, Volume 93, Issue 3, pp 1019–1027 | Cite as

Comparison of trends in the quantity and variety of Science Citation Index (SCI) literature on human pathogens between China and the United States

  • Deqiao Tian
  • Yunzhou Yu
  • Yumin Wang
  • Tao Zheng


The proportion of pathogenic microorganisms in the microbial world is relatively small, while their threat to human health, economic development and social stability is severe. The quantity and variation of Science Citation Index (SCI) literature related to pathogenic microorganisms may reflect the level of relevant research and the degree of attention. Here we compared trends in the quantity and variety of SCI literature relating to certain important pathogenic microorganisms published by scientists from United States and China from 1996 to 2010 by searching the Science Citation Index database. The pathogenic microorganisms in this study comprise two categories of pathogens: Bacillus anthracis, Yersinia pestis, Francisella tularensis, Ebola virus, Burkholderia pseudomallei, which belong to biodefense-associated pathogens (BDAPs) and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), SARS coronavirus, hepatitis B virus (HBV), Mycobacterium tuberculosis, influenza virus, which belong to the commonly encountered health-threatening pathogens. Our results showed that the United States (US) published much more SCI literature on these pathogens than China. Furthermore, literature on BDAPs published by scientists from the US has increased sharply since 2002. However, the numbers of literature relating to CEHTPs from China has demonstrated a gradual increase from 1996 to 2010. Research into pathogenic microorganisms requires three balance to be achieved: investment in BDAP and CEHTP studies; basic and applied research; a faster pace of research into pathogens and fulfilling biosafety and biosecurity requirements.


Pathogenic microorganism SCI literature United States China Variety Quantity 



We thank Hui Zhong from Beijing Institute of Biotechnology for reviewing the manuscript and helpful discussions.


  1. Atlas, R. M. (2003). Bioterrorism and biodefence research: changing the focus of microbiology. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 1(1), 70–74.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. CDC bioterrorism agents/diseases. (2010).
  3. DeFrancesco, L. (2004). Throwing money at biodefense. Nature Biotechnology, 22(4), 375–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Enserink, M., & Kaiser, J. (2005). Has biodefense gone overboard? Science, 307(5714), 1396–1398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fauci, A. S. (2006a). Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases: Influenza as a prototype of the host-pathogen balancing act. Cell, 124(4), 665–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fauci, A. S. (2006b). Twenty-five years of HIV/AIDS. Science, 313(5786), 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franco, C., & Sell, T. K. (2011). Federal agency biodefense funding, FY2011-FY2012. Biosecurity Bioterrorism, 9(2), 117–137.Google Scholar
  8. Frischknecht, F. (2003). The history of biological warfare. Human experimentation, modern nightmares and lone madmen in the twentieth century. EMBO Rep, 4 Spec No: S47-52.Google Scholar
  9. Gottron, F. (2003). CRS report for congress: Project bioshield.
  10. Gu, H. (2009). Medical microbiology (2nd ed.). Beijing: Peking University Medical Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kaiser, J. (2007). Accidents spur a closer look at risks at biodefense labs. Science, 317(5846), 1852–1854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Malakoff, D. (2003). U.S. biodefense boom: eight new study centers. Science, 301(5639), 1450–1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morens, D. M., Folkers, G. K., & Fauci, A. S. (2004). The challenge of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. Nature, 430(8), 242–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deqiao Tian
    • 1
  • Yunzhou Yu
    • 1
  • Yumin Wang
    • 1
  • Tao Zheng
    • 1
  1. 1.Beijing Institute of BiotechnologyBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations