global top five for 30 technologies, India for 50, and South Korea for 32, continuing a steady upward trajectory. Australia, while smaller in scale, appears in the top five for seven technologies and hosts globally competitive institutions in geoengineering and neuroprosthetics. Even countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran maintain visible niches in selected fields.
At the institutional level, the Chinese Academy of Sciences remains the world’s most influential research organization, ranking first in 31 technologies, while Tsinghua University leads in five. In Europe, the Helmholtz Association and TU Delft stand out; TU Delft is the global leader in high-impact research in quantum computing. In the US, MIT remains the strongest all-around performer, appearing in the top 10 institutions for 10 technologies.
What this means for researchers
For individual researchers, the ASPI findings carry a clear message: research influence is shifting geographically, but excellence remains globally distributed. China’s rise reflects scale, coordination, and long-term investment in foundational science. The US advantage lies in its ability to attract and retain top talent and to translate research into commercial and clinical applications, as seen in areas like brain–computer interfaces, where US- and Australia-based companies dominate early commercialization.
The broader implication is not the decline of any single country, but the emergence of a more competitive, multipolar research ecosystem. In such a system, collaboration, mobility, and institutional strategy matter more than ever. Citation leadership signals where ideas are coming from; talent flows show where they may ultimately be turned into impact.
Understanding both is essential for anyone trying to navigate the next decade of global science and technology.
Wong-Leung, Jenny. 2025. “ASPI’s Critical Technology Tracker: 2025 Updates and 10 New Technologies | the Strategist.” The Strategist. Retrieved (https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/aspis-critical-technology-tracker-2025-updates-and-10-new-technologies/).