Main

Research spending at Georgia’s higher education and scientific research institutions rose 16.2% in 2025, but BTU researchers’ calculations show that researcher numbers increased in only two of six scientific fields. For businesses, the distribution of research expertise matters alongside growth in total spending and personnel.

Key Takeaways

• BTU researchers calculate that Georgia’s surveyed institutions recorded a combined increase of 776 researchers in medical and health sciences and in humanities and the arts in 2025, while the other four fields together recorded a decline of 432.
• According to Geostat, the surveyed institutions’ researcher count rose from 14,046 in 2024 to 14,390 in 2025; BTU’s calculation puts the net increase at 344, or 2.45%.
• BTU researchers assess that Georgian businesses choosing a research partner should consider the relevant field, the specific team and its ability to deliver the work together, rather than relying on aggregate expenditure.

More money for research creates opportunities for an economy. It can improve equipment, support more demanding work or retain experienced specialists. Yet a larger spending total does not answer a practical business question: are more researchers working in the relevant field, or fewer? Comparing the 2025 figures released by Geostat on November 2 reveals an important difference. Resources measured in money increased, while the number of people did not move in the same direction across all fields. [1–3]

In 2025, 69 institutions conducted research, compared with 66 a year earlier. Their expenditure on research and experimental development reached GEL 282.2 million, up from GEL 242.9 million in 2024, a difference of GEL 39.3 million. Meanwhile, total research personnel increased from 16,191 to 16,552. This group includes technical and other supporting staff as well as researchers. The 2.2% increase in total personnel and the 2.45% increase in researchers therefore measure different things. [2–3]

The issue extends beyond universities’ internal affairs. A manufacturer may need local expertise to test a material, an agricultural business to investigate a disease, a clinic to assess a treatment process, or a service company to understand customer behavior. These are possible connections, not contracts measured by this survey. Their common feature is that a particular problem requires relevant knowledge. A national researcher total cannot directly show whether that knowledge is available.

What the aggregate increase conceals

BTU researchers compared 2024 and 2025 across all six scientific fields. The researcher count in medical and health sciences increased from 2,202 to 2,491. In humanities and the arts, it rose from 2,691 to 3,178. The first gain was 289 and the second 487. Their combined increase of 776 exceeded the net increase across the entire surveyed institutional system. [4]

Declines in the other four fields explain the difference. Natural sciences recorded 179 fewer researchers, social sciences 241 fewer, agriculture and veterinary sciences 10 fewer, and engineering and technology two fewer. The combined decline was 432. Subtracting 432 from 776 produces 344, the difference between the official overall totals. This decomposition shows how a positive aggregate result can combine very different changes across fields.

Researchers by scientific field

Source: Geostat; reported headcounts, not full-time equivalents. Changes calculated by BTU as 2025 minus 2024. [4]

The size of each change matters as much as its direction. Engineering and technology was effectively unchanged: a decline of two does not describe the collapse of a large field. Reductions in natural and social sciences were more noticeable, at approximately 6.2% and 6.9%, respectively. Reporting only the aggregate increase hides these differences. Treating every decline as equally alarming would be the opposite mistake. [4]

Size and growth must also be distinguished. Social sciences remained the largest field in 2025, with 3,250 researchers, despite the annual decline. Humanities and the arts had 3,178, while the smallest group, agriculture and veterinary sciences, had 474. A large field does not become unimportant because its count falls. Nor does a small field’s size measure its economic necessity. Different tasks require teams of different sizes and specializations.

Which research the figures cover

The expenditure total should not be read as the sum of all research spending in Georgia’s economy. The methodology covers authorized public and private higher education institutions conducting scientific research and relevant organizations subordinate to public authorities. Companies’ internal laboratories, product development teams and research services purchased abroad are not automatically part of that population. These figures therefore cannot establish whether businesses’ own research expenditure increased or decreased. [5]

The staffing figures describe reported headcounts, not the amount of working time devoted entirely to research. The methodology separately defines a full-time equivalent measure based on research hours actually worked, but that time-based measure is not provided in the tables used here. A researcher may also teach or work on another project. More recorded researchers do not automatically mean more available research time. [3–5]

Comparing totals for 66 and 69 institutions is also different from tracking an unchanged set of organizations. The published tables do not identify how much of the change reflects recruitment, departures, institutional composition or other reporting changes. We therefore do not call 776 the number of new hires or describe 432 as jobs lost. The finding precisely describes changes in reported counts. Establishing their causes would require more detailed information.

