1

This document presents additional quantitative and semi-quantitative data from various sources. Eurostat, OECD and DG Research are the sources for most of the data, however, some data come from projects commissioned by DG Research or DG JRC and these data have not yet been validated by the Commission services. Further methodological verification is needed and the value of these data is mainly explorative, as a first step in an indicators development process.
The presentation of the additional data follows the structure of the Science, Technology and
Competitiveness report. The list of graphs and tables complementing each chapter of the report can be found at the beginning of this annex. All chapters do not necessarily have complementary data. Some of the data in this document may form the basis for further analysis, notably in the next edition of the report.
In conclusion, the data provided here may be difficult to interpret, are not exhaustive and need further development. Comments by stakeholders on the coverage, relevance and interpretation of the indicators provided, as well as observations on new indicators that could be employed to improve the measurement of the development of the knowledge intensive economy and of the European Research Area, are welcomed by the Commission services at RTD-
KNOWLEDGE-ECONOMY-ANALYSIS-I@ec.europa.eu.
Any quotation of the data in this document should make reference to the above disclaimer.
2

FIGURE I.1.1 R&D intensity broken down by sector of performance, 2000 and 2006
FIGURE I.1.2 Venture Capital – early stage per thousand GDP
R&D investment in energy 8
FIGURE I.1.3 Government budget appropriations for energy
FIGURE I.1.4 Evolution of government budget appropriations for energy
Box I.1.1: Energy specialization in Member States - public expenditure
FIGURE I.1.5 Business enterprise expenditure on R&D in the energy sector
Box I.1.2: Energy specialization in Member States - private expenditure
Expenditure on education
13
TABLE I.2.1 Expenditure on educational institutions by source as % of GDP, for all levels of education combined, 2005
FIGURE I.2.1 Total public expenditure on education as % of GDP, for all levels of education combined and at tertiary level (ISCED 5-6), 2001 and 2005
Education inflows 15
FIGURE I.2.2 % share of population aged 25-64 with tertiary education, 2000 and 2005
TABLE I.2.2 Graduates from tertiary education by field of education, 2005, and average annual growth, 2000-2005
TABLE I.2.3 Total population, population aged 20-29 and share of age group 20-29 in total, 2000 and
2005, and average annual growth between 2000 and 2005
TABLE I.2.4 Doctoral graduates by field of education, 2005, and average annual growth 2000-2005
TABLE I.2.5 Science and Engineering doctoral graduates - % shares, 2005
Human resources for S&T (HRST) and researchers 19
TABLE I.2.6 Human Resources for Science and Technology and sub-groups, 2006, totals (thousands), and as % of labour force
FIGURE I.2.3 Shares (%) of Human Resources in Science and Technology Core (HRSTC) and
Scientists and Engineers (S&E) aged 45-64, 2006
TABLE I.2.7 Human Resources in Science and Technology Core (HRSTC) and Scientists and
Engineers (S&E) – total aged 45-64, and as % of age group 25-64, 2006
TABLE I.2.8 Researchers (FTE) - total and % distribution by main institutional sector, 2006
3

TABLE II.1.1 Key data on the higher education sector, 2000 and 2006
TABLE II.1.2 Scientific production and visibility of the top 171 European Research Universities measured as the number of scientific publications (1997-2006) and the field-normalized average impact
TABLE II.1.3 Key recent reforms concerning universities
TABLE II.1.4 Key recent reforms concerning public research centres
TABLE II.2.1
FP6 networks of Research Infrastructures
Human Resources for Science and Technology – Core (HRSTC)
35
Box II.3.1: Human Resources for Science and Technology – Core (HRSTC)
TABLE II.3.1 Number (thousands) and share (%) of foreign-born Human Resources in Science and
Technology Core (HRSTC), EU-27 foreign-born and non-EU-27 foreign-born, 15 Member States,
2006
FIGURE II.3.1 Foreign-born Human Resources in Science and Technology Core (HRSTC) in ten EU
Member States: numbers (thousands) and shares (%), 2000-2006
TABLE II.3.2 Number (thousands) and share (%) of non-nationals in Human Resources in Science and Technology Core (HRSTC), 2000 and 2006, with average annual growth rates and evolution of the shares (in percentage points), 2000-2006
TABLE II.3.3 Number (thousands) and share (%) of foreign-born Human Resources in Science and
Technology Core (HRSTC), 2000 and 2006, with average annual growth rates and evolution of the shares (in percentage points), 2000-2006
European doctoral students in the US 38
TABLE II.3.4 U.S. doctoral degree recipients: total, foreign recipients, and recipients from Europe,
2000-2005
FIGURE II.3.2 Number of US doctoral recipients from the top eight EU Member States, 2000-2005
TABLE II.3.5 US S&E doctoral degree recipients: total, foreign recipients, and recipients from
Europe, 2000-2005
Marie Curie Individual Fellowships 39
Box II.3.2: Intra-European mobility: Marie Cure Intra-European Fellowships (IEF)
FIGURE II.3.3 Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships (IEF): % distribution of selected applicants by country of residence (origin) and country of host institution (destination)
4

FIGURE II.3.4 Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships (IEF): % distribution of selected applicants by country of citizenship (origin) and country of host institution (destination)
TABLE II.3.6 Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships (IEF): intra-European inflows, outflows and net gains of selected applicants
Box II.3.3: Mobility from and to Third Countries: Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowships
(IIF) and Outgoing International Fellowships (OIF)
TABLE II.3.7 Marie Curie Incoming International Fellowships (IIF): nationality and host country of selected applicants
TABLE II.3.8 Marie Curie Outgoing International Fellowships (OIF): nationality and outgoing host country of selected applicants
European Research Council (ERC) 44
Box II.3.4: ERC Starting Independent Researcher Grants
TABLE II.3.9 Applications by Principal Investigators for ERC Starting Grants: total number of applicants and % distribution by country of origin
TABLE II.3.10 ERC Starting Grants for Principal Investigators: total number of selected applicants and % distribution by country of origin
FIGURE II.4.1 EU-27 - Scientific fields with the highest numbers of publications, 2000-2006
FIGURE II.4.2 Firms with foreign cooperation on innovation as % of all firms, 2002-2004
Box II.5.1: The Fifth and Sixth Research Framework Programmes (FP5 and FP6)
TABLE II.5.1 FP5 and FP6 – All Third Countries - evolution of participations and EC financial contribution
FIGURE II.5.1 FP5 and FP6 – All Third Countries - evolution of the EC financial contribution by world economic region
FIGURE II.5.2 FP5 - Thematic participation of selected Third Countries by world economic region
FIGURE II.5.3 FP6 - Thematic participation of selected Third Countries by world economic region
Box II.5.2: The Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7)
FIGURE II.5.4: FP7 - Cooperation Specific Programme - participation of Third Countries in proposals selected for funding by thematic area: All Emerging Economies
FIGURE II.5.5 FP7 - Cooperation Specific Programme - participation of Third Countries in proposals selected for funding by thematic area: All Industrialized Countries
FIGURE II.5.6 FP7 - Cooperation Specific Programme - participation of Third Countries in proposals selected for funding by thematic area: All Developing Countries
TABLE II.5.3 Third Countries classified by economic type
5

0.28
0.37
0.45
0.32
0.29
0.25
0.28
0.13
0.37
0.40
FIGURE I.1.1 R&D intensity broken down by sector of performance, 2000 and 2006
(1)
1.02
1.17
1.83
1.43
2.54
2.49
1.84
2.61
3.32
Japan
3.23
South Korea (2)
US (3)
EU-27
China
2006
(1)
0.0
0.30
0.32
0.28
0.44
0.27
0.31
0.26
0.28
0.08
0.38
0.54
0.5
2.16
1.77
2.04
2.39
1.21
1.86
0.90
1.0
1.5
% of GDP
2.0
GOVERD HERD BERD PNPRD
2.5
2000
2.73
3.0
3.04
3.5
Japan
South Korea (2)
US (3)
EU-27
China
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat, OECD
Notes: (1) JP : 2005
(2) KR : R&D in the social sciences and humanities is not included
(3) US : GERD, BERD and HERD do not include most or all capital expenditure; GOVERD refers to federal or central
STC key figures report 2008
6
R&D intensity (GERD as % of GDP) broken down by sector, 2000 and 2006
(1)
China
EU-27
US
(3)
South Korea
(2)
Japan
China
EU-27
US
(3)
South Korea
(2)
Japan
Source: DG Research
Notes: (1) JP : 2005.
(2) US : GERD BERD and HERD do not include most or all capital expenditure; GOVERD refers to federal or central government expenditure only.
(3) KR : R&D in the social sciences and humanities is not included.
(4) Values in italics are estimated or provisional.

-53.7
-60
FIGURE I.1.2 Venture Capital - early stage per thousand GDP - average annual growth 2000-2006
(1)
; in brackets early stage per thousand GDP, 2006
(2)
38.7
-40.9
-41.4
-27.8
-28.2
-28.3
-29.7
-30.0
-34.7
-19.9
-22.0
-22.7
-14.7
-15.1
-2.6
-4.7
-4.8
-5.6
-6.6
-40
1.4
6.3
13.7
-20 0 per thousand GDP
20 40 60
Slovakia (0.05)
UK (2.22)
Hungary (0.05)
Switzerland (0.23)
Spain (0.27)
Romania (0.04)
Denmark (0.15)
EU- 27 (3) (0.50)
Sweden (0.57)
Portugal (0.10)
France (0.30)
Finland (0.27)
Norway (0.13)
Greece (0.01)
Germany (0.11)
Ireland (0.15)
Netherlands (0.12)
Austria (0.03)
Belgium (0.12)
US (0.35)
Italy (0.02)
Poland (0.01)
Czech Republic (0.00)
STC key figures report 2008 Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat
Notes: (1) SK, US : 2000-2005; RO : 2005-2006
(2) SK, US : 2005
(3) EU-27 does not include BG, EE, CY, LV, LT, LU, MT, SI
7
Venture capital investments - early stage per 1000 GDP
Czech Republic (0.00)
Poland (0.01)
Italy (0.02)
US (0.35)
Belgium (0.12)
Austria (0.03)
Netherlands (0.12)
Ireland (0.15)
Germany (0.11)
Greece (0.01)
Norway (0.13)
Finland (0.27)
France (0.30)
Portugal (0.10)
Sweden (0.57)
EU- 27
(3)
(0.50)

FIGURE I.1.3 Government bugdet appropriations for energy
(1)
(million euro); in brackets as % of total GBAORD
2006 (2)
France; 663
(3.64%)
Germany ; 540
(3.03%)
Italy; 359
(3.95%)
Others
(4)
; 576
2005 (3)
France; 719
(4.30%)
Germany ; 491
(2.85%)
Italy; 382
(3.99%)
Others
(4)
; 505
0 500 1000 1500 million euro
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat
Notes: (1) Production, distribution and rational utilisation of energy (NABS 05)
(2) LV, HU, UK : 2005
(3) CH : 2004
(4) Others: all other EU-27 member states (excluding BG), NO, CH, IS
2000 2500 3000
STC key figures report 2008
8
Absolute goverment budget appropriations for production, distribution and rational utilisation of energy (NABS 05) million euros
France
Germany
Italy
Spain
Others (2) total

FiIGURE I.1.4 Evolution of government budget appropriations for energy
(1)
as % of GDP
0.14
0.12
JP
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
EU-15
0.02
0.00
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat
Note: (1) Production, distribution and rational utilisation of energy (NABS 05)
2002 2003 2004
US
2005
STC key figures report 2008
9
Absolute government budget appropriations for production, distribution and rational utilisation of energy (NABS05)
% GDP
EU-15
US
Japan

Box I.1.1: Energy specialization in Member States - public expenditure 1
The International Energy Agency (IEA) collects data from its members on government R&D expenditure on energy and provides a detailed breakdown by energy sources. This makes it possible to identify the energy technologies favoured by the countries covered in the IEA database. 17 EU
Member States are members of the IEA.
In 2005, in the 17 EU Member States for which data are available in the ERA database, nuclear energy research accounted for 40% of total public expenditure on energy, compared to 15% in the US and
64% in Japan. France is the EU Member State with the highest public investment in nuclear research, accounting for 62% of government R&D expenditure on energy, compared with from 0% to one third in the other Member States. In absolute terms, France also has the highest expenditure on non-nuclear research of the 17 Member States. The high share of nuclear research in the French government's
R&D energy budget accounts for much of the relatively high share of nuclear research (40%) in the 17
Member States' at aggregated level.
There are large differences between Member States in the setting of priorities. Although some
Member States invest in R&D on a wide range of energy technologies, other Member States tend to specialise. For example, Austria and the Netherlands spend about 60% of their R&D energy budgets on energy efficiency and renewables compared to an EU average of 30%. Denmark and Spain spend
16% and 15% of their respective budgets on wind energy; research on solar heating accounts for 52% of the Portuguese budget; and 75% of the Hungarian budget goes to research in bioenergy. Danish spending on research in hydrogen and fuel cells is the second highest in the EU after Germany. The specialisation of some smaller countries can be an important element in the construction of an ERA in non-nuclear energy R&D.
At EU level, most of the R&D funding for energy goes to nuclear research, followed by renewable energies, fossil fuels and energy efficiency. Compared to the US, the EU spends much more on R&D in nuclear energy and renewable energies and less on fossil fuels. Compared to Japan, the 17 EU
Member States in the IEA database give a much higher priority to R&D expenditure on renewable energies both in absolute and relative terms .
1
This short analysis of Member States' specialization based on IEA data was done in the Staff working document accompanying the SET-
Plan (pp 48 to 51).
10

FIGURE 1.1.5 Business enterprise expenditure on R&D (BERD)
(1)
in the energy sector
(2)
(million euro), 2005; in brackets: as % of total BERD
France
(3)
; 1584
(7%)
Germany ; 1325
(3.4%)
UK; 1066
(5.4%)
Others
(4) (5)
; 1579
(3.5%)
0 1000 2000 3000 million euro
4000 5000 6000
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat, OECD
STC key figures report 2008
Notes: (1) BE, FR, UK : R&D by industry served (production field); Other countries : R&D by main activity
(2) NACE sectors : Mining and quarrying; Electrical machinery and apparatus; Coke, refined petroleum products
and nuclear fuel; Electriciy, gas and water supply
(3) FR: 2004
(4) Other EU-27 Member States (not including DK, LV and LU) and NO
(5) AT refers to 2004 and does not include Coke refined petroleum products and nuclear fuel
(6) IS, CH : Data are not available
11

Box I.1.2: Energy specialization in Member States - private expenditure 2
A detailed analysis of private sector expenditure on R&D in the energy sector in individual EU
Member States reveals that in 2005 France invested five times more in research in the electricity, gas and water supply sector than the second ranking Member State, Germany (followed by Italy, Spain,
Austria and Finland). The high level of expenditure in France is mainly due to the importance of nuclear R&D and complements the 62% of total public expenditure on energy research that is allocated to nuclear research in France (see Box I.1.1). For the same reason, R&D investment in the manufacture of coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear fuels is led by France, followed by
Belgium and Spain. Germany shows a clearly decreasing trend, which may reflect a government commitment to phase out nuclear power and the decreasing importance of domestic coal mining.
Germany and France have the highest levels of private expenditure on research in the manufacture of electrical machinery, however, Spain is catching up with increasing levels of investment since 2000.
2 This short analysis is part of the Staff working document accompanying the SET-Plan, p79.
12

TABLE I.2.1 Expenditure on educational institutions by source as % of GDP, for all levels of education combined, 2005
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
UK
EU-27
Croatia
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey
Iceland
Liechtenstein
Norway
Switzerland
Albania
US
Japan
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat
Notes: (1) MK : 2003; CZ, EE, TR, IS : 2004
(2) HR : 2002; CZ, TR, IS, NO : 2004
From public sources
(1)
5.31
3.66
5.84
6.19
5.03
4.73
3.73
5.12
2.93
4.59
5.04
5.38
5.26
3.33
4.1
5.45
4.23
6.01
4.74
4.54
5.65
3.83
4.17
6.83
4.17
4.81
4.26
3.95
4.59
3.31
3.81
7.12
2.14
5.67
5.54
:
4.85
3.38
From private sources
(2)
0.81
0.7
0.13
0.19
1.25
0.67
:
0.49
0.16
0.43
0.47
0.55
0.42
0.4
0.53
0.55
0.44
1.21
0.76
0.49
0.35
0.62
0.61
0.57
0.92
:
0.29
0.25
0.15
:
0.11
0.74
:
0.05
0.57
:
2.36
1.54
STC key figures report 2008
13

25
20
15
10
35
30
FIGURE I.2.1 Total public expenditure on education as % of GDP, for all levels of education combined and at tertiary level (ISCED 5-6), 2001
(1)
and 2005
(2)
9
8
7
4
3
2
6
5
1
0
Den m ark
Ic ela nd
Norw ay
Sw ede n
Cyp rus
Fi nla nd
Bel gi um
Slo ve ni a itz er la nd
Fra
Sw nc e
Pol and
UK
Hung ar y
Aus tria
Portug al er la nd s
La tv ia
Neth ia
Es ton
Li th ua ni a
US
Ire la nd
Cr oa tia ny
G erma
Bulg ar ia
Ita ly
Cz ec h
Rep ub lic
Spa in
Tu rke y
G re ec e
Slo
Lu va kia xe m bo urg
Ja pa n
Rom ani a
M alta
Li ec hte ns te in
All levels of education 2001 All levels of education 2005 Tertiary level 2001 Tertiary level 2005
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat
Notes: (1) HR, LI : 2002
(2) CZ, EE, TR, IS : 2004
STC key figures report 2008
FIGURE I.2.2 % share of population aged 25-64 with tertiary education, 2000
(1)
and 2005
40
5
0
Fi nla nd
Den m ark
Norw ay
Es ton ia
Bel gi um
Cyp rus
Sw ede n
Ire la nd in
Spa itz er la nd er la nd
Sw Neth s
UK
Li th ua ni a
Fra nc e
Lu xe m bo urg
G erma ny
EU-27
Bulg ar ia
Ic ela nd
G re ec e
Slo ve ni a
La tv ia
Pol and
Hung ar y
Aus tria va kia
Slo
Cz ec h
Rep ub lic
Portug al
Ita ly
M alta
Rom ani a
Tu rke y
2000 2005
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat
Note: (1) LT : 2001
STC key figures report 2008
14
UK
Hungary
Austria
Portugal
Latvia
EU-27
Estonia
Lithuania
US
Ireland
Croatia
Germany
Bulgaria
Italy
UK
Lithuania
France
Germany
EU-27
Bulgaria
Iceland
Greece
Slovenia
Latvia
Poland
Hungary
Austria
Slovakia
Portugal
Figure I.3.3 Proportion of population aged 25-64 with tertiary education, in % (2000 and 2005)
Finland
Denmark
Norway
Estonia
Belgium
Cyprus
Sweden
Ireland
Spain

TABLE I.2.2
Graduates from tertiary education by field of education, 2005, and average annual growth, 2000-2005
(1)
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
UK
EU-27
Croatia
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey
Iceland
Liechtenstein
Norway
Switzerland
Albania
US
Japan
501393
70023
156565
15787
36337
3927
57611
633042
3753483
19548
664711
297603
3676
26124
41466
:
73769
2741
106684
32925
5687
271841
2914
132
31929
79612
46038
55055
49704
343874
11793
5965
59872
288158
Total
All fields
Average
2005 annual growth
2000-2005
2.6
8.8
7.3
:
2.1
%
3.1
-0.3
7.5
5.0
63372
:
2557595
1059386
Source: DG Research
8.0
7.4
10.4
:
1.3
3.2
:
3.5
-0.4
1.7
6.3
4.7
5.9
:
7.5
5.2
18.2
6.5
9.9
:
4.3
6.5
6.1
5.7
5.5
8.0
5.5
11.4
10.4
Data: Eurostat
Note: (1) CH : 2002-2005
33531
8111
7769
638
33
3439
4704
89059
375803
1179
81783
20416
357
1244
2142
:
2638
105
7983
3377
479
25308
262
10
2607
5935
:
239722
30684
6538
229
4436
416
37452
1251
9658
8951
30471
Total
Science
Average
2005 annual growth
2000-2005
6.1
20.3
1.3
:
2.8
%
5.5
5.4
1.1
5.6
10.1
7.6
1.7
:
1.1
-1.0
:
4.7
2.8
4.7
2.6
1.0
5.0
:
23.5
20.9
13.0
11.8
18.6
0.9
5.6
18.0
4.6
11.8
:
13.9
4.8
13.6
12.6
37304
10585
27501
2259
6085
8329
10623
50704
478325
2319
97198
49124
66
2036
689
:
5217
101
894
6704
802
51145
168
46
2449
8639
:
189938
19567
7589
7429
8728
5221
55998
1133
7157
7374
4803
Engineering
Total Average
2005 annual growth
2000-2005
1.4
2.8
5.7
:
4.5
%
-0.8
3.3
11.1
-0.3
-1.9
5.3
8.8
:
0.8
5.5
:
1.2
-1.4
2.5
3.8
-1.9
4.6
:
6.2
8.8
16.4
0.1
12.9
4.9
9.6
-18.2
7.2
5.2
:
-2.2
-0.4
1.6
3.5
70835
18696
3527
2897
9385
11768
15327
139763
854128
3498
178981
6954
423
328
9032
:
7855
206
16923
10081
14127
9719
13164
9381
9345
2384
16815
16325
78501
Science and Engineering
Total Average
2005 annual growth
2000-2005
3.1
10
3.0
:
3.8
%
1.8
3.8
7.1
2.1
1281
76453
430
56
5056
14574
:
42966
226354
1.7
6.0
4.1
:
1.0
2.7
:
3.1
-0.9
12.5
13.1
15.6
2.0
14.7
3.1
3.4
-0.1
4.8
:
:
1.8
2.1
6.3
6.1
3.0
8.3
4.7
6.2
6.6
STC key figures report 2008
15

TABLE I.2.3 Total population, population aged 20-29 and share of age group 20-29 in total, 2000 and 2005 and average annual growth between 2000 and 2005
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
UK
EU-27
2000
10251250
8170172
10272322
5339616
82211508
1369515
3805368
10917482
40263216
60750876
56942108
694023
2372985
3499536
436300
10210971
385808
15925513
8011566
38453757
10225836
22442971
1988925
5388720
5176209
8872109
58892514
Total population
2005 Average annual growth
2000-2005
%
10478617
7739900
10235828
5419432
82469422
1346097
4159096
11103965
43398143
62818185
58607043
757795
2300512
3414304
465158
10087065
403837
16319868
8236225
38165445
10549424
21634371
2000474
5387001
5246096
9029572
60226500
483271172 491999371
Croatia
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey
4441700
2026345
67392503
4443393
2036855
72064992
Iceland
Liechtenstein
Norway
281205
32645
4490967
7184250 Switzerland
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat
296734
34753
4623291
7437115
0.44
-1.08
-0.07
0.30
0.06
-0.34
1.79
0.34
1.51
0.67
0.58
1.77
-0.62
-0.49
1.29
-0.24
0.01
0.10
1.35
1.08
1.26
0.58
0.69
0.12
-0.01
0.27
0.35
0.45
0.36
0.92
0.49
0.55
-0.15
0.63
-0.73
Population aged 20-29
2000 2005 Average annual growth
2000-2005
%
1320362 1301231
1224399 1118660
1717148 1581080
717193 631522
9661733 9670675
189328 197730
-0.29
-1.79
-1.64
-2.51
0.02
0.87
605499 702090
1680916 1594526
6605056 6620017
8128936 7992216
7989188 7053382
99463 122567
325555
481659
335829
481264
56639 58558
1596268 1513395
3.00
-1.05
0.05
-0.34
-2.46
4.27
0.62
-0.02
0.67
-1.06
55747 59796
2106835 1959449
1027063 1040204
5914014 6396584
1590960 1533881
3766568 3403340
296493
897867
632973
293668
920842
664664
1112206 1069680
7560081 7692900
67226599 66009738
611600
319862
617114
322613
13064286 13374847
42373
4572
606409
890692
43071
4411
563489
907655
-0.19
0.51
0.98
-0.78
0.35
-0.36
1.41
-1.44
0.25
1.58
-0.73
-2.01
0.18
0.17
0.47
0.33
-0.71
-1.46
0.38
14.9
16.7
12.2
12.5
12.8
13.9
14.4
13.2
12.8
15.4
15.6
16.8
13.8
15.8
19.4
15.1
14.0
13.5
12.4
15.9
15.4
16.4
13.4
14.0
14.3
13.7
13.8
13.0
15.6
Share of age-group 20-29 in total
2000 2005 Average annual growth
2000-2005
%
12.9
15.0
16.7
13.4
11.8
13.8
12.4
14.5
15.4
11.7
11.7
14.7
-0.73
-0.72
-1.57
-2.80
-0.04
1.22
16.9
14.4
15.3
12.7
12.0
16.2
14.6
14.1
12.6
15.0
1.19
-1.38
-1.44
-1.00
-3.02
2.45
1.25
0.48
-0.61
-0.82
14.8
12.0
12.6
16.8
14.5
15.7
14.7
17.1
12.7
11.8
12.8
13.4
13.9
15.8
18.6
14.5
12.7
12.2
12.2
-0.31
0.51
0.71
-1.13
-0.10
-0.72
0.49
-1.92
-0.30
1.73
-1.34
-1.29
0.17
0.07
-0.87
-0.75
-1.95
-2.03
-0.31
STC key figures report 2008
16

TABLE I.2.4 Doctoral graduates by field of education, 2005
(1)
, and average annual growth, 2000-2005
(2)
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
UK
EU-27
Croatia
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey
Iceland
Norway
Switzerland
US
Japan
2228
5722
415
3871
369
1022
1957
2778
15778
100347
385
92
2838
14
838
2952
52631
15286
25952
131
810
1248
6902
9578
8466
5
114
321
1069
5
2879
Total
All fields
Average
2005 annual growth
2000-2005
1601
528
1908
955
%
6.9
5.8
16.3
3.7
0.1
2.3
10.1
0.0
2.8
-1.6
20.3
-17.4
23.3
-6.2
8.3
-3.6
3.0
4.5
6.8
10.6
22.5
4.5
18.0
1.7
-1.8
6.4
4.8
9.5
22.0
6.0
47.6
5.0
2.7
3.3
4.6
492
907
1117
214
92
210
410
582
4994
27450
95
11
453
1
247
979
11987
2404
6691
38
359
519
1962
4433
2337
3
20
50
157
0
508
Total
Science
Average
2005 annual growth
2000-2005
574
89
482
210
%
3.7
0.7
8.1
2.0
-1.9
1.1
9.0
0.0
2.2
-2.3
23.3
0.0
14.9
-4.8
-4.1
0.0
2.6
3.6
6.4
22.5
88.9
10.8
22.2
3.5
-3.3
3.1
2.8
16.5
6.6
8.3
0.0
103.9
5.9
2.2
6.5
405
927
610
330
87
206
386
626
2252
13395
72
13
432
1
124
340
6780
3341
39
56
46
0
557
2345
25
103
251
628
941
1539
0
Engineering
Total Average
2005 annual growth
2000-2005
250
85
502
199
%
10.3
14.6
22.2
-0.8
-0.8
33.0
16.0
0.0
9.0
-0.3
13.8
0.0
19.5
-10.4
-14.9
0.0
7.1
3.6
8.1
7.9
-28.6
6.3
17.2
3.8
-5.7
3.9
5.2
3.4
7.6
5.4
0.0
10.6
1.8
4.2
2.2
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat
Notes: (1) IT, CH (All fields) : 2004
STC key figures report 2008
(2) IT : 2000-2004; PL : 2001-2005; CH (All fields) : 2002-2004; CH (Science and Engineering) : 2002-2005; RO, HR : 2003-2005
(3) Values in italics are estimates
897
1834
1727
544
179
416
796
1208
7246
40845
167
24
885
2
371
1319
18767
5745
9036
63
462
770
2590
5374
3876
3
59
106
203
0
1065
Science and Engineering
Total Average
2005 annual growth
2000-2005
824
174
984
409
%
5.4
6.2
14.0
0.6
-1.7
8.4
10.4
0.0
3.6
-2.0
18.9
0.0
17.8
-8
-7.3
0
4.8
3.6
7.2
16.0
-12.3
8.5
19.6
3.6
-4.6
3.3
3.5
12.9
7.1
6.8
0.0
35.2
4.8
2.9
3.9
17

TABLE I.2.5 Science and Engineering doctoral graduates - % shares, 2005
(1)
Science
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
UK
EU-27
Croatia
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey
Iceland
Norway
Switzerland
US
Japan
22.8
15.7
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat
Notes: (1) IT : 2004
16.0
7.1
29.5
33.2
35.9
16.9
25.3
22.0
25.8
29.0
44.3
41.6
28.4
46.3
27.6
5.5
24.9
20.5
21.0
21.0
31.7
27.4
24.7
12.0
60.0
17.5
15.6
14.7
0.0
17.6
22.1
15.9
26.9
(2) Values in italics are estimates
Engineering
8.5
23.6
20.2
19.7
22.5
14.3
13.3
18.7
14.1
0.0
34.2
17.4
4.3
0.0
19.3
18.2
16.2
14.7
15.2
7.1
14.8
11.5
12.9
21.9
15.6
16.1
26.3
20.8
9.0
19.1
12.7
20.1
9.1
9.8
18.2
Science and Engineering
14.1
48.5
40.7
40.7
43.5
45.9
40.7
43.4
26.1
60.0
51.8
33.0
19.0
0.0
37.0
40.3
32.1
41.6
31.2
14.3
44.3
44.7
35.7
37.6
51.5
33.0
51.6
42.8
34.8
48.1
57.0
61.7
37.5
56.1
45.8
STC key figures report 2008
18

TABLE I.2.6 Human Resources for Science and Technology and sub-groups, 2006
Totals (thousands), and as % of labour force
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
UK
EU-27
Turkey
Iceland
Norway
Total
HRST
(1) as % of labour force
11122
8359
143
365
588
89
1402
44
3716
1432
5051
2183
1069
1736
1333
16708
281
772
1496
8442
1105
2095
368
797
1234
2098
11395
85422
4216
61
1079
22.0
22.8
38.8
31.6
48.7
48.0
42.4
38.6
18.4
42.8
48.9
41.1
34.6
40.2
34.8
38.3
43.0
31.9
30.8
48.1
38.3
31.4
46.6
30.5
34.8
50.4
43.2
44.1
40.1
30.8
39.8
Total
HRSTE
(2) as % of labour force
8390
4206
124
257
479
61
984
26
2638
800
3669
1799
922
806
1026
10649
235
677
1279
7526
787
1378
245
437
995
1461
9164
61021
3282
33
836
15.3
14.5
25.0
16.2
38.3
32.4
33.4
26.6
13.6
22.5
37.1
29.9
16.0
34.2
23.8
30.6
28.1
21.2
17.0
32.9
20.2
22.0
37.4
25.8
15.0
37.8
26.4
36.3
34.6
25.8
35.0
Switzerland 1883 50.8
1250 32.8
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat
Notes: (1) HRST : Human Resources in Science and Technology
(2) HRSTE : Human Resources in Science and Technology - Education
(3) HRSTO : Human Resources in Science and Technology - Occupation
(4) HRSTC : Human Resources in Science and Technology - Core
(5) S&E : Scientists and Engineers
842
1652
286
634
789
1641
6935
58856
2422
50
809
1396
Total
HRSTO
(3) as % of labour force
7299
6785
85
250
353
74
987
35
2719
1075
3577
1303
635
1467
983
12474
152
419
970
4435
29.9
30.4
26.0
25.6
24.8
38.7
25.4
26.6
38.3
30.8
24.3
31.2
20.6
31.3
40.2
34.5
26.0
24.2
22.0
23.4
17.9
19.3
32.0
27.0
34.4
40.0
28.0
29.0
12.5
36.4
39.3
39.7
524
935
162
274
550
1005
4704
34455
1488
22
565
763
Total
HRSTC
(4) as % of labour force
4567
2633
65
142
245
45
569
17
1.64
443
2194
919
488
537
676
6416
106
324
754
3519
18.7
11.8
20.0
14.5
17.2
23.9
14.6
12.8
23.1
12.7
14.9
22.0
15.9
11.5
27.6
17.7
18.2
18.7
17.1
18.6
11.1
10.9
18.2
11.7
24.0
24.5
19.0
17.0
7.7
16.1
27.4
21.7
146
367
50
67
166
292
1369
10338
317
12
111
1342
713
16
37
65
10
161
5
453
118
782
286
Total
335
96
164
163
2156
26
138
194
911
S&E
(5) as % of labour force
4.5
5.3
4.1
3.9
5.5
3.2
4.8
3.8
6.4
3.4
5.3
6.0
4.4
7.9
4.4
4.8
8.0
3.1
3.5
6.6
7.2
7.1
5.5
5.1
3.1
4.3
5.6
2.8
1.6
8.5
5.4
8.1
STC key figures report 2008
19

FIGURE I.2.3 Shares (%) of Human Resources in Science and Technology Core
(HRSTC) and Scientists and Engineers (S&E) aged 45-64, 2006
50
45
40
35
30
PL
LT
FR
BG
RO IT
LV
HU
NO
EE
EL
EU-27
SI
CZ DK
UK
NL
SK
CH
FI
DE
SE
IS ES
CY
PT
IE
LU
BE
AT
25
TR
20
15 20 25 30 35
% share of HRSTC aged 45-64
40
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat
45 50
STC key figures report 2008
20
Figure I.3.9 Share of Human Resources in Science and Technology Core (HRSTC) and Scientists and Engineers (S&E) aged 45-64 (2006) nl at pl pt ro lt lu hu si sk fi se ee ie gr es fr it cy lv eu27 be bg cz dk de

TABLE I.2.7 Human Resources in Science and Technology Core (HRSTC) and
Scientists and Engineers (S&E) - total aged 45-64, and as % of age group 25-64, 2006
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
UK
EU-27
HRSTC aged 45-64
Total as % of
HRSTC
306
213
210
271
2828
44
99
258
1043
1454
964
19
55
79
14
223
4
648
166
656
154
336
56
109
234
437
1855
12736 aged 25-64
33.3
43.6
39.1
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat
40.1
44.1
41.5
30.6
34.2
29.6
31.8
36.6
29.2
38.7
32.2
31.1
39.2
23.5
39.5
37.5
29.9
29.4
35.9
34.6
39.8
42.5
43.5
39.4
37.0
282
46
155
18
26
60
113
529
3928
300
5
16
29
3
67
:
169
36
66
862
11
41
77
295
501
Total
S&E aged 45-64 as % of
S&E
111
43
66 aged 25-64
33.1
44.8
40.2
40.5
40.0
42.3
29.7
39.7
32.4
37.3
36.1
31.5
42.2
36.0
38.8
36.1
38.7
38.6
38.0
42.1
31.3
43.2
44.6
30.0
41.6
:
37.3
30.5
STC key figures report 2008
21

TABLE I.2.8 Researchers (FTE) - total and % distribution by main institutional sector, 2006
(1)
Belgium
Bulgaria
Total
All Sectors
33924
10336
26267
28653
Business Enterprise
Total %
17140
1304
50.5
12.6
11290
17377
43.0
60.6
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
UK
EU-27
Croatia
Turkey
Iceland
Norway
Switzerland
Russian Federation
US
Japan
282063
3513
12167
19907
115798
204484
82489
755
4024
8036
2346
17547
475
45852
30452
59573
21126
20506
5834
11776
40411
55729
183534
1300990
5232
39139
2155
21653
25400
464357
1387882
709691
171063
876
7000
5397
39936
108814
27939
175
777
877
1734
6248
220
27790
19368
9344
4014
7708
2262
1901
22721
37700
95052
641278
721
9456
1012
10692
12640
236792
1097700
483339
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat, OECD
Note: (1) CH : 2004; FR, IT, PT, TR, IS, NO, US : 2005
60.6
24.9
57.5
27.1
34.5
53.2
33.9
23.2
19.3
10.9
73.9
35.6
46.3
60.6
63.6
15.7
19.0
37.6
38.8
16.1
56.2
67.6
51.8
49.3
13.8
24.2
47.0
49.4
49.8
51.0
79.1
68.1
10956
7137
1740
7370
12849
14740
:
462905
2648
5452
225
6073
238
:
9716
37653
2874
25434
585
7512
12335
72310
:
184319
Higher Education
Total %
14032
2756
41.4
26.7
8352
8893
31.8
31.0
71000
2042
4670
12110
55443
66290
37073
430
25.2
58.1
38.4
60.8
47.9
32.4
44.9
57.0
54.9
65.0
27.1
34.7
48.6
15.6
:
26.0
51.9
34.8
29.8
62.6
31.8
26.4
:
35.6
65.8
67.8
9.6
34.6
50.1
:
31.9
63.2
STC key figures report 2008
3338
5585
1804
2494
4470
3041
9311
180386
598
1707
387
5226
17
7131
1208
12438
1634
4249
501
3449
425
153629
:
33593
Government
Total %
2499
6148
7.4
59.5
6564
2190
25.0
7.6
40000
513
497
2259
20063
25889
14454
115
14.2
14.6
4.1
11.3
17.3
12.7
17.5
15.2
31.2
10.9
23.2
15.9
1.7
33.1
:
4.7
15.8
27.2
30.9
21.2
11.1
5.5
5.1
13.9
14.9
21.2
16.5
29.8
3.6
15.6
4.0
20.9
22

TABLE II.1.1 Key data on the higher education sector, 2000 and 2006
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
UK
EU-27
Croatia
Turkey
Iceland
Norway
Switzerland
Russian Federation
US
(4)
Japan
China
HERD as % of GERD
(1)
2000
(2)
2006
(3)
20.6
35.1
60.4
16.2
25.7
22.9
4.5
11.5
14.5
8.6
27.8
27.0
31.5
37.5
11.8
16.6
9.5
17.8
19.8
20.6
44.9
29.6
18.6
31.0
24.8
37.6
36.5
0.2
24.0
31.3
20.2
9.9
14.2
23.0
16.1
52.4
20.2
21.9
36.6
51.3
22.0
30.2
22.9
6.1
14.3
12.7
9.2
28.2
26.7
31.0
35.4
17.7
15.1
24.1
18.7
20.4
26.1
47.8
27.6
18.2
30.2
41.7
34.5
49.2
2.4
24.4
33.4
22.3
9.6
15.9
26.1
16.3
40.6
26.4
5009
13037
15851
49023
394864
5297
16902
515
5670
9425
4932
22
5852
203
15480
6977
34246
8592
2542
1340
72264
186049
170512
147866
2000
(6)
11778
1886
3768
7379
67087
1806
2473
8544
42064
61583
25696
128
2156
Higher Education researchers (FTE)
(5)
Total
2006
(7) as % of total for all sectors
2000
(6)
2006
(7)
14417
2756
8352
38.6
19.9
27.2
41.3
26.7
31.8
8763
66903
2042
4672
12110
55443
67935
37073
435
2648
28.9
26.0
67.7
27.6
59.5
54.9
35.8
38.9
42.2
56.5
30.4
23.9
58.1
38.4
60.8
47.9
32.2
44.9
58.2
65.8
7370
12849
14740
:
460647
3128
26713
585
7870
12335
5452
159
6073
238
10931
9261
37653
12026
7137
1763
72310
:
184319
236578
63.4
1.3
40.6
74.6
36.8
28.9
62.1
51.3
12.4
30.9
50.3
31.8
34.5
31.1
35.8
61.8
73.2
27.7
28.3
36.1
14.3
14.8
26.4
21.3
62.6
31.8
26.4
:
35.1
54.1
62.6
27.1
34.1
48.6
67.8
7.7
34.6
45.8
23.1
31.7
63.2
49.0
34.8
30.1
15.6
:
26.0
19.3
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat, OECD
Notes: (1) FR, IT, SE : There is a break in series between the two years
(2) EL, SE, NO : 2001; DK, AT, HR : 2002; FR, MT : 2004
STC key figures report 2008
(3) CH : 2004; IT, PT, IS : 2005; IE; FI : 2007
(4) US : HERD as % of GERD does not include most or all capital expenditure
(5) CZ, DE, IT, SE : There is a break in series between the two years
(6) UK :1998; US : 1999; IE, EL, SE, IS, NO : 2001; DK, MT, AT, HR; JP : 2002; FI : 2004
(7) CH : 2004; IT, IS : 2005
(8) Values in italics are estimated or provisional
23

TABLE II.1.2 Scientific production and visibility of the top 171 European Research Universities measured as the number of scientific publications (1997-2006) and the field-normalized average impact
Country
Germany
Germany
Ireland
Greece
Greece
Spain
Spain
Spain
Spain
Spain
Spain
Spain
Spain
Spain
Spain
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Belgium
Belgium
Belgium
Belgium
Belgium
Belgium
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
Denmark
Denmark
Denmark
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
University
KATHOLIEKE UNIV LEUVEN
UNIV ANTWERPEN
UNIV CATHOLIQUE LOUVAIN
UNIV GENT
UNIV LIBRE BRUXELLES
UNIV LIEGE
VRIJE UNIV BRUSSEL
CHARLES UNIV PRAGUE
AARHUS UNIV
KOBENHAVNS UNIV
TECH UNIV DENMARK
UNIV SOUTHERN DENMARK
BJM UNIV WURZBURG
CHRISTIAN ALBRECHTS UNIV KIEL
EK UNIV TUBINGEN
FREIE UNIV BERLIN
FRIEDRICH ALEXANDER UNIV ERLANGEN
FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIV JENA
GA UNIV GOTTINGEN
HEINRICH HEINE UNIV DUSSELDORF
HUMBOLDT UNIV BERLIN
JG UNIV MAINZ
JOHANN WOLFGANG GOETHE UNIV FRANKFORT
JUSTUS LIEBIG UNIV GIESSEN
LMU UNIV MUNCHEN
MED HOCHSCHULE HANNOVER
RFW UNIV BONN
RUHR UNIV BOCHUM
TECH UNIV BERLIN
TECH UNIV DARMSTADT
TECH UNIV DRESDEN
TECH UNIV MUNCHEN
UNIV AACHEN (RWTH)
UNIV DUISBURG ESSEN
UNIV FREIBURG
UNIV HALLE WITTENBERG
UNIV HAMBURG
UNIV HEIDELBERG
UNIV KARLSRUHE (TH)
UNIV KOLN
UNIV LEIPZIG
UNIV MARBURG
UNIV MUNSTER
UNIV REGENSBURG
UNIV SAARLANDES
UNIV STUTTGART
UNIV ULM
UNIV COLL DUBLIN, NATL UNIV IRELAND
ARISTOTLE UNIV THESSALONIKI
NATL & KAPODISTRIAN UNIV ATHENS
UNIV AUTONOMA BARCELONA
UNIV AUTONOMA MADRID
UNIV BARCELONA
UNIV COMPLUTENSE MADRID
UNIV GRANADA
UNIV PAIS VASCO
UNIV SANTIAGO COMPOSTELA
UNIV SEVILLA
UNIV VALENCIA
UNIV ZARAGOZA
106
70
71
67
26
41
127
93
56
117
137
128
94
155
149
122
120
79
148
54
129
45
18
110
72
84
74
132
147
100
33
62
87
23
64
69
105
8
124
50
77
36
57
53
97
58
86
Scientific Scientific
Production Production
Rank
10
112
89
29728
9985
12120
40
92
113
162
82
34
5
85
153
60
18950
12032
9748
7219
13050
19510
31716
12505
7558
15738
13779
19439
16423
17130
11285
16271
12297
23086
15329
14504
10552
30094
9280
17638
11937
16625
9548
8436
9026
11739
7539
10473
14214
14175
14792
21879
18670
9089
7717
9330
9359
13408
7744
13834
8606
7845
10892
20102
15457
12225
16964
8995
18282
24907
10066
14046
12510
Scientific visibility
CPP / FCSm
(1)
1.06
0.85
0.80
0.85
0.82
0.73
1.03
0.90
1.19
1.08
1.02
0.73
0.72
0.99
1.03
1.39
1.00
0.84
1.03
1.05
1.08
0.93
1.38
1.07
1.02
1.19
0.83
1.14
1.19
1.14
1.07
1.03
0.93
1.18
0.96
0.93
0.85
1.00
1.15
1.13
1.21
1.23
0.92
1.22
1.20
1.55
1.35
1.10
1.08
1.06
1.00
1.12
1.25
1.10
1.27
1.15
1.14
1.03
0.98
0.65
60
96
123
165
167
132
115
18
129
159
117
107
97
150
104
156
163
158
161
166
116
152
22
100
122
59
160
75
56
74
102
114
148
63
139
149
157
128
70
79
48
42
151
44
49
5
24
90
95
105
127
84
Citation
Index
Rank
39
92
34
68
77
118
134
169
24

TABLE II.1.2 (contd.) Scientific production and visibility of the top 171 European Research Universities measured as the number of scientific publications (1997-2006) and the field-normalized average impact
Country
Austria
Austria
Austria
Austria
Poland
Poland
Portugal
Portugal
Slovenia
Finland
Finland
Finland
Finland
Finland
Italy
Italy
Italy
Netherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands
Italy
Italy
Italy
Italy
Italy
Italy
Italy
France
Italy
Italy
Italy
Italy
Italy
Italy
Italy
Italy
France
France
France
France
France
France
France
France
France
France
France
France
France
University
UNIV AIX MARSEILLE II MEDITERRANEE
UNIV BORDEAUX I SCI TECHNOL
UNIV GRENOBLE I JOSEPH FOURIER
UNIV LYON I CLAUDE BERNARD
UNIV MONTPELLIER II
UNIV NANCY I HENRI POINCARE
UNIV NANTES
UNIV PARIS V RENE DESCARTES
UNIV PARIS VI P&M CURIE
UNIV PARIS VII DENIS DIDEROT
UNIV PARIS XI SUD
UNIV RENNES I
UNIV STRASBOURG I L PASTEUR
UNIV TOULOUSE III
UNIV BARI
UNIV BOLOGNA
UNIV CATANIA
UNIV CATTOLICA SACRO CUORE
UNIV FERRARA
UNIV FIRENZE
UNIV GENOVA
UNIV MILANO
UNIV NAPOLI FEDERICO II
UNIV PADOVA
UNIV PARMA
UNIV PAVIA
UNIV PERUGIA
UNIV PISA
UNIV ROMA SAPIENZA
UNIV ROMA TOR VERGATA
UNIV TORINO
UNIV TRIESTE
DELFT UNIV TECHNOL
EINDHOVEN UNIV TECHNOL
ERASMUS UNIV ROTTERDAM
LEIDEN UNIV
RADBOUD UNIV NIJMEGEN
UNIV AMSTERDAM
UNIV GRONINGEN
UNIV MAASTRICHT
UNIV UTRECHT
VRIJE UNIV AMSTERDAM
WAGENINGEN UNIV
KARL FRANZENS UNIV GRAZ
LEOPOLD FRANZENS UNIV INNSBRUCK
TECH UNIV WIEN
UNIV WIEN
JAGIELLONIAN UNIV KRAKOW
WARSAW UNIV
UNIV PORTO
UNIV TECNICA LISBOA
UNIV LJUBLJANA
HELSINKI UNIV TECHNOL
UNIV HELSINKI
UNIV KUOPIO
UNIV OULU
UNIV TURKU
16
133
134
159
151
121
166
95
12
38
61
146
104
145
15
169
144
101
90
143
48
28
46
17
37
111
152
66
14
107
73
164
168
68
91
9
51
32
165
19
140
138
43
135
27
161
158
Scientific Scientific
Production Production
Rank
88
150
81
12122
7641
13099
65
116
142
167
80
6
76
15234
9627
8255
6888
13397
30703
13808
24410
8394
8417
18441
8563
21531
7230
7413
6845
14588
12046
30063
17493
20110
6959
11571
29551
18963
15735
7858
10571
8022
25623
8579
8568
7388
7604
9343
6919
27025
6814
8189
10887
10035
7579
15122
28380
10367
14023
6981
12095
8225
18138
21462
18217
25303
19074
Scientific visibility
CPP / FCSm
(1)
0.95
0.65
1.13
1.38
1.34
1.05
1.07
0.95
1.11
1.08
1.03
0.70
1.05
0.89
1.19
1.34
1.27
1.24
1.38
1.38
1.27
0.96
1.04
1.07
1.45
1.48
1.47
1.26
0.95
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.11
0.95
0.94
0.99
0.96
1.00
0.81
0.95
0.98
1.01
0.95
1.11
1.01
1.15
1.12
1.10
1.13
1.00
1.18
0.94
1.09
1.12
1.02
1.05
0.80
113
168
109
154
144
170
81
41
20
23
33
143
88
98
21
26
110
101
14
9
10
38
58
25
32
112
89
141
146
137
111
103
135
124
142
86
140
120
119
78
130
64
131
138
126
162
145
Citation
Index
Rank
147
94
85
121
108
164
125
69
82
91
25

TABLE II.1.2 (contd.) Scientific production and visibility of the top 171 European Research Universities measured as the number of scientific publications (1997-2006) and the field-normalized average impact
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
Country
Croatia
Turkey
Norway
Norway
Norway
Switzerland
Switzerland
Switzerland
Switzerland
Switzerland
UNIV BERGEN
UNIV OSLO
ECOLE POLYTECN FEDERALE LAUSANNE
ETH ZURICH
UNIV BASEL
UNIV BERN
UNIV GENEVE
University
CHALMERS UNIV TECHNOL GOTEBORG
GOTEBORG UNIV
KAROLINSKA INST STOCKHOLM
KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLAN
LINKOPING UNIV
LUNDS UNIV
STOCKHOLM UNIV
SWED UNIV AGR SCI UPPSALA
UMEA UNIV
UPPSALA UNIV
IMPERIAL COLL LONDON
KINGS COLL UNIV LONDON
LOUGHBOROUGH UNIV
QUEEN MARY COLL UNIV LONDON
QUEENS UNIV BELFAST
UNIV ABERDEEN
UNIV BIRMINGHAM
UNIV BRISTOL
UNIV CAMBRIDGE
UNIV COLL LONDON
UNIV DUNDEE
UNIV DURHAM
UNIV EDINBURGH
UNIV EXETER
UNIV GLASGOW
UNIV LEEDS
UNIV LEICESTER
UNIV LIVERPOOL
UNIV MANCHESTER
UNIV NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
UNIV NOTTINGHAM
UNIV OXFORD
UNIV READING
UNIV SHEFFIELD
UNIV SOUTHAMPTON
UNIV ST ANDREWS
UNIV STRATHCLYDE GLASGOW
UNIV SURREY
UNIV SUSSEX
UNIV WALES CARDIFF
UNIV WARWICK
UNIV YORK
UNIV ZAGREB
HACETTEPE UNIV ANKARA
NORWEGIAN UNIV SCI & TECHNOL TRONDHEIM
Scientific Scientific
Production Production
Rank
125
39
7
9130
18963
30588
99
115
13
102
141
109
21
4
22
170
118
103
108
30
29
1
2
139
119
24
171
35
31
98
52
11
78
49
3
136
42
44
163
160
156
157
55
130
126
154
123
131
114
47
96
20
75
63
59
83
25
11003
9629
28475
10855
8345
10071
23983
36099
23866
6616
9459
10640
10139
20436
20893
46063
44816
8417
9364
22393
6581
19464
20249
11190
17303
29602
13740
18083
43179
8528
18473
18344
7017
7253
7475
7430
16786
8762
9127
7551
9298
8707
9671
18189
11430
24252
13820
15374
16258
12990
22099
Citation
Index
Rank
72
47
37
87
66
50
43
73
55
51
12
27
155
35
71
54
52
29
2
11
8
4
13
99
31
57
62
83
61
53
40
1
93
30
45
36
136
133
19
80
67
17
172
171
106
65
76
3
6
16
46
15
7
28
Scientific visibility
CPP / FCSm
1.15
1.21
1.26
1.11
1.17
1.20
1.23
1.15
1.20
1.20
1.45
1.32
0.89
1.27
1.15
1.20
1.20
1.32
1.63
1.45
1.49
1.59
1.45
1.08
1.28
1.19
1.18
1.12
1.18
1.20
1.24
1.66
1.10
1.30
1.22
1.27
0.97
0.98
1.39
1.13
1.17
1.43
0.51
0.61
1.06
1.17
1.14
1.59
1.51
1.43
1.22
1.43
1.50
1.32
(1)
Switzerland
Switzerland
UNIV LAUSANNE
UNIV ZURICH
Source: DG Research
Data: Thomson Scientific / CWTS
STC key figures report 2008
Note: (1) This indicator compares the average number of citations to the oeuvre ( CPP ) to an international reference value, namely the corresponding Average Field Citation Score ( FCSm ), by calculating the ratio of the two. Self-citations are excluded in the calculation of this ratio, to prevent that ratios are affected by divergent self-citation behaviour
26

