The international dimension of
research and innovation cooperation
addressing the grand challenges in
the global context
May 2014
1
The international dimension of research
and innovation cooperation addressing
the grand challenges in the global
context
Final Policy Brief
Cecile Hoareau McGrath, Veronika Horvath, Ben Baruch, Salil Gunashekar,
Hui Lu, Shelly Culbertson, Paulina Pankowska, Joanna Chataway.
May 2014
Prepared for the European Commission Directorate General for Research and Innovation
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................... i
Preface ................................................................................................................ ii
Executive summary .............................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements............................................................................................... iv
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
0.1 Defining grand challenges ........................................................................... 1
0.2 The common good problem related to international research collaboration on
Grand challenges................................................................................................ 1
0.3 The relevance of the European Union and Horizon 2020 ................................. 1
0.4 Third countries included in this brief............................................................. 3
0.5 Objectives of the study............................................................................... 4
0.6 Questions ................................................................................................. 4
0.7 Outline of the brief..................................................................................... 4
1. Study approach ................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Steps of the study approach........................................................................ 5
1.2 Experts and stakeholders’ workshop............................................................. 5
2. Clarifying international research collaboration and the relevance of Horizon 2020 ...... 7
2.1. Level of collaboration ................................................................................. 7
2.2. Research mode.......................................................................................... 7
2.3. Demand-driven and supply-driven research .................................................. 8
2.4. Stage of research collaboration ................................................................... 9
3. How are grand challenges defined in different parts of the world? .......................... 11
3.1. Different priorities across the US, China and India ....................................... 11
3.2. Priorities regarding grand challenges in China ............................................. 12
3.3. Priorities regarding grand challenges in India .............................................. 13
3.4. Priorities regarding grand challenges in the US ............................................ 13
4. How does the EU aim to collaborate with the US, China and India? An overview of
Horizon 2020’s work programme........................................................................... 15
4.1 Mapping of international collaboration according to Horizon 2020’s 2014-2015
work programme.............................................................................................. 15
4.2 Other international initiatives beyond the EU: examples from the US, China and
India 19
5. When is collaboration desirable? Opinions of workshop participants by grand challenge
......................................................................................................................... 21
5.1 Three ideal types for research collaboration ................................................ 21
5.2 The consensual bottom-line: the importance of international research
collaboration .................................................................................................... 21
5.3 Participants’ opinions on the desirability of research collaboration by grand
challenge......................................................................................................... 22
5.4 Further participants’ recommendations on the role of the EU......................... 24
6. Conclusions and avenues for further research ..................................................... 27
Appendix 1: Differences between the research landscape of China, the US and India ... 28
Appendix 2 Comparative overview of relevant research output indicators ................... 31
Appendix 3 Agenda of the workshop ...................................................................... 35
Appendix 4 List of participants to the workshop....................................................... 37
Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 39
i
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Preface
Grand challenges, such as global warming or chronic and infectious diseases, are
increasingly global and complex. Solving these challenges often requires international
research collaboration. The European Commission is playing an increasing role in
supporting research and innovation through Horizon 2020, the European Union’s
comprehensive Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.
This policy brief provides an overview of the main research priorities, the main
collaborative efforts in international research collaboration regarding grand challenges,
and summarises the outcomes of an expert and stakeholders’ workshop conducted on
the 3 of April 2014. The brief is written to inform the European Research and
Innovation Area Board regarding the state of research collaboration on grand challenges
and what the EU could do to further improve research collaboration on these grand
challenges.
rd
ii
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Executive summary
Horizon 2020 is the EU’s largest research programme to date. A significant part of this
research programme, i.e. 31 billion euros, is invested in solving the world’s biggest and
most complex problems, called grand challenges, largely through calls for international
research collaboration.
Soliciting international collaboration represents an ambitious effort given the common
good problem related to grand challenges: each country, acting as a rational agent, has
more incentive to deplete the world’s resources such as water or clean air than to
collaborate on sustaining them despite the long-term benefits in doing so. The European
Commission hence commissioned this brief in order to understand how Horizon 2020
could best tackle this common good problem, by making sense of when international
research collaboration would be the most beneficial with major other global players,
namely the US, China and India.
This brief reviews the research collaboration planned by the Horizon 2020 2014-2015
work programme, compares this work programme to research priorities in the US, China
and India; summarises the opinions and recommendations of participants to a workshop
held on the 3rd of April 2014 on the topics which requires international research
collaboration and on potential improvements to Horizon 2020.
The main findings of this brief are the following:
• Certain challenges identified by other nations are not covered by Horizon 2020.
These challenges identified by other nations may constitute a basis for further
consideration by Horizon 2020. For example, India has identified building
education and skills as a strategy challenge and the US has a large programme
on space.
• Horizon 2020 aims to maintain strong relationships with the US. But this should
not obscure the building of relationship with emerging economies. Collaboration
with emerging does not only imply a transfer of knowledge part of a capacity
building exercise with these economies, but may also result in learning to help
solve some of Europe’s most fundamental challenges.
The main recommendations resulting from the workshop are that:
• International research collaboration requires researchers with a multidisciplinary
and broad skillset. The European Commission needs to support researchers in
acquiring such skills at the early stages of doctoral training.
• The European Commission is also encouraged to agree on strategic research
agendas with each partner country and to establish further links with other
intergovernmental initiatives aiming to solve societal challenges.
• Going further, a sound evaluation of the impact of research collaboration would
be required in order to assess its broad impact.
The information and views set out in this policy brief are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not
guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor
any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which
may be made of the information contained therein.
iii
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the European Commission project team from the Directorate
General for Research and Innovation, Science Policy, Foresight and Data for their
support during this study, including particularly Rene Von Schomberg and Silvia Luber.
We have also engaged a number of experts and stakeholders to a workshop held on the
3 of April 2014. We thank them for their active input and support.
Finally, we need to thank our quality assurance reviewers Stijn Hoorens, David Kryl and
Jo Ritzen for their helpful suggestions. Emma Harte, Alex Kokkoris, Morgan Robinson,
Jess Plumridge, Claire O’Brien and Lynne Saylor have also provided further support. This
report represents the views of the authors. Any remaining inaccuracies are our own.
rd
iv
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Introduction
0.1
Defining grand challenges
Grand challenges have been defined as ‘shared visions or goals which guide the actions
of a broad (international) stakeholders’ community’ (Joint Institute for Innovation Policy;
2011; 12). Grand challenges tend to be highly complex, constituted by ‘wicked
problems’, difficult to solve by single agencies (Rittel and Weber, 1973). They are also
not limited to a given country, but bear externalities beyond borders and affecting a
large number of individuals. Finally, global challenges tend to be long-term problems.
Grand challenges are understandably not new. But these challenges require action
because their scale is unprecedented. For example, the global average temperature
increase is projected to be 3°C to 6°C higher by the end of the century, exceeding the
internationally agreed goal of limiting this increase to 2°C above pre-industrial levels
(OECD, 2012c).
0.2
The common good problem related to international research
collaboration on Grand challenges
Grand challenges are hard to solve because they pose a common good problem. It is in
the self-interest and rational behavior of individuals to deplete the worlds’ common
resources, such as oceans for example, even if it is in the global community’s best longterm interests to maintain such resources.
The same rationale applies to the international research community when the question of
solving grand challenges arises. Investing in solving a grand challenge is costly,
especially in the transaction costs involved in coordinating international research teams
and large scale projects (Katz and Martin, 1997; 14-15; OECD, 2012: 13). And although
the global research community benefits from unprecedented knowledge and resources in
being able to understand how to solve such challenges, each nation has an incentive to
free-ride on existing solutions rather than to invest in the costs of solving such
challenges.
Research collaboration at the international level can hence be hard to achieve. Public and
private science and technology spending still largely takes place in national contexts and
are funded by mission-oriented national public R&D schemes (Fowery et al., 2012). The
relevance of the European Union and Horizon 2020
0.3
The relevance of the European Union and Horizon 2020
Solving the common resource problem which arises from grand challenges hence
requires an international governance structure, which encourages the pooling of financial
resources, sharing of large scale infrastructure and improvement of global knowledge
base according to the OECD (2012: 13-14).
Various intergovernmental initiatives admittedly already exist on the resolution of grand
challenges. For example, the United Nations runs the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. 21 countries are engaged in the Joint Research Programming Initiative
on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change (FACCE-JPI), including the French
research National Institute for Agronomical Research (Institut National de la Recherche
Agronomique INRA) and the UK’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
(BBSRC).
