(Yicai) Sept. 9 -- Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Beijing rank among the top 20 global centers for disruptive technological innovation, according to a new list compiled by the Shanghai Institute for Science of Science.

Shenzhen came eighth, Hong Kong 11th, Shanghai 14th, and Beijing 15th in this year’s edition of the Ideal City report, released at the Pujiang Innovation Forum in Shanghai yesterday. It is formally known as the Global Science and Technology Innovation Center Cities Research Report Based on Disruptive Index.

The list is based on a disruptive index calculated from papers published in journals tracked by the Nature Index database between 2019 and 2021 by institutions in the cities.

Chinese cities need to step up support for basic research, encourage interdisciplinary exchange and collaboration, and create a relaxed and diverse research environment to enhance their capacity for disruptive innovation, according to Wang Xueying, the associate researcher at the SISS who presented the report. 

Chinese cities are relatively weaker in terms of disruptive innovation when compared with the global leaders, though Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Hong Kong did well in physics, environmental ecology, chemistry, and interdisciplinary fields, the report showed.

The report also indicated that the life sciences and medical fields have been the most disruptive areas of scientific research in recent years, while interdisciplinary fields are rapidly increasing in disruptive innovation. Chinese research institutions did well for disruptive innovation in physics, chemistry, and engineering technology, but were rather weak in life sciences and interdisciplinary fields.

North American cities had a significant advantage in innovation disruptiveness and took four of the top five places in the rankings, showing that their urban clusters remain the main leaders in global cutting-edge tech innovation.

Among emerging science and technology hubs in the Asia-Pacific region, Seoul and Singapore did well for innovation disruptiveness, with the former ranking third.

Editor: Martin Kadiev