TABLE II.1.3 Key recent reforms concerning universities
Country
Belgium
Laws/Acts
Higher Education Act of 4 April 2003
Bulgaria
Decree of 31 March 2004
Law on Higher Education 1995 (amended 2004)
Czech Republic Amendment to Higher Education Act 2005
(Act no: 552/2005 Coll.)
Denmark University Act 2003
Germany
Estonia
Greece
Framework Act for Higher Education
(HRG) of 1998 last amended in 2005
Regional Higher Education laws in the competence of each federal State
Law on limited time contracts for researchers,
Wissenschaftszeitsvertragsgesetz (WissZeitVertrG),
April 12, 2007
Draft Law on the abrogation of the Framework Act for
Higher Education, May 9, 2007
National Audit Office Act 2002
Organisation of R&D Act
1982 Law. New Law in 2007
Description
“Structural Decree of April 2003” The Act on the Structure of
Higher Education in the Flemish Community, which was passed in April 2003, was the first piece of legislation to introduce
Bologna-related reforms. Central to the new act is the implementation of a two-tiered structure starting in 2004/05, with the gradual phasing out of the old structure by 2011.
The Decree mostly addresses Bologna reforms facilitating inclusion within the European HE Area and providing fresh funding for universities.
In June 2004, the Parliament adopted the last amendments to the
1995 Higher Education Act. This states that HEIs are independent legal entities with academic autonomy. Public Higher Education institutions are the property of the state. The Academy Law, last amended in 1997 is a fully independent legal entity with a central budget.
The last amendment represented another step towards more autonomy of institutions, mainly financial, introducing in addition to the state subsidy a weighted grant for all aspects of teaching and research
The Danish higher education system has undergone a reform in
2002 towards more autonomy and self-regulation. Danish universities are now regarded as "independent institutions under the public sector administration and supervised by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation". The Act also aimed to promote R&D quality and links with industry.There is further major reform being undertaken in 2007 to restructure the universities and to give them more flexibility over the recruitment of researchers.
The Higher Education Framework Law (Hochschulrahmengesetz) defines the basic mission of higher education organisations, their status as self-organised institutions
(Selbstverwaltungskörperschaft), the admission to university studies and certain aspects concerning the employment status of civil servants. Following the German Reform of Federalism decided in 2006, as well as the Bologna process, this framework law will be abrogated in 2008, resulting in an increase in universities' autonomy.
The WissZeitVertrG takes up the issue of limited time contracts in research, allowing for a maximum of 12 years (15 years in medicine) of limited time contracts for employees in universities and research organisations, an now including a clause for prolongation due to childcare.
Key governance structures are defined by the Universities Acts and consist of the right to determine internal organisation, manner of R&D etc. Organisation of Research and Development
Act states the principles of targeted financing and research and education grants (applies also to Universities).
Autonomy is determined by article 16 of the Constitution, in accordance with which Universities are legal entities under public law, with full self-administration under the supervision of the Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs.
Universities are responsible for managing the revenues derived from state grants and from their own assets. By Presidential
Decree, with the assent of the Senate, it is possible to establish a special legal entity under public law to utilise and manage
University property. In accordance with the Greek Constitution,
Technological Education Institutes (TEIs) are legal persons under public law, which are fully self-governing under the supervision of the State, and they are financed by the State. TEIs belong to Higher Education, under law 1404/83.
They are also legal entities under public law, fully self-governed, under the supervision of the Ministry of Education, too, and their operation and organisation is governed by law, while more specific issues are regulated by the internal rules of each TEI.
27

TABLE II.1.3 (contd.) Key recent reforms concerning universities
Spain
Country Laws/Acts
Organic Law for Universities 6/2001, modified in April 4/2007
France Law on University responsibilities and freedom, n° 2007-1199 10 th
of August 2007
Description
The new law slightly changed the university governance system so that Rectors will now be elected through a direct voting system including students, academics, and staff. The Law also increases the autonomy of universities and gives greater responsibilities to the regional governments. The Laws redefine the positions of non statutory teachers and researchers and strengthens the powers of the National Agency for Quality
Evaluation and Certification.
2007 modification dictated that funding is now apportioned on the basis of results, not cost.
The Law sets a new framework for universities allowing them greater powers and greater responsibilities with regard to hiring staff. The Law modifies the responsibilities of university presidents and the size of the board.
Cyprus
Lithuania
Law adopted in 1996 (and last amended in December 2003)
- Law 67(I)/1996 stipulating the legal basis for the
establishment and operation of higher education
institutions (including private institutions)
- Law 234(I)/2002 regulating the establishment and
operation of the Open University of Cyprus
- Law 198(I)/2003 regulating the establishment and
operation of the Cyprus University of Technology
- Law 109 (I) /2005 regulating the establishment, operation
and control of Private Universities
Law on Higher Education 2000, last amended 2006
The University of Cyprus (panepistimio) was established by law in 1989 and admitted its first students in 1992.
The Cyprus University of Technology was established in
2003/2004 and admitted its first students in autumn 2007. The
Open University was established in 2002 and admitted its first students in 2006.
Cyprus has a number of private higher education institutions
(colleges). Following an amendment of the national legislation that broadens the confines of university education to include private universities, some of them have recently applied for recognition as private universities.
Luxembourg Law of Oct 2003
The higher education system is currently undergoing a reform that should end in 2010. This is a move towards more autonomy, but there is still a high level of regulation.
The 2003 act set the ground for the creation of the first
Luxembourg university, which is conceived as a small international multilingual institution with a strong research commitment There is a high level of autonomy, as block grants are guaranteed in a three year performance contract signed at the end 2006 with the Luxembourg government.
Hungary
Austria
Law on Research and Technological Innovation 2004
The Academy Law
In 2005 a new Act on HE was created and implemented in 2006
The Universities Act 2002
Poland
Portugal
Act on Higher Education 2005
The Basic Law on the Education System dated
14 October 1986 and amended in September 1997.
Decreto-Lei n.o 214/2006, de 27 de Outubro, Lei organica do Ministerio da ciencia tecnologia e ensino superior
Since September, 2004, some of the former weaknesses of the national STI governance system have been addressed by new legislation. Most notably, the importance of devising and implementing a coherent RTDI strategy has been recognised in the Law on Research and Technological Innovation.
The 2002 university act introduced important changes in the
Austrian HE sector. The universities were transformed into independent legal entities under public law. The Law provides more autonomy to Austrian universities, allowing them to define their own profile, create their organisational structures and allocate funds based on mission statements and strategic plans.
The Law also requires more accountability and since 2007, all universities have signed performance agreements with the government and have the obligation to present annual intellectual capital reports.
The Act brings into effect a number of Bologna reforms, a much higher level of institutional autonomy, links with research institutes, training of staff and also increases levels of international cooperation. HEIs can also be involved in business activities but with a high level of ministerial control.
In July 2007 the Parliament approved a new law concerning university governance. The implementation of this law is expected to bring significant changes into the Portuguese Higher
Education System over the next few years. Universities are allowed to move to a new semi private-semi public status, through the creation of foundations. The process of selecting the university leadership will also undergo a significant change.
There will be a possibility of representatives from the civil society having a say in selecting the university president (or
"rector").
28

TABLE II.1.3 (contd.) Key recent reforms concerning universities
Country
Romania
Laws/Acts
Legea consortiilor universitare, 2004
Slovakia
Finland
The Higher Education Law (Law No 131/2002)
Universities Act
27 June 1997/645
2005
Description
Main changes in legislation took place from 1999 onwards, increasing autonomy of universities (incl. lump sum budgeting), implementing formula funding based on negotiated student numbers and performance criteria, introducing the concept of lifelong learning and taking steps to enhance cooperation between universities and between universities and the research sector.
A major reform was carried out in Slovakian higher education in
2002. Following the new Act, institutional autonomy is increased resulting in universities becoming self-governing and selforganised entities run by an externally appointed (by the
Ministry) Board of Trustees. HEIs have been given the status of non-profit in order to allow more flexible budgetary management and easier access to alternative funds.
The 21 universities in Finland are all state-owned public institutions, governed by the Universities Act. University autonomy is stipulated in the Constitution. In 2005, the law on universities was reformed in order to increase the financial autonomy and to promote national and international collaboration and networking. The Government has developed a five-year Education and Research Development Plan, defining objectives for universities that they should then implement autonomously. However, the productivity programme launched by the Finnish Government has been criticised because it may decrease the autonomy of universities.
Sweden Higher Education Act 2000
(including amendments up to 2006)
In 2005 the Science and Technology Policy Council decided that the number of universities will not increase in the future and that existing ones will be consolidated into larger operational entities.
The higher education institutions are part of the public, central government administration, in terms of both organisation and function. Hence, institutions of higher education are formally administrative agencies subject to the Government. As from
1993, a system of management by objectives and results was introduced for higher education, with the Government and
Riksdag (Swedish Parliament) setting the objectives and the higher education institutions being assigned the task of meeting the objectives within given parameters and resources.
Universities and university colleges are generally free to decide on internal affairs such as organisation and staffing. Each institution is responsible for the fulfilment of obligations stated in the budget document decided by the Government.
UK Higher Education Act 2004 The latest Higher Education Act included changes to student funding arrangements which were first proposed in the white paper 'The future of higher education' published in January 2003.
Following the publication of the White Paper, the Government published a Widening Participation document which outlined the actions the Government proposed taking to promote Higher
Education: Attainment, Aspiration, Application and Admissions.
Source: DG Research
Data: ERAWATCH
STC key figures report 2008
29

TABLE II.1.4 Key recent reforms concerning public research centres
Country
Bulgaria
Laws/Acts
Law on Bulgarian Academy of Sciences from 1991, last amended in 1997
The law on Scientific Research Promotion 2003
Description
The core part of scientific and research infrastructure is concentrated in the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. BAS is a fully independent legal entity regulated by the special Law on the
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences from 1991, last amended in 1997.
The Law on scientific research promotion governs the principles and mechanisms of implementing the State policy aimed at scientific research promotion in the Republic of Bulgaria.
Scientific research is stated to be a national priority and shall be of strategic importance for the development of the country.
According to Article 6, the funds earmarked for financial promotion of scientific research shall be provided by a subsidy from the state budget and from other sources, such as specialised funds, public procurement, national scientific programmes and projects of various institutions, in conformity with the goals and priorities laid down in the National Scientific
Research Strategy.
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
Bill on National Research Institutions 2003
Universities Act 1995
National Audit Office Act 2002
Organisation of R&D Act (1997, last amended, 2006)
Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation 2006-2013
Bridging research and technological development with production (Law 2919/2001)
Law for the Promotion and General Coordination of
Scientific and Technical Research (Law 13/1986).
The Public Research Institutes are affected by the recent reforms in Higher Education, the new Bill on National Government
Research Institutions and also the Globalisation Strategy 2006.
The Federal Government and the Länder provide joint research support on the basis of Articles 91 a and b of the Basic Law
(Grundgesetz – GG). Pursuant to Article 91 b Basic Law, the
Federal Government and the Länder may work together, on the basis of agreements, in educational planning and in support of scientific research institutions and projects of supraregional importance.
Organisation of Research and Development Act states the principles of targeted and baseline financing and research and education grants, principles of organisation, rights, governance and management of the public research institutions.
Compared to large EU Member States, Ireland has very few public research organisations. The activities of these organisations are mostly focused on natural resources (food, agriculture, forestry and marine), health, energy and the environment. The Strategy for Science, Technology and
Innovation outlines the government's commitment to increasing the levels and budget for public research.
The most important objective of this Law is the creation of a robust framework that will enable and strengthen the collaboration in research projects between public research centres and firms. One of the main objectives of this Law is to define in detail the scope and operating principles of the research and technological bodies in Greece, including those of science parks and incubators. Moreover, this Law sets out the evaluation process of the research institutes.
The “Science Act” defines the “National Scientific Research and
Technological Development Plan” as the basic instrument for the co-ordination and planning of research. The Interministerial
Science and Technology Commission (CICYT) is responsible for its preparation and follow-up. CICYT is a public organisation related to the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade.
The Spanish National Plan for Scientific Research, Development and Technological Innovation is the General Administration’s main tool for the programmation of the national policy for
Science and Technology. It is aimed at contributing to a greater and more harmonious development of the Spanish Science-
Technology-Enterprise (S-T-E) system. Its approach stems from the commitments adopted at the Lisbon European Council of
March 2000. The R&D&I NP is implemented on a four year basis.
The R&D&I NP 2004-2007 is now running. The strategic objectives to be achieved at the end of the Plan's execution are listed in section "Research Policy Priorities". The R&D&I NP 2004-
2007 marks a new step forward in planning actions financed by the National State Budgets aimed at :
Designing the financial instruments and modes of participation needed to stimulate and foster R&D&I activities. The NP structures a set of Research Programmes which are summarized in section “Research Policy Priorities”. It also includes the national fiscal policy for research;
Optimizing available resources by strengthening cooperation and coordination with the Autonomous Communities (Spanish regional governments).
30