But the EU research programme Horizon 2020, the largest EU research programme to
date has the advantage of pooling significant financial resources in solving grand
May 2014
1
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
challenges, that it calls “societal challenges”. Horizon 2020 invests 43% of its overall
budget - 31 billion euros - in addressing societal challenges, as indicated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Societal challenges as one of the three priorities of Horizon 2020
Grand challenges have featured in European policymaking and have become an
established theme (European Research Area Board; 2012; European Commission;
2010). For example, the Lund declaration of researchers in 2009 stated that European
research should focus on the grand challenges of our time. One theoretical basis
underpinning such a strategy is the positive relation at an aggregate level between
investment in research and development (R&D) and socio-economic growth, as well as
the positive relation at firm level between such investment and productivity. The EU2020
strategy presented innovation and research as a key element in order to kick-start
economic growth. This commitment became materialised in the increase in the amount
of funding available to the 6 year framework programme for funding research, Horizon
2020, launched on 1 January 2014 (European Commission; 2013). The societal
challenges included in Horizon 2020 are included in Table 1.
Table 1: Definition of societal challenges according to the Horizon 2020
website1
Health, demographic change and wellbeing
This challenge aims to improve better health for all. This includes keeping older people
active and independent for longer and supporting the development of new, safer and
more effective interventions. Research and innovation under Horizon 2020 also
contributes to the sustainability of health and care systems.
Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine, maritime and inland
water research and the bioeconomy
This challenge aims to secure the transition towards an optimal and renewable use of
biological resources and towards sustainable primary production and processing
systems. These systems will need to produce more food, fibre and other bio-based
products with minimised inputs, environmental impact and greenhouse gas emissions,
and with enhanced ecosystem services, zero waste and adequate societal value.
Secure, clean and efficient energy
The Energy Challenge aims to support the transition to a reliable, sustainable and
competitive energy system.
Smart, green and integrated transport
This Challenge aims to boost the competitiveness of the European transport industries
and achieve a European transport system that is resource-efficient, climate-and1
See: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/Horizon 2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges
May 2014
2
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
environmentally-friendly, safe and seamless for the benefit of all citizens, the economy
and society.
Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials
Activities in this Challenge will help increase European competitiveness, raw materials
security and improve wellbeing. At the same time they will assure environmental
integrity, resilience and sustainability with the aim of keeping average global warming
below 2° C and enabling ecosystems and society to adapt to climate change and other
environmental changes.
Europe in a changing world – inclusive, innovative and reflective societies
This challenge aims to reduce inequality and social exclusion, poverty; the number of
young people not in education, employment or training, overcome the economic crisis
and unemployment, especially among young people.
Secure societies – protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens
This Challenge is about undertaking the research and innovation activities needed to
protect our citizens, society and economy as well as our infrastructures and services, our
prosperity, political stability and wellbeing.
Horizon 2020 also offers the benefits of being able to pool large scale infrastructure,
through cooperation between a set of EU member states, in addition to providing a
framework for an EU-wide governance structure in international research collaboration.
In addition, Horizon 2020 creates a clear point of contact for other nations. For example,
there was a push for the US to cooperate directly with the EU rather than particular
member states in the maritime field as the example of the Transatlantic Ocean Research
Alliance suggests. Some of the benefits of such collaboration includes maximising
funding, improving transparency in terms of research programme and achieving a
broader diffusion of data access.
0.4 Third countries included in this brief
The global players selected by the study include China, the US, and India, as critical
cases. The US was selected because it constitutes an example of a known leader in
international research. The US has a strong reputation in research with more than twice
the number of patent applications than the EU - 247,740 applications in 2012 (World
Bank, 2013). China has been included because it has had an unprecedented scale of
investment in research and rapidly increasing scientific outputs, according to the World
Bank (2013) . By 2006, China had become the second largest investor in research and
development in the world (OECD, 2006).
India is included in this study as an example of a country with a rapidly rising economy
and population, but with a still emerging and more modest research profile than the US
and China . India, similarly to China, has a large population, 1.2 billion in 2012, with a
GDP growth which was 3.5 percentage points higher than Europe in 2012, economists
predicting that India will be the third largest economy in the world by 2050. However,
India had the lowest input and output indicators in research of this group of countries,
with 12 times fewer scientific publications than the EU and 3.5 times fewer than China in
2012 (World Bank, 2013, see appendix for more details).
This variation in the type of country included allows the research team to investigate
patterns of research collaboration. Using such diverse cases allows understanding
whether research collaboration is more likely with global players with a strong
2
3
2
This increase in quantitative outputs raises questions regarding the quality of output, which, according to Bound et al.,
(2013),
may not be proportional to the rapid expansion of the number of scientific publications in China.
3
This does not imply that other countries are irrelevant in international research. Other emerging global research players exist.
South Korea has the second highest number of patents proportionally to R&D expenditure after the US for example (Nesta,
2012). (See appendix for further additional comparisons of the research performance of countries other than the US, China and
India).
May 2014
3
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
international reputation, which would benefit the EU by establishing a transfer of
knowledge for example. Or whether the EU benefits from collaboration with emerging
players, in order to promote development, establish research links and/or use research
collaboration to achieve other economic benefits such as stronger trade links for
example.
0.5
Objectives of the study
The study concentrates on the role of the European Union programme Horizon 2020 in
fostering international research on grand challenges with a select number of global
players. The study covers public R&D federal and central funding and does not cover
research collaboration with other levels, including states, individual research institutes or
private bodies and their equivalent in other global players.
The study aims to:
• provide an overview of the priorities regarding the resolution of grand challenges
across the EU, China, India and the US
• review international research collaborations, particularly those planned by the
Horizon 2020 work programme
• summarise the opinions of participants to a workshop held on the 3 of April
regarding which grand challenges research collaboration could concentrate on
further within the remit of Horizon 2020
• introduce some suggestions regarding further research.
rd
0.6 Questions
The three questions covered by this brief include:
1 - How can the EU, USA, China and India work together on the societal challenges
identified by Horizon 2020?
2 - On what issues can and should the global players collaborate?
3 - How do and to which extent can global players respond further to the priorities of
Horizon 2020?
These questions are very broad in geographical and thematic scope. Sections, 2, 3, 4
and 5 hence do not aim to provide a clear cut answer but only aim to provide some of
the main overviews and discuss some of the main dimensions to address these
questions.
0.7 Outline of the brief
Section 1 introduces the approach used in this study. Section 2 discusses research
collaboration and justifies the necessity of European Union intervention. Section 3
describes the priorities related to grand challenges in each country. Section 4 discusses
the intended research collaborations planned by the Horizon 2020 work programme.
Section 5 reviews participants’ opinions on research collaboration. The conclusion
compares participants’ opinions to the Horizon 2020 work programme and the research
priorities listed by each country; as well as presents avenues for further research.
May 2014
4
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
1. Study approach
1.1 Steps of the study approach
Given the timeframe and resources available for this brief, we concentrated on providing
a preliminary effort to identify the main priorities in research and existing collaboration
originated by the federal/central Governments or equivalent in the EU, the US, China
and India through desk research. The team then used the Horizon 2020 2014-2015
work programme. The team used a text analysis to code the number of times work
programme explicitly call for collaboration with China, the US and India as an indicator of
intend to collaborate with these countries . A visual representation of collaboration
followed this text analysis. The team continued by assessing the advantages and
disadvantages of ideal-types of modes of international collaboration (namely building
multilateral collaboration, bilateral collaboration or achieving no further collaboration).
The background document circulated prior to the workshop provides a detailed
breakdown of the advantages and disadvantages of these ideal types.
Participants provided a further opinion on these ideal types, and made some suggestions
regarding the role of the European Union during a stakeholders’ workshop which took
place on the 3 of April 2014. The different steps of this approach are summarised in
Table 2.
Table 2: Steps of the study approach
Methodology Objectives Purpose
1 2 3
Desk research,
Understand research systems in the US, China and
in-house and x
India as well as their main research priorities and
external expert
existing collaboration
input
Visual
of international collaboration on grand
X X Mapping
representation
challenges in Horizon 2020
Assessment of X X X Pros and cons ideal types of modes of collaboration
ideal types
Experts
and
of ideal types of collaboration for each grand
stakeholders’
X X X Discussion
challenge.
workshop
Reporting
X X X Compile policy brief based on the data gathered above.