More money and different needs

The 16.2% expenditure increase is measured in nominal lari. The methodology includes remuneration, other current costs, buildings, equipment, software and other relevant assets within research expenditure. Additional funding may support an existing team or infrastructure rather than employ another person. Faster spending growth alongside slower headcount growth is therefore not, by itself, evidence either of success or of inefficiency. [2, 5]

The three published workbooks do not allocate expenditure across the six fields. They cannot establish that additional funding caused researcher numbers to rise in medical sciences or humanities. Nor do they show that the other fields lost funding. Connecting money, people and results requires further information on projects, working time and completed work. The current figures raise that question without fully answering it.

This distinction matters when considering the economic value of research. Developing a new method, investigating disease, studying language and culture, and analyzing a market may require different amounts of time and different resources. The six broad fields are not a competitive ranking. Recognizing growth in one does not require diminishing another’s value. These data also offer no basis for requiring identical growth across all fields.

Renewing research teams involves more than numbers

The composition of the workforce adds context. According to Geostat, women represented 55.1% of researchers in 2025, and 67.5% held a doctorate or equivalent qualification. Comparing the education tables shows that doctorate holders increased from 9,662 to 9,712, a gain of 50. That differs from the overall increase of 344 and illustrates why experience and qualifications should be considered alongside headcount. A qualification alone does not measure the quality of research produced. [1, 4]

Age data also raise the practical issue of transferring knowledge. In 2025, 2,875 researchers were aged 65 or older, approximately 20% of the total according to BTU’s calculation. Age does not measure productivity, and this share does not forecast departures. It does, however, make involving younger colleagues, working across generations and retaining expertise relevant questions for teams built around experienced specialists. Growth in the annual total cannot show how that process is progressing. [4]

Likewise, an increase within a scientific field is not a list of specialists ready to serve businesses. Broad fields contain many specializations. A clinic may need a team familiar with a particular method, while a manufacturer may require appropriate equipment and testing experience. Official statistics provide context for that choice. Actual capability must be assessed at the level of the specific team and task.

What this changes for Georgian businesses

BTU researchers assess that the practical conclusion is a better question: which part of increased research spending creates a capability relevant to the company’s problem? That matters especially to a business that cannot, or chooses not to, maintain a complete research team. An external partner may offer a route to knowledge, although the published statistics measure neither the price nor the availability of such collaboration.

For example, agriculture and veterinary sciences is only a starting point for a food manufacturer. Its problem may require chemistry, microbiology and knowledge of consumer behavior together. Researchers from several fields might contribute. This illustration explains why an economic sector cannot be mechanically equated with a scientific field, or one table used to judge an entire industry’s research support.

The opportunity lies in connecting different forms of expertise. More researchers recorded in health sciences is a useful signal when looking for possible collaboration. Before agreeing a project, however, the relevant experience, time and equipment still matter. Similarly, a decline in the natural sciences count does not establish deterioration at a particular laboratory. Applying a national number directly to one institution can be as misleading as ignoring it altogether.

For those assessing funding, two questions remain distinct: how much was spent, and what capability was created? The first is visible in this release. The second requires connecting project content, team workloads and results. Depending on the task, assessment could consider new knowledge, a useful method or a solution put into practice by an organization. A single success measure derived only from spending and headcount totals would lose those distinctions.

The central answer from the 2025 data is clear. Researcher numbers increased across the surveyed institutions, but only medical and health sciences and humanities and the arts recorded growth; the other four fields together declined. Increased research expenditure is useful starting information. Its business significance must be sought in the relevant field and actual team. Looking beyond aggregate growth to its distribution supports a more informed decision than treating every field alike.

Questions and answers

Did the overall researcher count increase?

Yes. Across the surveyed institutions it rose from 14,046 in 2024 to 14,390 in 2025, an increase of 344. Declines in four fields partly offset growth in two.

Does GEL 282.2 million cover all research spending in Georgia?

No. It covers the higher education and scientific research institutions defined by the methodology, rather than every company’s research activity across the economy.

Does the table establish shortages of particular specialists?

No. Headcounts do not reveal demand, research working time or the availability of a specific specialization. The table shows different annual changes across fields.

Can spending rise without more employees?

Yes. Research expenditure includes equipment and other resources as well as remuneration. This release does not identify the causes of spending growth or its distribution across fields.