TABLE II.1.4 (contd.) Key recent reforms concerning public research centres
Country
France
Latvia
Lithuania
Laws/Acts
1999 Law for Innovation and Research
2006 Law for Research
2003 – Innovation Plan
Law on Research Activity 2005
Guidelines for Development of Science and Technology for 2006-2013
The Law on Science and Studies 1991, last amended 2005
Description
The 1999 Law for Innovation and Research focuses on the facilitation of collaboration between scientific and technological research on the one hand and industrial activity on the other. The
Act provides 4 series of measures: mobility of human resources from the research world to the enterprises environment, cooperation between public research and enterprises, fiscal framework for innovating enterprises and legal framework for innovation enterprises.
The 2006 Law for research addresses several issues with a middle-term approach (until 2010): it provides measures to enforce strategic orientation abilities by the creation of a High
Council for Science and Technology and the reinforcement of the powers of the existing National Agency for Research which becomes a public institution. It also provides new legal tools to encourage cooperation between institutions of Research and
Higher Education Institutes.
The purpose of the Law on Research Activity is to strengthen the role of the State in fostering research as a particularly important factor in the development of society. This Law prescribes the unity of research and higher education, the rights, liabilities, independence of academic freedom of scientists, and the competence and obligations of State authorities in ensuring research activity, which is defined as activity including science, research and innovation.
The Law states that all State schools of higher education and
State scientific institutes shall have autonomy, as established by the laws of the Republic of Lithuania, and as approved in the statute of the respective institution. The State may regulate an institution's activities by way of subsidies, orders (agreements) financed by the State,and other means provided for in the laws of the Republic of Lithuania. Institutions of science and studies shall have the right to establish salaries and norms for employees of various categories in accordance with the approved wage fund (except for cases when the Government passes special regulating directives), and shall also have the right to sell scientific production and goods.
Hungary
Austria
Law on Research and Technological Innovation (2005)
Examples of laws concerning individual RTOs:
Law on the Academy of sciences, latest version 29 April 2005
Law on the creation of the Austrian Research and Testing
Centre Arsenal, Ltd (BGBl. A Nr. 15/1997
Poland New Act July 2007 amending the Act on Sectoral Branch
Institutes
Act on the principles of financing science (2004).
Independent public-law institutions based on the principal of selfgovernment and functioning as a legal entity.
There is no comprehensive Law on public non-university research organisations in Austria. The legal base for nonuniversity research in Austria is heterogeneous. The Academy of
Sciences has been created by a decision of the Emperor
Ferdinand I in 1847, since then, it has been under the protection of the highest governor of Austria, now the President. The Law defines its basic tasks, namely to promote research in all domains, especially fundamental research.
Austrian Research Centres (ARC) have the status of a limited company, with a majority shareholding held by the State, represented by the Ministry. The externalisation of the research centre Arsenal research, formally directly dependent on the
Ministry, and its integration into ARC has been decided by law.
Work is ongoing on the preparation of draft Acts regulating the establishment and status of the National Centre for Scientific
Research and Experimental Development in Poland as well as amendments to Acts concerning the restructuring of the branch research and development units in Poland and to many other
Acts. The new Act 2007 strengthens the control of the relevant ministries in charge of these institutes. In particular the minister can dismiss the directors in case of illegality or mismanagement.
The Act on the principles of financing science is concerned with the restructuring of the research sector. In particular the Act sets forth the principles of financing science from funds designated for that purpose in the State Budget as well as coming from other sources (e.g. Structural Funds of the European Union). It regulates the role (competences) of the minister responsible for science (and its advisory bodies) in managing the distribution of the science budget with a view to financing activities aimed at supporting the implementation of the state's scientific, science and technology and innovation policies. In particular, it relates to the financing of scientific research, experimental development and other tasks serving science by the allocation of funds for either the statutory activity of scientific entities (in the form of institutional subsidies) or competitive research grant schemes.
31

TABLE II.1.4 (contd.) Key recent reforms concerning public research centres
Country
Portugal
Romania
Laws/Acts
October 2006 – Law regulating public laboratory system
Government Decision 1449/17 November 2005 regarding the functioning of the National Authority for Scientific Research
Elaboration of the 2007-2013 National RDI Strategy based on strategic planning elements (document)
Description
In October 2006 a new Law regulating the public laboratory system was published. This Law foresees the closing down of some laboratories, the merger of others and the creation of new ones, as well as the establishment of consortia between existing public laboratories and Associated Laboratories.
There will be reform of the public research institutes in 2007 and a complete re-evaluation and international evaluation of every research centre and unit in the country.
The Government Decision approves the creation of the National
Authority for Scientific Research (NASR), a public institution created within the Ministry of Education and Research, that implements government policy in the area of R&D and innovation through the following strategic functions:
Elaboration, launching, funding and monitoring of national RDI programmes;
Creation and development of a stimulating framework for RDI activities, in accordance with EU principles, criteria and procedures;
Integration of Romanian RDI into the European Union and international RDI circuits.
The document defines the mission and structure of the National
Authority for Scientific Research and its central role in the implementation of government R&D and innovation policy. The main issues addressed by the document relate to NASR's strategic role in planning, policy-making, monitoring and evaluation, programme/project funding, horizontal coordination with other government agencies involved in RDI, involvement in regional and local development, as well as in international collaborations. The document also specifies the National R&D institutes and the public R&D institutions coordinated by NASR.
Slovenia Law on Research and Development (2002) Resolution on National Research and Development Programme
(NRDP): The NRDP is the basic document, specifying the R&D policy (and implicitly also innovation policy), its objectives and priorities, the stakeholders, scope and means of financing and the evaluation criteria. The current NRDP was prepared by the
Government (Ministry of Higher Education, Science and
Technology) and adopted by the Parliament in December 2005 for the period 2006-2010, after prolonged planning and discussion, involving various bodies, ministries and the research community.The Minister for Higher Education, Science and
Technology announced the preparation of a new law on higher education and R&D, linking the two areas more closely. The draft of the new law has not yet been made public.
Slovakia The Law on Slovak Academy of Science (February 2002)
(Law No 133/2002)
2006 Law on Organisation of State Support to Research and
Development
Government Resolution No 766/2007 of 12th September 2007
Long-term Objective of State S&T Policy up to 2015: The Slovak
Government passed the Long-term Objective of the State S&T
Policy up to 2015 via the Government Resolution No 766/2007 of
12th September 2007. The Objective was prepared by the Ministry of Education and based on the 172/2005 'Law on Organisation of
State Support to Research and Development'. The requirement of the Law is 'to prepare the long-term Objective of science and technology development up to 2015'. The Ministry was helped by an Expert Committee comprising experts from central government ministries and regional governments, universities, the Slovak Academy of Sciences, professional associations and industry unions. The Objective became basic strategy for the development of the Slovak R&D system up to 2015 and replaced the the State Science and Technology Policy Concept for 2000-
2005. The Objective, which generates overlapping between the
S&T and R&D policies in Slovakia is of major importance for the development of applied research and innovations.
Main issues addressed:
The Objective sets three broad targets:
Higher involvement of S&T in the development of Slovakia and more intensive participation by S&T in solving economic and social problems in Slovakia;
Better conditions for S&T development inside Slovakia and also for Slovakia’s activities within the European Research Area;
Setting targets for S&T development.
32

TABLE II.1.4 (contd.) Key recent reforms concerning public research centres
Country
Finland
Sweden
UK
Laws/Acts
Government Resolution on the Structural Development of the Public Research System (2005)
Government bill 2004/05:80 Research for a Better Life
Established by Royal Charter
Description
The Resolution outlines development priorities for the structural development of the public research system. The aim is to enhance research and technological development and the utilisation of their results in the Finnish research system. The adjustments presented include the following: increasing the prioritisation of research resources; strengthening high-quality knowledge clusters; enhancing the horizontal cooperation between responsible ministries and between national research funding organisations; and increasing the quality of university research.
The following are among the challenges identified and explicitly mentioned in the bill:
More international cooperation;
More industrial high-class research is a decisive factor;
Multi- and cross-disciplinary research has a special value in this context and is in need of favourable conditions in order to develop further;
New ways to increase public-private partnerships and cooperation between industry and the knowledge infrastructure are emphasised in order to overcome a perceived national inability to exploit the research base;
The importance and role of the research institutes as intermediaries between research and industrial implementation is emphasised;
Efforts to align public and private research strategies for strategically important industry sectors in order to develop these further. This especially accounts for the traditionally strong sectors.
All the Research Councils are Non-Departmental Public Bodies
(NDPBs), established by Royal Charter and are independent legal bodies outside of Government, accountable to Parliament. Each of the Research Councils is established under the Science and
Technology Act 1985. There is a new Council Order in 2007 for the establishment of The Science and Tecnology Facilities
Council.
Source: DG Research
Data: ERAWATCH
STC key figures report 2008
33

TABLE II.2.1 FP6 networks of Research Infrastructures
(1)
Scientific domain
Nuclear and Particle Physics, Astronomy, Astrophysics (NPPAA)
e-infrastructures projects
Environment, Marine, and Earth Sciences (EMES)
Engineering
Social Sciences
Material Sciences
Humanities
Biomedical and Life Sciences (BMLS)
Computer and Data Treatment
Number of networks
10
11
10
1
2
10
1
6
2
[Min; Max] number of partners by network
[20;48]
[6;91]
[11;47]
20
[8;20]
[5;23]
13
[4;11]
[9;11]
Average number of partners by network
30
27
25
20
14
14
13
13
10
Source : DG Research STC key figures report 2008
Data : DG Research
Note : (1) Networks formed by Integrating Infrastructure Initiatives (I3) and Coordination Action (CA) projects under FP6; they include
partners who do not provide access.
34

Human Resources for Science and Technology – Core (HRSTC)
Box II.3.1: Human Resources for Science and Technology – Core (HRSTC): definitions
The Canberra Manual proposes a definition of HRST as persons who either have higher education or persons who are employed in positions that normally require such education. HRST are people who fulfil one or other of the following conditions: a) Successfully completed education at the third level in an S&T field of study (HRSTE - Education); b) Not formally qualified as above, but employed in an S&T occupation where the above qualifications are normally required (HRSTO - Occupation).
HRST Core (HRSTC) are people with both tertiary level education and an S&T occupation. Scientists and engineers are defined as ISCO categories 21 (physical, mathematical and engineering science professionals) and 22 (life science and health professionals).
35

TABLE II.3.1 Number (thousands) and share (%) of foreign-born Human Resources in Science and Technology Core (HRSTC),
EU-27 foreign-born and non-EU-27 foreign-born, 15 Member States, 2006
HRSTC
Total
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
Greece
Spain
France
Cyprus
Luxembourg
Hungary
Netherlands
Austria
Portugal
Finland
Sweden
UK
Total (15 Member States)
Norway
Switzerland
919
536
674
754
3519
4526
65
45
569
1639
444
525
550
1004
4704
20473
564
762
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat
18
5
52
149
662
23
131
104
123
5
21
12
45
47
Foreign-born - EU-27
Total %
(A)
47
8
17
9
5.1
1.5
2.5
1.2
3.0
2.7
7.7
46.7
2.1
2.7
10.6
3.4
0.9
5.2
3.2
3.2
4.1
17.2
Foreign-born - non-EU-27
Total %
39
6
59
433
2
5
95
24
43
4
24
9
161
303
4
1211
19
63
7.4
1.1
5.9
9.2
4.4
0.9
5.8
5.4
4.7
0.7
3.6
1.2
4.6
6.7
6.2
5.9
3.4
8.3
265
426
9
23
17
140
71
Foreign-born - Total
Total %
(B)
90
12
41
18
9.8
2.2
6.1
2.4
7.5
9.4
13.8
51.1
3.0
8.5
16.0
57
11
111
582
1873
42
194
10.9
2.0
11.1
12.4
9.1
7.4
25.5
Share of
EU-27 in total
(A) as % of (B)
52.2
66.7
41.5
50.0
39.2
28.9
55.6
91.3
70.6
32.1
66.2
31.6
45.5
46.8
25.6
35.3
54.8
67.5
STC key figures report 2008
FIGURE II.3.1 Foreign-born Human Resources in Science and Technology core (HRSTC) in ten EU Member States
(1)
: numbers (thousands) and shares (%), 2000-2006
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 0.0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Foreign-born EU-27 - total
Foreign-born EU-27 - %
Foreign-born non-EU-27 - total
Foreign-born non-EU-27 - %
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat
Note: (1) The ten Member States are : BE, DK, EL, ES, CY, LU, NL, AT, SE, UK.
STC key figures report 2008
7.2%
6.4%
5.6%
4.8%
4.0%
3.2%
2.4%
1.6%
0.8%
36
Figure A.III.1.1 (2)
Foreign-born Human Resources in Science and Technology Core (HRSTC) in 10 EU Member States: numbers (in thousands) and shares (in %) from 2000 to 2006
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

TABLE II.3.2 Number (thousands) and share (%) of non-nationals in Human Resources in Science and Technology Core (HRSTC),
2000 and 2006, with average annual growth rates and evolution of the shares (in percentage points), 2000-2006
Intra-
EU-27
%
2000
Extra-
EU-27
%
Belgium
Greece
Spain
Cyprus
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Austria
36
4
26
3
12
27
17
4.5
0.7
1.1
6.4
38.7
2.1
5.2
7
3
16
1
1
10
11
Sweden
UK
Total (9 Member States)
24
80
229
2.6
2.0
2.2
13
105
167
Source: DG Research
1.4
2.6
1.6
Data: Eurostat
0.9
0.5
0.7
2.1
3.2
0.8
3.4
Intra-
EU-27
45
5
94
3
22
33
34
30
110
376
%
2006
Extra-
EU-27
4.9
0.7
2.7
4.6
48.9
2.0
7.7
3.0
2.3
2.9
8
4
75
2
1
12
13
15
188
318
%
0.9
0.5
2.1
3.1
2.2
0.7
2.9
1.5
4.0
2.4
2000-2006
Average annual growth
%
Evolution of share in percentage points
Intra-
EU-27
3.8
3.8
Extra-
EU-27
2.3
4.9
Intra-
EU-27
0.4
-0.1
Extra-
EU-27
0.0
0.0
23.9
0.0
10.6
3.4
12.2
3.8
5.5
8.6
29.4
12.2
0.0
3.1
2.8
2.4
10.2
11.3
1.5
-1.8
10.2
-0.1
2.4
0.4
0.3
0.6
1.4
0.9
-1.0
-0.1
-0.5
0.1
1.4
0.8
STC key figures report 2008
TABLE II.3.3 Number (thousands) and share (%) of foreign-born Human Resources in Science and Technology Core (HRSTC),
2000 and 2006, with average annual growth rates and evolution of the shares (in percentage points), 2000-2006
Foreignborn
EU-27
%
2000
Foreignborn non-EU-27
Belgium
Denmark
Greece
Spain
38
9
9
42
3
4.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
6.4
30
11
10
51
2 Cyprus
Luxembourg
Netherlands
12
41
26
38.7
3.2
8.0
2
80
16 Austria
Sweden
UK
44
121
345
4.8
3.0
3.2
31
291
524 Total (10 Member States)
Source: DG Research
Data: Eurostat
%
6.5
6.3
4.9
3.4
7.2
4.9
3.8
2.2
1.8
2.2
4.3
Foreignborn
EU-27
21
45
47
52
149
496
47
17
9
104
5
46.7
2.7
10.6
5.2
3.2
3.6
5.1
2.5
1.2
3.0
7.7
%
2006
Foreignborn non-EU-27
2
95
24
59
433
854
43
24
9
161
4
%
4.4
5.8
5.4
5.9
9.2
6.2
4.7
3.6
1.2
4.6
6.2
2000-2006
Average annual growth
%
Evolution of share in percentage points
Foreignborn
EU-27
3.6
11.2
0.0
16.3
8.9
9.8
1.6
10.4
2.8
3.5
6.2
Foreignborn non-EU-27
6.2
13.9
-1.7
21.1
12.2
0.0
2.9
7.0
11.3
6.8
8.5
Foreignborn
EU-27
0.4
0.7
-0.5
1.1
1.3
8.0
-0.5
2.6
0.4
0.2
0.4
Foreignborn non-EU-27
0.9
1.4
-0.6
2.3
1.9
-2.0
-0.5
0.5
2.5
2.0
1.3
STC key figures report 2008
37