1.2 Experts and stakeholders’ workshop
The experts and stakeholders’ workshop provided a significant contribution to this study.
In order to have a number of different perspectives, we targeted participants and
stakeholders from a range of different countries (fourteen countries across twenty nine
participants), with at least two participants and/or stakeholders for each of the countries
of analysis, the US, China and India. These participants and stakeholders collectively
covered the different areas of research areas of the grand challenges and they all had
expertise of or practical experience in research collaboration. They were largely from
academia and research institutes as well as some national governments and
international organisations.
Participants have received the draft of this brief and have had the opportunity to suggest
corrections as part of a validation process, and in order to make sure that section 5 of
the brief accurately represents the opinions of participants. The results of the workshop
are presented in section 4 of this document agenda and the list of participants is
4
rd
4
The map does not include the instances where international collaboration or collaboration with countries not included in the
study is solicited.
5
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
presented in appendices 3 and 4. Section 4 also includes a summary of the most
desirable research collaboration ideal type by grand challenge. This summary was
constructed on the basis of the conclusions of break-out sessions, which included around
5-6 participants per group. A rapporteur, who was a volunteer participant, was assigned
to each group. Each rapporteur reported the conclusions that their group put forward.
The summaries provide further details regarding the variety of views expressed at the
workshop and are hence not meant to represent the consensual views of all the
participants to the workshop.
May 2014
6
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
2. Clarifying international research collaboration and the
relevance of Horizon 2020
Research collaboration typically follows a very general definition, namely ‘the working
together of researchers to achieve the common goal of producing new scientific
knowledge’ (Katz and Martin, 1997: 14-15). This section provides some elements of
clarification regarding the term of international research collaboration, which has a
‘fuzzy’ border, in order to better understand how Horizon 2020 positions itself as a
programme aiming to foster international research collaboration. Research collaboration
indeed includes a variety of actors, modes of collaboration and stages.
2.1. Level of collaboration
Horizon 2020 typically involves individual researchers and research institutions. This is a
particular level of collaboration. Research collaboration involves several levels.
First, individual researchers may engage in research collaboration through selforganisation, organising themselves to explore a joint research idea. Second, research
institutions collaborate as part of organised cooperation schemes, based for example on
framework agreements and response to calls for more specific research agendas from
donors. Here research collaboration is often a mix of bottom up suggestion and topdown direction from funders and policymakers.
Third, governments may engage in formal intergovernmental coordination. Whilst the
first two types of collaboration may or may not involve international collaboration, the
third does so formally and by necessity. This third type of collaboration involves joint
programming, where countries come together to define a common vision, a strategic
research agenda and a management structure. Joint Programming in Research has been
proposed in a communication of the European Commission from 2008.
Fourth, international organisations and EU institutions may also collaborate with other
international organisations or Governments. In the EU, the Strategic Forum for
International Collaboration (SFIC) plays a role in sharing information, coordinating
activities and positions vis-à-vis third countries and within international fora. The SFIC
has four pilot initiatives to develop international collaboration in science and technology,
with India, China, the US and Brazil (European Commission, 2014(2)).
2.2. Research mode
Horizon 2020 sponsors a wide array of research, and concentrates on applied research.
Applied research is called mode 2, following a distinction coined by Gibbons et al.
(1994). Mode 2 research, aims to solve concrete world problems, tends to be
interdisciplinary and thinking is enhanced through the interaction of applied and basic
research. By contrast, mode 1, roughly the equivalent of fundamental research, is
explicitly covered by the European Research Council. Both modes of research can be
usefully deployed to address grand challenges. Different examples of research modes are
included as an illustration in Table 3.
7
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Table 3: Examples of research collaboration based on modes of research and
level of actors
International
Governmental Institutional Individual
organisation
Mode 1
Mode 2
European
Organization for
Nuclear Research
(CERN)
UK-India
Education
and
Research Initiative
(UKIERI)
Intergovernmental EU
Joint
panel on climate Programme
–
change (IPCC)
Neurodegenerative
Disease Research
(JPND)
Sino-German
center
for
research
promotion.
Human
Frontier
Science
Program
Horizon 2020
European
Research
Council
Horizon 2020
For example, the IPCC, the UN panel aiming to tackle climate change issues, can be
thought of as corresponding more to Mode 2 type collaboration. CERN represents an
example of research centre which includes member states as participants and aims to
generate mode 1 research as a particle physics laboratory. The JPND corresponds to an
intergovernmental agreement originally launched by French and British public research
institutes to address neurodegenerative research. The German Wuppertal Institute, the
National Foundation of China (NSFC) and the German Research Foundation (DFG) have
also set up the Sino-German centre for research promotion, which aims to create
workshops and symposia, cooperation groups and bilateral research projects.
2.3. Demand-driven and supply-driven research
In addition, and although the line between demand-driven and supply-driven research
can be blurry in practice, Horizon 2020 encourages demand-driven research. A demanddriven type of research collaboration would aim to solve a particular issue for a funder
and research is stimulated by a defined reward or change in standards and regulation. A
supply-driven type of research mechanism supplies money or resources for broad areas
of research and is relatively open ended as to results required and expected. Both types
of sponsoring mechanisms concerned with maximising impact and results but differ in
the type of outputs and outcomes required. Both demand and supply driven mechanisms
can be used to solve grand challenges. By lieu of illustration, Table 4 lists various
examples of research collaboration that might relate to grand challenges, according to
the degree to which they are demand or supply driven.
8
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Table 4: Examples of demand and supply driven mechanisms for stimulating
research
Demand-driven mechanisms Supply-driven mechanisms
Collaboration
•
•
•
•
•
Establishment of joint ‘prize’
Joint strategic fora and
agenda-setting committees
Changes in standards and
regulation to introduce new
research
Contracted research with
very specific demands
Public procurement
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exchanges of researchers
Grant
and
fellowship
programmes
Exchange programmes
Joint research programmes
Joint funding of research
infrastructures
Joint funding of physical
researchers
Joint funding through research
funding bodies
Annual summits, forums and
international conference
Dialogue
The distinction between demand-driven and supply-driven modes of collaboration may
not be entirely clear cut in practice. But demand-driven modes of collaboration include
components of Horizon 2020 which contract research around specific demands. The
establishment of joint prizes or of joint strategic fora and agenda-setting committees
where a particular solution is sought are included as demand-driven as is the public
procurement of research. Demand-driven research also emerges from bodies explicitly
concerned with more targeted research in set areas of cooperation (moving towards
mode 2). Standards setting and regulatory bodies working together to provide demand
driven stimulus (resulting in mode 2 research), could also be demand-driven.
By comparison, much of the previous European Framework Programme 7 (FP7) was
more supply driven given that it had general requirements for the types of outputs and
outcomes required. Research funding bodies may also come together in jointly supplying
funds for more open ended research associated with grand Challenges (resulting in mode
1 research).
2.4. Stage of research collaboration
Finally, Horizon 2020 tends to encourage research at the conceptualisation stage, with
the view to come up with solutions which would yield to research impact. Research goes
through several stages from conception and prototyping to commercialisation,
industrialisation and production, and each of these stages implies several modes of
collaboration.
Hence, research collaboration includes several levels, modes, mechanisms and stages of
research; and assessing international research collaboration requires an understanding
of such diversity.
9
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
3. How are grand challenges defined in different parts of
the world?
The priorities set by the US, China and India regarding grand challenges, in comparison
to the European Union could also reflect some degree of diversity.
3.1. Different priorities across the US, China and India
The societal challenges adopted by Horizon 2020 may understandably be different from
grand challenges as defined in the rest of the world. Only the US federal Government
explicitly referred to grand challenges as specific subjects of research. The team used
national strategic plans in order to find comparable documents regarding grand
challenges in India and China. The Indian twelfth five year plan refers to twelve
“strategy challenges”, defined as core areas that require new approaches to produce the
desired results. And the Chinese Government identified seven priority industries in its
twelfth five year plan. Yet, some comparability exists between the EU, the US, China and
India.
Table 5 lists the seven grand challenges identified by the EU and maps some of the
research priorities in the three countries covered in this study according to strategic
governmental documents. (Other organisations, such as foundations as opposed to
central or federal governments, may have different priorities, and joint research may
arise in areas which are not listed in Table 5).
Table 5: Comparison of priorities across the EU, China, India and the US
EU
China
India
US
Health,
demographic
Better preventive Brain initiative &
change and
and curative
saving lives at
GC1 wellbeing
Biotechnology
healthcare
birth
Rural
transformation and
sustained growth
GC2 Food security
Food security
of agriculture
Securing the
Secure and clean New energy, new energy future of
GC3 energy
materials
India
SunShot
Markets for
efficiency and
GC4 Inclusive societies
inclusion
Accelerated
development of
transport
infrastructure
Clean energy
Managing
GC5 Smart transport
vehicles
urbanisation
EV Everywhere
Climate change,
environmental
Managing the
GC6 Climate action
conservation
environment
GC7 Secure societies
11
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
EU
China
India
Other
New IT, high end
equipment
manufacturing
US
Enhancing the
capacity for
growth, enhancing
skills and faster
generation of
employment,
decentralisation,
empowerment and
information,
technology and
innovation,
improved access to
quality education Asteroids
SOURCES: Horizon 2020; Government of China, 2014 (summary by KPMG, 2011) and expert presentation;
Government of India, 2013 and expert presentation; and White House, 2014.
Table 5 shows that the only societal challenge which does not find a parallel across either
the US, China or India includes secure societies. In addition, certain countries stress
different challenges. For example, India has an emphasis on education and skills, and
the US concentrates on space research.
3.2. Priorities regarding grand challenges in China
The extraordinary growth of the past few years has come at high costs to its
environment and sustainable development in China. The Chinese Government
increasingly refers to the need for a more sustainable model of development and
acknowledges the need to address grand challenges. The 12 Five-Year Plan (20112015) refers to the importance of sustainable development through ideas of the
“harmonious society” (hexie shehui) and the “scientific development concept” (kexue
fazhan guan), and has identified seven priority industries include: new energy (nuclear,
wind and solar power in particular), energy conservation and environmental protection,
biotechnology (new drugs and medical devices), new materials, new IT/high end
equipment manufacturing, as well as clean energy vehicles (KPMG, 2011:2).
And the Plan has for example introduced mandatory targets to reduce pollutants and to
grow and support new energy vehicles, as part of its a strategy to develop green
transport, as well as green industry, energy efficiency, and pollution reduction.
Allied to the 12 Five-Year Plan, a number of key strategies address grand challenges.
The Chinese Government had also developed a legislative framework for addressing
Grand challenges through a variety of laws . And Development Priority Zones were
launched in 2010 to develop sustainable development plans at the regional level, to
consider resource availability and environmental needs for localities and regions. Finally,
the plan identified a number of key industries that will drive sustainable economic
growth. These are biotechnology, new energy, high-end electronic equipment
manufacturing, energy conservation and environmental protection, clean energy
vehicles, metal products, transport equipment, chemicals and minerals, new materials,
and next-generation IT.
th
th
5
5
The framework invokes a number of laws to promote sustainable development and includes the Water Law (2012),
Environmental Impact Assessment Law (2002), Renewable Energy Law (2006, amended in 2009), Energy Conservation Law
(amended, 2007), Circular Economy Promotion Law (2008), Water Pollution Control Law (1984, amended 1996, 2008),
Regulations on E-Waste Management (2009), National Party Congress Resolution on addressing climate change (2009),
Environmental Protection Law (1989, amended 2012).
May 2014
12
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
3.3. Priorities regarding grand challenges in India
Addressing grand challenges fits the Indian Government’s development of a rights’ based
approach to basic human needs, including education, food, information and healthcare
(through a Universal health care system). The twelfth five year plan has identified twelve
strategy challenges, which cover most of the challenges identified by Horizon 2020:
enhancing the capacity for growth; enhancing skills and faster generation of
employment; managing the environment; markets for efficiency and inclusion;
decentralisation, empowerment and information; technology and innovation; securing
the energy future of India, accelerated development of transport infrastructure; rural
transformation and sustained growth of agriculture, managing urbanization; improved
access to quality education; better preventive and curative health care.
The Government of India declared 2010 – 2020 as the “Decade of Innovation” with a
focus on inclusive growth. The primary objective of this declaration was to foster an
innovation ecosystem within India that stimulated innovation and focused on addressing
problems faced by society in critical areas such as healthcare, water, energy,
transportation and urban infrastructure. To this end, the Government of India set up the
high-profile National Innovation Council (NIC) to “discuss, analyse, and help implement
strategies for inclusive innovation in India and prepare a Roadmap for Innovation 2010 –
2020.” (Government of India, National Innovation Council, 2010) .
An innovation paradigm that has shown clear signs of success in India is that of ‘jugaad’
or ‘frugal’ innovation and many participants believe that this concept has the prospect of
revolutionising innovation ecosystems worldwide. Often motivated by a social mission,
frugal innovation involves the creation of low-cost products and services by using
available resources efficiently, with the focus being on producing ‘better’ things by remodelling existing features of products and services (e.g. significantly low-cost eye
operations priced at 36.22 euros ($50 USD) compared to 1195 euros ($1,650 USD) in
USA that do not compromise on surgical standards). To quote India’s 12 Five-Year Plan
document, “frugal innovation is focused on the efficiency of innovation and on outcomes
that benefit people, especially the poor.”
Another clear indication of India’s commitment to enhancing its capabilities with regard
to scientific research and innovation with a focus on addressing critical problems facing
the nation was the recent publication of the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy
(2013). This document underlined the importance of science and technology policy to
maintain India’s international competitiveness. The Government of India, specifically the
Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance
Council (BIRAC), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have also recently launched a
Grand Challenge funding opportunity (Grand challenges India: Achieving healthy growth
through agriculture and nutrition), which aims to provide support agriculture and
nutrition research and innovation (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2013).
6
th
7
3.4. Priorities regarding grand challenges in the US
Grand challenges are a core part of President Obama’s strategy refresh of the American
Innovation Strategy (2009), which aims to detail how collaboration between American
people, businesses and administration can ensure continued and fast economic growth.
The Innovation strategy refresh focuses on three central areas: education, scientific
6
As part of its strategy to promote a widespread culture of inclusive innovation, the National Innovation Council (NIC) has
supported a number of different initiatives like ‘Innovation Toolkits’, ‘National Innovation Scholarships’, the ‘India Innovation
Portal’, ‘Industry Innovation Clusters’, ‘Innovation Challenges’, and annual ‘Global Innovation Roundtables’ (Government of
India, National Innovation Council, 2010b).
7
Government of India planning commission, 2013.
May 2014
13
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
research and infrastructure. The President’s plan for Science and Innovation promised to
double the budget of the National Science Foundation by 2017. In addition, President
Obama appealed to foundations, universities, businesses and humanitarian
representatives to engage in the pursuit of the next grand challenges for the 21st
Century in a speech delivered on April 2013.
These challenges include:
• In health, the brain initiative aims revolutionise the understanding of the human
mind.
• Another health grand challenge includes international development objectives
through Saving Lives at Birth, which targets pregnant women and new-borns in
poor, low resource communities.
• In terms of energy policy, the SunShot Grand challenge, to make solar energy
cost competitive with coal
• In addition, the EV Everywhere Grand challenge aims to make electric vehicles
that are as affordable as today’s gasoline power vehicles.
• The US federal government also has a Space related grand challenge, called the
Asteroid grand challenge, which aims to reduce threats to human populations
(White House, 2014) .
8
In summary, assuming that a comparison with federal governments’ general plans is
valid, similar grand challenges were identified in health and energy by the US, China,
India and the European Union. Certain challenges identified by global players were
however not included in the EU Horizon 2020 programme, as was the case for research
on Asteroids or the promotion of skills and education. The following section explains how
the EU aims to collaborate with the US, China and India, especially on these challenges.
8
There have also been commitments from the Gates Foundation to award grants for research into Grand challenges in Global
Health, engagement of the National Academy of Engineering and Duke and Southern Californian Universities in a Grand
challenges scholars’ programme and projects driven by IBM to further develop computing and artificial intelligence.
May 2014
14
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
4. How does the EU aim to collaborate with the US, China
and India? An overview of Horizon 2020’s work
programme
This section describes existing EU initiatives, particularly with the US, China and India,
and positions these EU initiatives in the landscape of collaboration between the US,
China and India - independently of the EU.