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
TABLE II.3.4 U.S. doctoral degree recipients: total, foreign recipients
(1)
, and recipients from Europe, 2000-2005
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Total recipients
(A)
41361
40651
39953
40740
42117
43354
Total
Total foreign recipients
(B)
11614
11642
11405
12224
13160
14426
Share of foreign in total
(B) as % of (A)
28.1
28.6
28.5
30.0
31.2
33.3
Total recipients
(C)
1937
2107
2027
2082
2198
2275
From Europe
(2)
Share in foreign
Share in total recipients recipients
(C) as % of (B) (C) as % of (A)
16.7
18.1
17.8
17.0
16.7
15.8
4.7
5.2
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.2
From the top 8 EU Member States
(3)
Total recipients
(D)
Share in foreign recipients
Share in total recipients
(D) as % of (B) (D) as % of (A)
1096
1207
1174
9.4
10.4
10.3
2.6
3.0
2.9
1158
1261
1293
9.5
9.6
9.0
2.8
3.0
3.0
Source: DG Research
Data: NSF
Notes: (1) Foreign degree recipients include permanent and temporary residents
STC key figures report 2008
(2) Europe includes Western Europe (Andorra, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta,
Monaco, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland), Central and Eastern Europe (Albania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia,
Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova,
Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Yugoslavia (former), Bosnia-Herzegovia, Croatia, Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of),
Serbia-Montenegro) and Scandinavia (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden)
(3) Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Romania, Spain and the UK
FIGURE II.3.2 Number of US doctoral recipients from the top eight EU
Member States, 2000-2005
DE
RO
IT
UK
FR
ES
EL
BG
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Source: DG Research
Data: NSF
STC key figures report 2008
38
Figure A.III.1.2 (2)
Number of US doctoral recipients from the top 8 EU Member States (2000-2005)
Germany
Romania
Italy
France
Spain
Greece
Bulgaria

TABLE II.3.5 US S&E doctoral degree recipients: total, foreign recipients
(1)
, and recipients from Europe, 2000-2005
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Total recipients
(A)
27557
27037
26235
26907
27991
29751
Total
Total foreign recipients
(B)
9448
9598
9253
9868
10592
11981
Share of foreign in total
(B) as % of (A)
34.3
35.5
35.3
36.7
37.8
40.3
Western
Europe
824
929
847
831
872
869
Central and
Eastern
Europe
647
663
659
714
746
829
Recipients from Europe
(2)
Scandinavia Total Share in
Europe foreign
(C)
75
88
91
1546
1680
1597
Share in total recipients recipients
(C) as % of (B) (C) as % of (A)
15.4
17.5
17.3
5.6
6.2
6.1
92
80
86
1637
1698
1784
16.6
16.0
14.9
6.1
6.1
6.0
Source: DG Research
Data: NSF
Notes: (1) Foreign degree recipients include permanent and temporary residents
STC key figures report 2008
(2) Western Europe includes Andorra, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco,
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland. Central and Eastern Europe includes Albania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia,
Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova,
Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Yugoslavia (former), Bosnia-Herzegovia, Croatia, Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of),
Serbia-Montenegro. Scandinavia includes Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden
(3) Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Romania, Spain and the UK
Marie Curie Individual Fellowships
Box II.3.2: Intra-European mobility: Marie Cure Intra-European Fellowships (IEF)
FP6 Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships (IEF) were individual fellowships that aimed at providing advanced training tailored to researchers' individual needs in order to become professionally independent and to gain complementary or different scientific skills. Those eligible to apply were researchers from EU or Associated States, with at least four years of postgraduate research experience or a PhD, willing to spend a mobility period working in a host institution located in another EU or
Associated State, different from his/her own and from that where they had recently been active.
Of the 9500 IEF proposals (with various deadlines from 2003 to 2006), 1600 applicants were finally selected and funded. FIGURE II.3.3 shows the distribution of the selected candidates by their actual country of residence (country of “origin”) and the country of the host institution they applied for
(country of destination). 15.8% of the selected applicants resided in France, 12% in Germany and
11.1% in the UK. Most applied to go to host institutions in the UK (35.1%), followed by France
(15.6%) and Germany (9.9%). The distribution of selected applicants by country of citizenship and host institution gives slightly different results (see FIGURE II.3.4): 15.8% were French, 13.8%
Spanish, 12.4% Germans and 10.9% Italians, but only 5.6% were British.
Regarding intra-European mobility flows for IEF 3 , we find that the UK gains significantly from the exchanges of IEF fellows, receiving 465 more fellows from EU Member States or Associated
Countries than it sends to other EU Member States or Associated Countries. The UK is followed by
Switzerland (net gain of 57 fellows), the Netherlands (54) and Denmark (37).
The ten highest single mobility flows were observed from France to the UK (111), Spain to the UK
(85), Germany to the UK (70), Italy to the UK (51), Italy to France (46), Spain to France (45), the
3
These results are calculated on the basis of the nationality of fellows, taking into accountation citizens of EU Member States and
Associated Countries only.
39

Netherlands to the UK (35), Germany to France (33), Poland to the UK (28) and France to the
Netherlands (28).
FIGURE II.3.3 Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships (IEF): % distribution of selected applicants by country of residence (origin) and country of host institution (destination)
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
B e lg iu m
B u lg ar ia
C ze c h
R e p u b lic
D e rk n ma
G e rm an y
E s to n ia
Ir e la n d
G re e ce
S p ai n
F ra n ce
It a ly
C y p ru s
L a tv ia
L it h u an ia
L u xe mb o u rg
H u n g a ry lt a
Ma
N e th er la n d s
A u st ri a
P o la n d
P o rt u g al
R o ma n ia
S lo ve n ia
S lo va ki a
F in la n d
S w ed en
UK
T u rk ey
N o rw
S w ay it ze rl a n d e l
Is ra
A u st ra lia
C a n a d a
C h ile
In d ia
J ap a n xi co
Me
P h ili p p in es
S in g ap o re
U k ra in e
US
S o u th
A fr ic a
Z imb ab w e
Country of residence (origin) Country of host institution (destination)
Source: DG Research
Data: European Commission
STC key figures report 2008
FIGURE II.3.4 Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships (IEF): % distribution of selected applicants by country of citizenship
(origin) and country of host institution (destination)
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
B el gi um
B ul
C ze ga ri a ep ub
D lic ch
R rk en ma
G er y m an
E st on ia
Ir el an d
G re ec e
S pa in
Fr an ce
Ita ly
C yp ru s
La tv ia
Li th ua ni a mb
Lu xe ou rg
H un ga ry lta
Ma he rl
N et an ds
A us tr ia
P ol an d
P or tu
R ga l a ni oma
S lo ve ni a
S lo va ki a
Fi nl an d
S w ed en UK
C ro at ia
Tu rk ey
Ic el an d
N or w ay
S w itz er la nd
Is ra el ha ni
A fg st an
A lg er
A
B os ni a an d ia rg en tin
H er ze a go vi na
C hi na
C ub a
In di a
Ir aq
Li by a
F ed er at
S io in
R us si an n ga po re
S ou th
K or ea
Ta iw an
Th ai la nd
Tu ni si a
U kr ai ne US
Country of citizenship (origin) Country of host institution (destination)
Source: DG Research
Data: European Commission
STC key figures report 2008
40
Figure III.1.8. Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships (IEF): distribution of selected applicants by country of residence (origin) and country of host institution (destination) (%)

TABLE II.3.6 Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships (IEF)
Intra-European inflows, outflows and net gains of selected applicants
(1)
Inflows
Number Share of total
Outflows
Number Share of total
Net gains
Number Share of total
% % %
Croatia
Turkey
Iceland
Norway
Switzerland
Israel
Sub-total Associated countries
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
UK
246
91
1
0
0
0
48
153
0
21
9
66
73
9
99
48
0
3
0
1
0
16
0
5
0
14
44
554
9
1
123
30
2
8
15.6
5.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
9.7
0.0
1.3
0.6
4.2
4.6
0.6
6.3
3.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.9
2.8
35.2
0.6
0.1
7.8
1.9
0.1
0.5
253
175
2
2
2
2
11
199
4
20
44
221
16
25
68
57
16
24
3
17
1
6
34
12
12
14
49
89
57
2
69
24
90
23
16.1
11.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.7
12.6
0.3
1.3
2.8
14.0
1.0
1.6
4.3
3.6
1.0
1.5
0.2
1.1
0.1
0.4
2.2
0.8
0.8
0.9
3.1
5.7
3.6
0.1
4.4
1.5
5.7
1.5
-7
-84
-1
-2
-2
-2
37
-46
-4
1
-35
-155
57
-16
31
-9
-16
-21
-3
-16
-1
10
-34
-7
-12
0
-5
465
-48
-1
54
6
-88
-15
Sub-total EU-27
TOTAL
1476
1575
93.7
100
1507
1575
95.7
100
-31
0
-2.0
0.0
Source: DG Research STC key figures report 2008
Data: DG Research
Note: (1) Inflows: number of fellows having the nationality of any EU Member State or associated country who moved to the country under consideration; Outflows: number of fellows having the nationality of the country under consideration who moved to any other Member State or associated country; Net gains: difference between inflows and outflows.
-0.4
-5.3
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
2.3
-2.9
-0.3
0.1
-2.2
-9.8
-0.2
-1.0
-0.1
0.6
3.6
-1.0
2.0
-0.6
-1.0
-1.3
-2.2
-0.4
-0.8
0.0
-0.3
29.5
-3.0
-0.1
3.4
0.4
-5.6
-1.0
Box II.3.3: Mobility from and to Third Countries: Marie Curie International Incoming
Fellowships (IIF) and Outgoing International Fellowships (OIF)
FP6 Marie Curie Incoming International Fellowships (IIF) are individual fellowships that aim to attract top-class researchers from Third Countries to work and undertake research training in Europe for a period of from one to two years (incoming phase), with a view to developing mutually beneficial research cooperation. Fellows must have at least four years' experience and must agree on a work programme with a research organisation in an EU or candidate country before applying. In the case of
41

Emerging and Transition Economies and Developing Countries, the scheme may assist fellows to return to their country of origin for, typically, half the duration of the first phase (re-integration phase).
The top 15 nationalities of the 380 IIF selected applicants are shown on TABLE II.3.7: 59 come from the Russian Federation, 46 from China and 40 from the US, the three top nationalities. The three most important EU host countries in terms of number of selected applicants are, the UK (113 fellows),
Germany (61) and France (57). The highest single mobility flows are observed from China to the UK
(24 fellows), the Russian Federation to the UK (21), India to the UK (15), Australia to the UK (11) and the Russian Federation to Germany (10).
Marie Curie Outgoing International Fellowships (OIF) allow experienced researchers from EU or
Associated States to spend time at a research centre outside the EU and Associated States, including a compulsory return phase. They are individual fellowships that aim to reinforce the international dimension of the career of European researchers by giving them the opportunity to train in a world level Third Country research organisation (for a period of from one to two years), and then to apply the experience gained in a return host institution in a Member State or Associated State (for typically half the duration of the first phase). The Fellowships also aim to respond to the researchers' needs in terms of complementing their training in inter/multi-disciplinary research, research management skills and intersectoral mobility. Before applying for this fellowship, potential applicants must find suitable host organisations in a Third Country, for the so-called 'outgoing phase', and in an EU or Associated
State, for the 'return phase'.
Of the 302 selected OIF applicants, most chose to go to the US (228 fellows) (see TABLE II.3.8). The two other top destinations are Australia (33 fellows) and Canada (26) with all of the other destinations accounting for 15 fellows in total. The top five nationalities are French (65 fellows), German (47),
Spanish (37), Italian (36) and British (24). Most of the highest single mobility flows are in the direction of the US: France to the US (41 fellows), Germany to the US (36), Spain to the US (35),
Italy to the US (31), UK to the US (13), Netherlands to the US (11), France to Australia (11), Greece to the US (10), Israel to the US (10).
42

TABLE II.3.7 Marie Curie Incoming International Fellowships (IIF)
Nationality and host country of selected applicants
Nationality Number Share of total
Host country
%
Russian Federation
China
US
India
Australia
Canada
Japan
Argentina
Ukraine
Brazil
Mexico
Croatia
Moldova
Belarus
South Korea
59
46
40
37
34
34
22
17
15
12
11
5
5
4
4
15.5
12.1
10.5
9.7
8.9
8.9
5.8
4.5
3.9
3.2
2.9
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.1
UK
Germany
France
Spain
Italy
Netherlands
Sweden
Belgium
Austria
Denmark
Switzerland
Ireland
Greece
Finland
Norway
New Zealand
Yugoslavia (former)
Other
3
3
29
0.8
0.8
7.6
Czech Republic
Israel
Poland
Portugal
TOTAL 380 100
Source: DG Research
Data: DG Research
Slovenia
TOTAL
Number
3
3
8
6
14
13
9
8
113
61
57
22
22
20
16
1
1
1
1
1
380
STC key figures report 2008
Share of total
%
2.1
1.6
0.8
0.8
3.7
3.4
2.4
2.1
29.7
16.1
15.0
5.8
5.8
5.3
4.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
100
43