4.1
Mapping of international collaboration according to Horizon 2020’s
2014-2015 work programme
The Horizon 2020 round of research proposals follows a similar international cooperation
framework as FP7, with the European Free Trade Association countries and countries
covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy being considered for inclusion on a
merit-based selection process. While Horizon 2020 is open to international participation,
the list of countries that are automatically eligible for funding is restricted based upon
Gross National Income (GNI) per capita and total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) . The
EU will allocate funding to countries whose research strengths can fill a capability gap
within the EU research community, with priority being allocated to entities which can
contribute to societal challenges and industrial challenges segments of Horizon 2020’s
grand challenges (European Commission, 2012c).
Figure 2 provides an overview of research collaboration in the Horizon 2020 2014-2015
work programme.
9
9
This is designed to address the fact that some countries will already have the capacity to cooperate on a reciprocal basis with
the EU, and need not apply for research funding. European Commission, 2012a
15
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Figure 2: Map of research collaboration between China, India and the US
SOURCE: authors’ own.
Figure 2 leads to the following remarks:
A preference for bilateral collaboration over multilateral collaboration. Out of 29
Horizon 2020 registered calls for collaboration, 23 were bilateral, while six actions
required multilateral collaboration between more than one global player. The six actions
requiring multilateral collaboration include researching solutions to chronic diseases and
polar research, aeronautics and water; as well as two more transversal topics, which
consist in helping Europe to position itself as a global actor and enhancing and focusing
research and innovation cooperation with the Union’s key institutional partners.
16
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
The US as the main collaborator. Figure 2 shows that the EU intends to develop the
highest number of research collaborations with the US, 17 of the 29 calls for
collaboration were with the US.
Societal challenges which call for strong collaboration with the US include health (human
safety and eHealth), clean energy (gas exploitation and decarbonisation), marine
research and raw materials. The US is the only intended collaborator of the EU regarding
secure societies, which ranges from investigating how to manage extreme weather
events to increasing the peace building capacity of the EU and civilian conflict
prevention.
Joint Consultative Group meetings between the State Department Office of Science and
Technology Cooperation and the EU, which take place every two years, influences the
choice of these topics for collaboration between the EU and the US. The last Joint
Consultative group took place in Washington in 2013.
Otherwise, the largest joint activity between the EU and the US is the BILAT-USA 2.0
project. BILAT-USA 2.0 was funded by FP7 and founded in 2012, and aimed to enhance
research and innovation partnerships between the EU and the US, particularly in the
areas of marine and arctic research, nanotechnologies, health, and transport. It should
be noted, however, that while BILAT-USA 2.0 aims to support S&T dialogue on these
areas between EU and US, for instance by organising workshops, it does not specifically
fund calls on these topics. Additionally, the EURAXESS-Links US was launched in 2007 as
a networking tool for European and non-European researchers to collaborate and pursue
FP7 contracts.
This collaboration occurs despite broad differences in research systems. The US has a
very flexible research system, given the annual cycle of research funding and its
governance through a network of agencies rather than a federal Ministry for Science and
Technology. And private donors are acquiring an increasing role in funding research on
grand challenges .
A reflection of the global presence of China. In addition, research collaboration
appears more established with China than with India. Six of the bilateral calls concerned
China. Research collaboration with China includes food security - to create sustainable
livestock or to prevent the biological contamination of crops in the food chain, secure
energy in order to support joint actions on innovative energy solutions, transport to test
clean urban transport and mobility, the reduction of food waste and ensuring the
sustainable use of agricultural waste.
EU-China collaboration benefits from high level discussion platforms and agreements.
Research collaboration has been influenced by collaboration on nuclear energy under the
agreement R&D-PUNE, which entered into force in August 2008. The EU-China summit,
which last took place in November 2013, decides on a cooperation agenda between the
EU and China.
In the first three years of FP7, Chinese researchers were some of the most successful at
receiving grants. In fact, China was the third country with the highest number FP7
grants awarded (European Commission; 2010). An increasing number of Chinese
scholars have participated in the EU Framework Programme after the EU-China Science
and Technology agreement of 1998.
10
10
Michael Bloomberg, James Simons, David Koch, Bill Gates (Microsoft) Eric Schmidt (Google), and Lawrence Ellison (Oracle)
increasingly funding research on Grand challenges related to health and the environment for example. Private donations may
be more limited in the European Union, although there are admittedly some variations across countries of Europe, certain
private foundations being fairly prominent, for example in Germany (e.g. Bertelsmann Stiftung).
May 2014
17
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
The EU-funded Dragon Star programme supports bilateral collaboration between Chinese
and EU researchers, for example by investigating the possibilities of other joint research
activities (twinning of labs, joint liaison offices, etc.).
Various initiatives also took place outside of the Framework Programmes, including the
Open China-ICT project, a European Commission-funded initiative that aimed to utilise
Chinese research on ICT through EU-China cooperation (Open China-ICT), in order to
investigate how ICT collaboration could support sustainable development and the social
safety and security of its citizens. Several targeted initiatives also exist, including a joint
Food, Agriculture and Biotechnology taskforce, or a joint expert seminar, which aimed to
define priorities in food security and food safety in October 2013. In terms of sustainable
urbanisation, a major challenge for China, an EU-China summit took place in 2012 to
substantiate a partnership and a stakeholder workshop was held in Foshan in 2013.
A much less established collaboration with India. India was admittedly included in
multilateral collaboration schemes regarding chronic diseases, polar research, water, and
establishing the role of Europe as a global actor for example. And numerous Framework
Programme research projects have involved Indian research partners. India ranked
number five in terms of applications to FP7 proposals, with particular activity in the
research fields of health, environment, technology, and biotechnology (European
Commission; 2012b).
However, none of Horizon 2020 bilateral calls concerned India for the 2014-2015 Work
Programme, illustrating a much less established collaboration. This difference may have
to do with the fact that India has a less established presence in international research
(see appendix). The country remains largely rural, with high rates of illiteracy. Moreover,
India has the lowest input and output indicators in research of the group. And the share
of India’s R&D investment in science, technology and innovation is less than 2.5% of the
global figure of 1.2 trillion USD (Government of India, 2013).
Yet, the Government has committed to improve on this performance. Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh recently stressed his commitment to increase R&D spending from
0.9% to 2% by 2017 (Patnaik, 2012), which may encourage further research
collaboration with India.
A primary vehicle of collaboration between the EU and India has been the EU-India
Science and Technological Cooperation Agreement, complemented by the Joint
Declaration on Research and Innovation Cooperation signed between India and the EU in
2012. The declaration is meant to bridge India’s ‘Decade of Innovation’ and the EU’s
Europe 2020 initiatives and foster research and innovation in both countries.
A partial coverage of global players’ priorities. The Horizon 2020 2014-2015 work
programme collaboration covers the challenges of commonly identified by all the global
players with relative heterogeneity. Some Horizon 2020 calls include all the global
players who have identified a certain topic as a challenge, as is the case for health for
example on the resolution of chronic diseases. And Horizon 2020 also has bilateral
schemes to cover some challenges of mutual relevance between the EU and a given
partner, such as clean energy vehicles with China. On other instances however, Horizon
2020 calls for collaboration on a topic that it unilaterally defines as a grand challenge, as
is the case on marine research with the US. Or it does not explicitly call for collaboration
with countries with similar challenges, as is the case of India on secure energy or the
creation of inclusive societies.
May 2014
18
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
4.2
Other international initiatives beyond the EU: examples from the US,
China and India
International research collaboration is not restricted to EU initiatives. There are various
bilateral and multilateral cooperation agreements between individual countries.
China. A number of bilateral and multilateral cooperation agreements and programmes
with different countries have been established to stimulate knowledge transfer across
national borders. China has collaborated with the US since 1979, as the result of cold
war science diplomacy, and has since then evolved in collaboration in a variety of areas
with a high level bilateral meeting on S&T cooperation every year. The Sino-US Science
and Technology Agreement and the Joint Fund on Major Scientific Equipment Research
constitute other types of collaboration. These programmes have served to strengthen
formal collaborations and to enhance the scope for institutional cooperation (universities,
state institutes, academies of sciences).
The 12th Five-Year Plan for Science and Technology development underlined that
internationalisation of scientific research activities will be further enhanced, and China
will actively participate in international science and technology organisations and large
international science programmes.
In addition, various Western universities are opening branch campuses in China. There is
also generous government funding for Chinese scholars and students from elite
universities to conduct research overseas on collaborative projects. Finally, China is in
discussions to form stronger links with East Asia, particularly with Japan and South
Korea.
India. India has been keen to forge strategic research and innovation partnerships with
other countries and has collaborations with more than 70 countries in last decade and its
top five partners are, in descending order, the USA, Germany, the UK, Japan and France.
Some institutions leading research collaboration include the Tata Institute of
Fundamental Research (TIFR) and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Mumbai
(Nesta, 2012). Research collaboration between India and the US has increased from 1.4
million euros (2 million USD) in 2008 to 159 million euros (220 million USD) in 2013.
Joint collaboration has been influenced by the Indo-US Civil nuclear agreement, signed in
2008, which has led to a number of initiatives on solar and nuclear energy, the Indo-US
science and technology forum, which has established 40 virtual joint research centres,
the US-India endowment board, which will lead to around 2.5 million USD a year to
promote commercialisation of innovative technologies, as well as the Millennium Alliance,
launched in 2011 between the US Agency for international development (USAID) and the
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) to scale development
solutions developed and tested in India. India’s collaboration programs also exist with
national EU member states. These programmes include the Indo-French Centre for the
Promotion of Advanced Research, whose annual budget is €3 million.
The US. The US Government and other US actors are sponsoring various forms of
international collaborative research through the National Science Foundation or
Foundations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. In addition, various
institutions sponsor scholars’ programs. The Department of State sponsors bilateral
exchanges of scholars, for example through the Fulbright Program, and the National
Academy of Engineering sponsors the Grand Challenge Scholars program. The
Partnership for International Research and Education enables researchers from
institutions in the US to collaborate with scientists around the world. An award to
Michigan Technological University (MTU) enabled researchers to work with researchers
from Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Ecuador on remote-sensing tools for
May 2014
19
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
hazard mitigation and water resource development (National Science Foundation, 2013:
17).
To sum up, some societal challenges require less collaboration, and global players
already have some collaboration independently from the EU. But the European Union
aims to continue to develop several areas of research collaboration to solve some of its
societal challenges, particularly with the US.
May 2014
20
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
5. When is collaboration desirable? Opinions of
workshop participants by grand challenge
In order to define when to collaborate, this brief relies on participants’ opinions on the
desirability of certain types of collaboration by grand challenge. This section aims to
provide a simplified overview of participants’ opinions, while acknowledging the fact that
grand challenges are broad in nature and several topics may be suited to different forms
of collaboration.
5.1 Three ideal types for research collaboration
Generally speaking, modes of international collaboration fall in two broad categories:
bilateral or multilateral. Bilateral collaboration involves two parties (countries or research
teams), and covers, for instance, bilateral exchange programmes. Multilateral
collaboration includes joint networks, research centres and universities. Bilateral
agreements tend to be the most common type of intervention for activities outside
Horizon 2020 (Kamalski and Plum, 2013).
Hence, research collaboration was summarised in ideal-types options to simplify the
participants’ input:
Ideal-type 1: EU enacts no further collaboration
Ideal-type 2: EU engages in bilateral collaboration with partners in a third country
Ideal type 3: EU engages in multilateral collaboration with partners in a number of
different third countries.
5.2
The consensual bottom-line: the importance of international research
collaboration
In general, workshop participants recognised that collaboration was valid when the
urgency and scale of the challenge outweighed the geopolitical, context-specific and
commercial difficulties related to collaboration. More generally, participants tended to be
in favour of promoting research collaboration with the rest of the world in order to
benefit from knowledge transfer and indirect advantages (such as an increase in trade).
Participants underlined that research collaboration would also be beneficial with
developing country to support capacity building and depending on historical relationships
with the EU. In addition, participants recognised that multilateral collaboration may be
relevant in certain research areas, such as climate change. They also stressed that
multilateral collaboration could be used as a form of science diplomacy in order to build
constructive international relationships. The value of bilateral collaboration was also
strongly acknowledged. Bilateral collaboration could further research opportunities by
encouraging competitiveness, help to resolve local problems, and may be quicker and
more effective than multilateral collaboration.
Participants acknowledged the current role of the EU as a standard setter, gateway for
information and funder of research. Promoting a uniform system of intellectual property
rights across the EU, for example through a Community patent system that the
European Commission is currently campaigning for, could facilitate international
negotiations on research collaboration.
In addition, workshop participants recognised the value of Horizon 2020 being open to
non-EU researchers, and the unique character of this scheme. Participants recognised
how open Horizon 2020 was, given the barriers imposed to access research funding by
other countries. Indeed, the access to Chinese funds and for European scholars has been
21
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
more challenging than the access of Chinese scholars to EU funds. The recent China
Science Fund open for foreign scholars (with some Grand Challenge resonance) and EU
initiatives (EuroAxes programme) aim to provide better access .
Finally, some participants reminded others that the support of the EU in international
research collaboration needed to respect the subsidiarity principle, according to which
the EU may only intervene if it is able to act more effectively than Member States, and
that EU competitiveness and interests should be preserved.
11
5.3
Participants’ opinions on the desirability of research collaboration by
grand challenge
The participants’ assessment of the appropriateness of ideal types of research
collaboration for each one of the grand challenges are summarised in Table 6. As
indicated in section 1, Table 6 is based on the summaries emerging from the break-out
of each session. The text following Table 6 provides further explanation regarding the
positions of participants.
Table 6: Expert assessment of the most desirable research collaboration idealtype between the EU and third countries by grand challenge
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
No
Bilateral
Multilateral
collaboration collaboration
collaboration
GC1: health
Health
Demographic change
Well-being
n/a
n/a
n/a [bis]
GC2: food security
Food security
Sustainable
agriculture
and
forestry
Marine, maritime
and inland water
research
Bio-economy
GC3: energy
GC4: transport
GC5: climate action
Climate action
Environment
Resource efficiency
Raw materials
11
See section 2.3 on international collaboration for more information on international collaboration between China and the EU
May 2014
22
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Option 1
Option 2
No
Bilateral
collaboration collaboration
Option 3
Multilateral
collaboration
GC6: Europe in a
changing world
GC7:
secure
societies
Note: certain challenges appeared broader than others, and led to different expert considerations. The Table
hence breaks down the topics included in these broader challenges. The arrows are used as a representation of
the agreement of a break-out group on an ideal type of research collaboration.
Note bis: the conclusions of the break-out groups did not include any information on the most desirable type of
collaboration regarding ‘well-being’.
Grand challenges best suited for multilateral collaboration
Grand challenge 1 health, demographic change and wellbeing. Multilateral collaboration
was acknowledged as relevant in the context of health, since similar solutions could be
applicable to a range of players, and given that barriers to collaboration (such as
different IP rights) could have direct consequences on the treatment of patients.
Parts of Grand challenge 2 on food security. In addition, a certain consensus also
emerged regarding the fact that a global need for action was necessary for food security,
and given that this challenge directly affected lives across the world.
Parts of Grand challenge 5 on climate action and the environment. Climate action and
the environment were deemed more suited for multilateral collaboration for the same
reasoning as for Grand challenge 2 on food security.
Grand challenges best suited for bilateral collaboration
Grand challenge 3 Secure, clean and efficient energy. Some participants thought that
collaboration in energy research may bear highly political and difficult issues and that
any collaboration would require the active role of the international community. However,
it was also argued that collaboration on this grand challenge would be useful to help the
EU develop alternative modes of energy provision, especially given the intent to reduce
nuclear energy, as well as complement climate change research. If individual countries
do separate research on this challenge, the new energy (and presumably non-fuel)
technologies developed will (1) not be harmonised and compatible globally in terms of
standards and regulations, and (2) involve high royalties charged by the patent owners,
potentially slowing down deployment in other countries (such as emerging markets in
Asia). The resulting lack of take-up of energy technologies would worsen the climate
change problem. Collaboration on this grand challenge is therefore essential for the
success of the related grand challenge 5. Collaboration could hence occur bilaterally,
with specific third countries depending on their interest in a particular source of new
energy technology.
Grand challenge 4 Smart, green and integrated transport Smart, green and integrated
transports were recognised as an area for bilateral collaboration, particularly with China,
where the demand for green and smart transport, as well as efforts to build ‘smart
cities’, were due to increase. Some participants also underlined the impact of EU-US
collaborative research on car designs in the US. Multilateral collaboration may be less
suitable given the strong trade dimension related to transport as well as the specific
requirements in each region of the world.