TABLE II.3.8 Marie Curie Outgoing International Fellowships (OIF)
Nationality and outgoing host country of selected applicants
Outgoing host country Number
US
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
Japan
Switzerland
China
India
Sri Lanka
Panama
Singapore
Thailand
South Africa
1
1
3
1
228
33
26
4
1
1
1
1
1
Share of total
%
75.5
10.9
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
8.6
1.3
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Nationality
France
Germany
Spain
Italy
UK
Greece
Netherlands
Israel
Poland
Austria
Belgium
Sweden
Ireland
Denmark
Czech Republic
Bulgaria
Portugal
Romania
Hungary
Turkey
TOTAL 302 100 TOTAL
Source: DG Research
Data: DG Research
European Research Council (ERC)
Number
3
2
5
4
10
9
9
7
1
1
2
2
24
13
13
12
65
47
37
36
302 100
STC key figures report 2008
Share of total
%
21.5
15.6
12.3
11.9
7.9
4.3
4.3
4.0
3.3
3.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
3.0
2.3
1.7
1.3
0.3
0.3
Box II.3.4: ERC Starting Independent Researcher Grants
The European Research Council (ERC) is the first European funding body set up to support investigator-driven frontier research. The ERC complements other funding activities in Europe such as those of the national research funding agencies, and is a flagship component of the 'Ideas Programme' of the European Union's Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7). ERC grants are awarded through open competition to projects headed by starting and established researchers, irrespective of their origins, who are working or moving to work in Europe - the sole criterion for selection is scientific excellence.
ERC Starting Grants aim to support up-and-coming research leaders who are about to establish or consolidate an independent research team and to start conducting independent research in Europe. The scheme targets promising researchers who have the proven potential of becoming independent research leaders. ERC Starting Grants amount to as much as two millions euros for a duration of up to
5 years. Candidates of any country or origin may apply. However, they must be hosted by a legally recognised public or private research organisation situated in the EU or Associated Countries.
The ERC StG is not intended to be a mobility scheme. However, a number of Principal Investigators may apply to an organisation in a country which is different from their actual country of residence,
44

.
which would imply a move from one country to another. In actual fact, most of the PIs who applied for an ERC Starting Grant applied to a host organisation in their country of residence (on average 93% of those who applied to host organisations located in EU-27). 4.2% of those who applied to an organisation located in the EU reside in a Member State different from the one they applied for, 0.5% reside in an Associated Country, and 2.6% in another country.
TABLE II.3.9 Applications by Principal Investigators for ERC Starting Grants
Total number of applicants and % distribution by country of origin
(Host country of organisation)
Croatia
Turkey
Iceland
Norway
Switzerland
Russian Federation
Israel
Sub-total Associated countries
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
UK
Country of destination
Sub-total EU-27
Number of applicants
20
181
5
92
200
21
199
718
295
48
84
172
1038
11
132
339
568
728
1625
38
5
17
6
183
1
542
153
207
183
130
40
40
236
477
1144
8442
83.3
94.0
100.0
91.0
83.7
97.6
95.1
96.2
87.9
91.7
93.3
89.7
96.1
97.4
100.0
94.1
83.0
85.7
98.0
93.0
94.6
93.8
95.2
93.6
88.9
100.0
Country of origin (actual country of residence)
%
Same Other EU Associated Other country
95.0
98.9
80.0
94.6
country
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
country
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
country
5.0
1.1
0.0
2.2
12.0
4.8
0.0
3.9
3.4
2.1
3.6
4.1
5.0
0.0
0.0
4.8
0.0
0.3
0.7
0.0
1.2
0.0
1.0
0.0
4.2
0.0
2.3
5.1
0.0
5.0
4.8
2.0
2.8
1.4
95.0
95.0
94.1
93.3
91.7
92.6
6.1
3.5
4.6
5.6
2.2
2.6
0.0
0.0
16.7
3.8
0.0
6.1
11.8
1.4
2.2
3.1
5.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.5
4.2
0.8
0.0
0.2
1.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
2.1
2.5
2.4
2.6
0.0
2.2
0.0
2.2
3.3
1.0
2.2
0.8
5.3
4.7
1.9
3.6
1.4
0.0
0.0
5.9
Source: DG Research
Data: European Research Council
STC key figures report 2008
45

TABLE II.3.10 ERC Starting Grants for Principal Investigators
Total number of applicants passing all thresholds of the second step of evaluation
% distribution by country of origin
(Host country of organisation)
Norway
Switzerland
Israel
Sub-total Associated countries
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Hungary
Netherlands
Austria
Portugal
Finland
Sweden
UK
Country of destination
Sub-total EU-27
Number of selected applicants
3
19
27
49
18
1
1
6
51
2
5
33
57
39
2
11
44
6
2
8
17
78
381
87.7
92.3
100.0
100.0
90.9
100.0
50.0
87.5
100.0
96.2
91.6
88.9
0.0
0.0
83.3
90.2
100.0
80.0
93.9
Country of origin (actual country of residence)
%
Same Other EU Associated Other country
66.7
94.7
92.6
91.8
country
33.3
5.3
0.0
4.1
country
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
country
0.0
0.0
7.4
4.1
11.1
100.0
100.0
16.7
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
20.0
6.1
8.8
7.7
0.0
0.0
9.1
0.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.5
0.0
1.3
1.8
Source: DG Research
Data: European Research Council
STC key figures report 2008
46

130000
FIGURE II.4.1 EU-27 - the scientific fields with the highest numbers of publications, 2000-
2006
120000
110000
100000
Medicine
54000
52000
50000
48000
46000
44000
42000
40000
38000
Biology
Physics
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003
Biotechnology
Basic chemistry
Materials research
Computers
2004 2005 2006
Source: DG Research
Data: Thomson Scientific / Rindicate Consortium
STC key figures report 2008
Field01
Field02
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Field03
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
47

FIGURE II.4.2 Firms with foreign cooperation on innovation as % of all firms, 2002-2004
(1)
10
8
6
4
16
14
12
2
0
Den m ark xe m bo
Lu urg
Fi nla nd
Bel gi um
Sw ede n h
Rep
Cz ec ub lic
Norw ay er la nd s
Slo va kia
Neth
Fra nc e
Aus tria
Pol and
Portug al
G re ec e
Hung ar y
G erma ny
Spa in
Within Europe Outside Europe
Ita ly
Source: DG Research
Data: OECD, Eurostat, Community Innovation Survey
Note: (1) or nearest available year
STC key figures report 2008
48

Box II.5.1: The Fifth and Sixth Research Framework Programmes (FP5 and FP6)
The EC financial contribution has substantially increased in FP6 for all groups of countries.
Participants from industrialized countries could only be funded under certain circumstances, which explains the mismatch under FP6 between the rate of participation, 19 %, and rate of received contribution, 7%.
TABLE II.5.1 FP5 and FP6 - All Third Countries
Evolution of participations and EC financial contribution
(1)
Economic Regions
(excluding EU and FP5
Participations
FP6
EC financial contrbution (million euro)
FP5 FP6
Associated Countries)
Developing Countries
Emerging Economies
Industrialized Countries
Total
1283
650
469
%
53
27
20
Total
1861
1325
756
%
47
34
19
Total
95
46
8
%
64
31
5
Total
168
132
24
%
52
41
7
Total Third Countries 2402 100 3942 100 150 100 323 100
Source: DG Research
Data: DG Research
STC key figures report 2008
Note: (1) The data refer to Third Country participation and the EC financial contribution to Third Countries in signed contracts.
49

FIGURE II.5.1 FP5 and FP6 - All Third Countries - evolution of the EC financial contribution by world economic region
168
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
95
46
132
8
24
Developing Countries Emerging Economies
FP5 FP6
Industrialized Countries
Source: DG Research
Data: DG Research
STC key figures report 2008
Note: (1) All Developing Countries, Emerging Eonomies and Industrialized Countries are listed in TABLE II.5.2
50

FIGURE II.5.2 FP5 - Thematic participation of selected Third Countries
(1)
by world economic region
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Selected Industrialized
Countries
Emerging Economies
Quality of Life Information Society
Energy and EURATOM International Role
Selected Developing
Countries
Environment
Human Potential
Source: DG Research
Data: DG Research
STC key figures report 2008
Note: (1) The data refer to participation in FP5 contracts by a sample of countries which have signed S&T agreements with the EC before July, 2008. The countries which have signed S&T agreements with the EC before July, 2008 are indicated on TABLE II.5.2
51

FIGURE II.5.3 FP6 - Thematic participation of selected Third Countries
(1) by world economic region
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Selected Industrialized
Countries
Emerging Economies Selected Developing
Countries
Life Sciences and Health Information Society Technologies
Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences Food Quality and Safety
Sustainable Development International Cooperation
Human Resources and Mobility Aeronautics and Space
Citizens and Governance Other programmes
Source: DG Research
Data: DG Research indicated on TABLE II.5.2
STC key figures report 2008
Note: (1) The data refer to participation in FP6 contracts by a sample of countries which have signed S&T agreements with the EC before July, 2008. The countries which have signed S&T agreements with the EC before July, 2008 are
Box II.5.2: The Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7)
Thematic participation in proposals selected for funding in the FP7 first calls for proposals by economic region, seems to indicate that former trends of participation under FP5 and FP6 will be maintained: Emerging Economies have concentrated their efforts on Health, Environment and ICT;
Industrialized Countries on Health, closely followed by ICT; and Developing Countries are more active in Health, Environment and Food, Agriculture, Fisheries and Biotechnology.
52

FIGURE II.5.4 FP7 - Cooperation Specific Programme
(1)
- participation of
Third Countries in proposals selected for funding by thematic area
All Emerging Economies
(2)
Socio-economic
Sciences and
Humanities
11%
Security and Space
2%
Transport
13%
Energy
8% Environment
18%
Nanosciences
5%
Food, Agri.,Fish.,
Biot.
9%
ICT
15%
Health
19%
Source: DG Research
Data: DG Research
STC key figures report 2008
Notes: (1) Data are provisional (from June 2008) and refer to third country participation in proposals selected for funding
in the first call for proposals
(2) See TABLE II.5.2 for the list of Emerging Economies
53

FIGURE II.5.5 FP7 - Cooperation Specific Programme
(1)
- participation of
Third Countries in proposals selected for funding by thematic area
All Industrialized Countries
(2)
Security and Space
3%
Socio-economic
Sciences and
Humanities
4%
Transport
8%
Nanosciences
11%
Energy
2%
Environment
3%
Health
27%
Food, Agri., Fish.,
Biot.
17%
ICT
25%
Source: DG Research
Data: DG Research
STC key figures report 2008
Notes: (1) Data are provisional (from June 2008) and refer to third country participation in proposals selected for funding
in the first call for proposals
(2) See TABLE II.5.2 for the list of Industrialized Countries
54
Industrialised countries: FP7 participation in proposals selected for funding (June 2008)
FP7 Cooperation Themes
Energy
Environment
Health
ICT
Food, Agri., Fish., Biot.
Nanosciences
Security and Space
Transport total

.
FIGURE II.5.6 FP7 - Cooperation Specific Programme
(1)
- participation of
Third Countries in proposals selected for funding by thematic area
Developing Countries
(2)
Socio-economic
Security and Space
Nanosciences
2%
Sciences and
Humanities
8%
Transport
3%
1%
Food, Agri., Fish.,
Biot.
15%
Energy
8% Environment
20%
ICT
14%
Health
29%
Source: DG Research STC key figures report 2008
Data: DG Research
Notes: (1) Data are provisional (from June 2008) and refer to third country participation in proposals selected for funding
in the first call for proposals
(2) See TABLE II.5.2 for the list of Developing Countries
55
Developing countries: FP7 participation in proposals selected for funding (June 2008)
FP7 Cooperation Themes
Energy
Environment
Health
ICT
Food, Agri., Fish., Biot.
Nanosciences
Security and Space
Transport
Total
Food, Agri., Fish., Biot.
ICT
Food, Agri., Fish., Biot.

TABLE II.5.3 Third Countries classified by economic type
1. Developing countries
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina *
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Botswana
Brunei Darussalam
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile *
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Congo (Dem. Republic of)
Costa Rica
Cote d'Ivoire
Cuba
Djibuti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
2. Emerging economies
Brazil * Mexico *
China (People's Republic of) * Russian Federation *
India * South Africa *
3. Industrialized countries
Australia *
Bermuda
Canada *
Chinese Taipei
Faroe Islands
Holy See
Hong Kong
Japan
Korea (Republic of) *
Kuwait
Macao
Monaco
New Zealand
Qatar
San Marino
Ecuador
Egypt *
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Fiji
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Ghana
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guiné-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Korea (Dem. People's Republic of)
Kyrgyzstan
Laos (People's Dem.Republic)
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Source: DG Research
* Countries which have signed S&T agreements with the EC
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mauritius
Micronesia
Moldova (Republic of)
Mongolia
Morocco *
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Niue
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian Adm. Areas
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Rwanda
Samoa
Sao Tomé and Principe
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
United Arab Emirates
United States *
United States Minor outlying islands
Virgin Islands (US)
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Solomon Islands
Somalia
Sri Lanka
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Syrian Arab Republic
Tajikistan
Tanzania (United Republic of)
Thailand
Timor Leste
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia *
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine *
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
STC key figures report 2008
56