Grand challenge 7 Secure societies. Some participants were of the opinion that this
challenge may be more internal to the EU, but they recognised that making societies
May 2014
23
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
more secure may require important knowledge from other countries. This may be the
case especially on certain applied issues that require a specific knowhow to be
transferred to the EU. Examples may include issues related to cybersecurity, data
protection or extreme weather conditions. On the other hand, participants suggested
that the selection of partners would need to occur very selectively because there may be
risks to collaboration related to sharing sensitive information. These issues may limit the
opportunities and add to the complexity of multilateral collaboration.
Parts of Grand challenge 2. Marine, maritime and inland water research. This topic may
be best suited to bilateral collaboration given that certain maritime issues may arise in
oceans targeting a particular group of countries. Bilateral collaboration in this field
includes the Transatlantic Ocean Research Alliance for example, which aims to increase
the knowledge of the Atlantic Ocean and its dynamic systems - including interlinks with
the portion of the Arctic region that borders the Atlantic" and to promote the sustainable
management of its resources..
Grand challenges best suited for no further collaboration
Parts of Grand challenge 2 sustainable agriculture and bio-economy. Participants
explained that certain elements of this grand challenge may not be entirely suitable for
multilateral collaboration, such as bio-economy or certain aspects of research which had
some implications for the food industry. The need to protect the international
competitiveness of national food industries meant that sharing information in multilateral
collaboration would be difficult. In addition, the topic of sustainable agriculture, given
that it requires local engagement and is context specific, was not deemed to the best
suited for international (multilateral or bilateral) collaboration.
Parts of Grand Challenge 5: resource efficiency and raw materials. Research
collaboration on resource efficiency and raw materials called for more caution according
to some participants. Certain countries, such as China, have shown a strong interest in
collaboration on this issue, for example by developing links with Africa. But some
participants were of the opinion that raw materials and resource efficiency had a conflict
sensitivity element which meant that research collaboration would need to be treated
with caution and an understanding of the geopolitical issues surrounding the topic.
Grand challenge 6 Europe in a changing world, inclusive, innovative and reflective
societies. Workshop participants underlined that Grand Challenge 6, although global in
nature, was the least prone to international collaboration, because it concentrated on
European integration. Various topics related to building inclusive, innovative and
reflective societies, such as education or immigration, were deemed to be contextspecific and dependent on the institutional landscape. A collaboration to explore parallel
issues and solutions with other countries may help Europe to generate innovative ideas
to solve some of its challenges, including maintaining a balance between inclusive social
system and boosting economic growth. For example, a bilateral collaboration exists
between China and certain European countries to develop global inclusive growth. In
addition, looking toward foreign concepts such as ‘frugal innovation’ in India; or how the
concept of smart specialisation may be understood and applied abroad, could help
Europe to build its society in a changing world. However, participants recommended
concentrating on gaining further understanding, exploiting and resolving the dynamics
arising from the high heterogeneity of social systems across the European Union.
5.4 Further participants’ recommendations on the role of the EU
In addition, workshop participants also issued some recommendations regarding the role
of EU intervention on international research collaboration on grand challenges. These are
summarised below.
May 2014
24
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Developing an agenda for collaboration with each partner country. A first
recommendation referred to developing an institutional agenda for collaboration with the
countries which do not benefit from such an agenda yet. Such an agenda would increase
visibility, incentivise research collaboration in these countries and should take into
account existing cooperation between EU member states and the partner country. The
EU should also discuss these agendas with its member states within the Strategic Forum
for International Cooperation (SFIC), referring to the willingness shown by the respective
member states in the European Research Area.
Recognising the need to address training needs required to address global
challenges. Being able to collaborate internationally in research as well as to work on
solving major global challenges requires a particular skillset, which involves being able to
understand a varied body of research, a strong general grasp on one’s discipline, as well
as working fluently in foreign languages or within team for example. A participant
suggested that the EU supports the acquisition of these skills at the early stages of
doctoral training in order to make it easier for future researchers to develop international
collaboration.
Liaising with other intergovernmental efforts. Horizon 2020 may also gain in
liaising further with other intergovernmental efforts undertaken by European
Governments in solving grand challenges (such as Joint Programme Initiatives), in order
to build mutually beneficial ways to solve grand challenges .
Meeting the trade-off between flexibility and predictability. Finally, one of the
participants underlined that the European Union’s research funding scheme guaranteed a
certain predictability to researchers, it could also acquire more flexibility, in order to
adapt quickly to changing global needs.
12
12
Intergovernmental and EU initiatives are mutually beneficial. In the case of higher education for example, the European
Commission supported the intergovernmental Bologna process, which aimed to create greater comparability and recognition in
the levels of qualifications and quality of higher education (Hoareau, 2012).
May 2014
25
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
6. Conclusions and avenues for further research
In summary, the demand-driven, applied research solicited by Horizon 2020 stands out
given its openness to international research collaboration on societal challenges, which
include a wide range of seven topics.
The opinions of workshop participants on the type of cooperation across
challenges were more or less in line with the work programme developed by
Horizon 2020. Health, climate action and food security were identified as requiring
multilateral collaboration given the breath and imminence of these challenges; while
others, such as building inclusive societies, were deemed to be more context-specific.
Participants also isolated a number of topics on which bilateral collaboration was
suitable, including transport for example, where collaboration with China is deemed to be
increasing as the result of growing need to build clean transports, although traditionally,
bilateral collaboration with the US has been the most developed (questions 1 and 2).
But certain challenges identified by other nations are not covered by Horizon
2020. For example, India has identified building education and skills as a strategy
challenge and the US has a large programme on space research. These differences may
be because of the salience of certain issues for some countries rather than others, or
national efforts to build internationally competitive advantage.
And traditional relationships should not obscure the building of relationship
with emerging economies. Collaboration does not only imply a transfer of knowledge
part of a capacity building exercise with these economies, but may also result in learning
to help solve some of Europe’s most fundamental challenges, such as how to build a
trade-off between growth and inclusion. India’s concentration on developing ‘frugal
innovations’ was highlighted as an area of potential learning for Europe for example
(question 2).
Participants provided a wide range of recommendations to help the EU respond
further to the resolution of the societal challenges of Horizon 2020. These
recommendations called for the attention of the European Commission toward the need
to further equip researchers to conduct international collaboration in their doctoral
training, to agree on strategic research agendas with a broader range of partner
countries, to link with other intergovernmental initiatives, to find a balance between
predictability and flexibility and to preserve EU competitiveness (question 3).
Going further, the study team suggests the following for further research.
The study team suggests a sound evaluation of the impact of collaboration in
order to assess the broad impact of research collaboration. Research collaboration
on grand challenges is motivated by a wide range of dynamics, including importing
expertise or exporting knowhow in order to build diplomatic or trade connexions. An
evaluation of Horizon 2020’s research collaboration would be beneficial given this wider
context. This evaluation could also compare Horizon 2020 to other intergovernmental
efforts to address societal challenges, such as the UN international panel on climate
change, or joint programming efforts for example in order to further substantiate how
Horizon 2020 positions itself within the international landscape. This evaluation could
include an international bibliometric analysis aiming to map the existing output of
collaboration across the seven societal challenges of Horizon 2020 and the global players
included in this brief.
27
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Appendix 1: Differences between the research landscape
of China, the US and India
This appendix provides an overview of research and innovation systems in China, the US
and India.
China: Most research and innovation policies are designed and implemented from the
top-down, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party setting agendas for
research and innovation. Below the Central Committee is the State Council which is the
highest-ranking governmental policy-making body in China and has ultimate decisionmaking power for S&T and innovation policy. In addition, the Steering Committee of
Science, Technology and Education of the State Council have an influential role in
decision-making. Figure 3 provides an outline of the key stakeholders involved in
research and innovation in China (OECD, 2009). The State Council has nine member
ministries: 1) National Reform and Development Commission (NDRC), 2) Ministry of
Education (MOE), 3) Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), 4) Ministry of Industry
and Information Technology (MIIT), 5) Ministry of Finance (MOF), 6) Ministry of
Agriculture (MOA), 7) Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), 8) Chinese Academy of
Engineering (CAE), 9) National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). there are
two other important institutions with key strategic functions for research and innovation
Alongside the State Council. First, the National Development and Reform Commission
formulates and delivers plans for social and economic development. It also provides
monitoring and analysis on the macro-economic context and facilitates broad processes
of continued reform and opening. Second, the Ministry of Science and Technology
(MOST) designs science and technology plans, research programmes, invests in research
and innovation infrastructures (hard and soft) and implements reforms for innovation
and research. In the public sector most research and innovation activity is funded
through centralised R&D programmes that are operated and managed by MOST.
US: The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy leads interagency efforts
to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets, and works
with the private sector, state and local governments, the science and higher education
communities, and other nations toward this end (from Dale Eppler presentation 3rd of
April 2014). But research addressing grand challenges in the US also tends to be
influenced by various federal bodies, including the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP). The OSTP has recently stressed the relevance of solving grand challenges
as “ambitious but achievable goals that harness technology, and innovation to solve
important national or global problems and that have the potential to capture the public’s
imagination” (White House, 2013). The OSTP, part of the U.S. State Department, leads
on international cooperation in science and technology, but does not allocate funds.
Grand challenges are outlined as being able to help create future jobs and industries,
further push the boundaries of human knowledge, drive collaboration between the
private and public sectors and help grapple with issues surrounding health, environment,
national security, health, energy and education. The National Science Board, and various
federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, also have a relevant say
in grand challenges. This research is funded by a variety of entities, including public
bodies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), or the National institute of
Health (NIH) for example. Multilateral collaboration is encouraged. For example the NSF
Partnership for International Research and Education enables researchers from
institutions in the US to collaborate with scientists around the world. An award to
Michigan Technological University (MTU) enabled researchers to work with researchers
from Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Ecuador on remote-sensing tools for
hazard mitigation and water resource development (NSF, 2013: 17.). Foundations,
including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as companies, such as Google
May 2014
28
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
also invest in grand challenges. For example, Google is investing in developing an energy
efficient car following the DARPA Grand Challenge .
13
India: The science and technology system is complex in India and takes its roots in the
1950s when the political leadership of Nehru gave top priority to science and technology
in institution building. The Department of Science and Technology assumes a particularly
relevant function. Within its general remit to organise and promote science and
technology (S&T) related activities within India, the Department of Science and
Technology (DST) has a number of specific responsibilities, including being responsible
for international science and technology cooperation. Some of these may have particular
implications for pursuing grand Challenge research. These relevant responsibilities
include the: formulation of relevant policies; promotion of new areas with special
emphasis on emerging areas; co-ordination and integration of areas having crosssectorial linkages in which a number of institutions and departments have interests and
capabilities; all matters concerning international co-operation; matters concerning
domestic technology particularly the promotion of ventures involving the
commercialisation of such technology; application of S&T for weaker sections, women
and other disadvantaged sections of society (Ministry of Science and Technology, 2005).
The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research is the largest R&D organisation in
India, with 4,500 scientists working in 38 research laboratories. The Science, Technology
and Innovation Policy strategy of 2013 set up the National Innovation Council and the
National Knowledge commission in order to promote innovation.
Figure 3: R&D landscape in China, the US and India
Chinese stakeholders
State Council
National
National
Chinese
development Science Academy of
and reform Foundation
Science
commission of China
Chinese
Academy of
Engineering
Ministries (e.g.
MOST, MOE, MOP)
Productivity promotion
center
State IP office
Innovation fund for
small technology based
firms
Universit
Researc
ies
h institutes
Industries (e.g. Huawei)
State owned
enterprises (e.g.
Sinopec)
Acronyms (MOST: Ministry of Science and Technology; MOE: Ministry of Education; MOP: Ministry of Personnel)
SOURCE: OECD, 2011.
13
For more information, see Darpa, n/a.
May 2014
29
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Indian stakeholders
Department of Defence and
Science and research
Technology
development
organisation
Department of
scientific and
industrial
research
Defence,
Department
R&D
biotechnology
development
organisation
of
Council of scientific and Indian Council of Medical Indian Council of
industrial research
research
Agricultural research
Research
institutes
In-house R&D S&T
in
private governmental
industry
organisation
non- Central socio-economic and
other ministries
SOURCE: adapted from the website of the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India
US stakeholders
National
Science
Technology Council
Office of Science and Technology Policy
and National Science Board
Various
federal
agencies
and
departments,
e.g.
Environmental
Protection Agency
National
National Science Private Foundations
Other donors, e.g.
academies,
Foundation
IBM & Google
e.g. National
academy of
engineering
Think tanks
Universities
Private research institutes
SOURCE: authors’ own
NOTE: This Figure provides a graphic (and general) representation of relevant stakeholders. It lists these
bodies by order of policy decision-making power and relative position in terms of research funding, e.g. think
tanks, universities and research institutes are grant receiving bodies and are hence below the National Science
Foundation, private foundations and other donors which are grant awarding bodies.
May 2014
30
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Appendix 2 Comparative overview of relevant research
output indicators
The team used a range of macroeconomic indicators to understand the relevance of the
country in a global research landscape. The graphs in Table 7 provide a comparison of
relevant macroeconomic indicators. This table compares the EU, the US, China and
India - countries mentioned in the terms of reference. Table 7 also includes data from
Japan and the Republic of Korea, given their comparatively high performance on the
selected indicators for information (although for budgetary reasons the research team
will concentrate on covering the EU, the US, China and India).
Table 7 presents some general data on population size and GDP growth , as well as
input and output indicators on research. Input indicators include R&D expenditure as a
percentage of GDP per capita and the number of researchers in R&D per million
inhabitants . Output the number of scientific and technical journal articles published
each year , as well as the number of patent applications submitted annually by
residents .
14
15
16
17
Annual percentage growth rate of GDP at market prices based on constant local currency. Aggregates are based on constant
2005 U.S. dollars. GDP is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and
minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of
fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources.
15
Researchers in R&D are professionals engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge, products, processes,
methods, or systems and in the management of the projects concerned. Postgraduate PhD students (ISCED97 level 6)
engaged in R&D are included.
16
Scientific and technical journal articles refer to the number of scientific and engineering articles published in the following
fields: physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, clinical medicine, biomedical research, engineering and technology, and earth
and space sciences.
17
Patent applications are worldwide patent applications filed through the Patent Cooperation Treaty procedure or with a
national patent office for exclusive rights for an invention--a product or process that provides a new way of doing something or
offers a new technical solution to a problem. A patent provides protection for the invention to the owner of the patent for a
limited period, generally 20 years.
14
31
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Table 7: International comparison of relevant macro-indicators
SOURCE: World Bank data bank, 2013
32
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
The graphs illustrate the well-known European paradox (European Commission, 1995):
The EU has one of the highest numbers of scientific publications, but the translation of
this research into practical innovation does not follow (the EU having a comparatively
much lower performance in terms of patent applications, with 108,762 patent
applications submitted in 2011). In addition, the EU was the only country of the group to
have registered a negative growth rate of -0.29 % in 2012. According to analysis by
Leydesdorff et al. (2014) the EU has increased its share among top-cited publications
between 2000 and 2010.
These comparative graphs also illustrate why China, India and the US are particularly
relevant as global players in research.
The US has a strong reputation has global player in research. It has more than twice the
number of patent applications than the EU (247,740 applications in 2012). But
emerging economies are catching up fast. The R&D expenditure and number of
researchers of the US have been overtaken by the Republic of Korea between 2007 and
2009. And China started to have a much higher number of patent applications than the
US in 2009.
China has the most extraordinary growth figures of the group of countries presented in
the graph. Known for having the world’s biggest population of 1.3 billion inhabitants in
2012, China also had the highest GDP growth (7.8% in 2012). As the world’s second
largest economy and largest exporter, China has a major impact on the global economy,
patterns of trade and investment and growth in all regions of the world, including
Europe. A key trend in the past decade has been the unprecedented scale of China’s
investment in research and the accompanying acceleration of scientific output. China has
had the largest increase in R&D expenditures as a percentage of GDP between 2008 and
2009 (+0.23 percentage points), and the steepest increase in patent applications
(+122,763 in 2011). China is now recognised as a major global player in science and
technology and by 2005 had become the second largest investor in research and
development in the world (OECD, 2006).
India, a country with a similarly large population, 1.2 billion in 2012, also had a GDP
growth which was 3.5 percentage points higher than Europe in 2012. Economists have
predicted that India will be the third largest economy in the world by 2050. Yet the
country, heavily dependent on agriculture, has a rural population of 70%, and high rates
of illiteracy, and approximately a quarter of its population still lives below the national
poverty line, leading the World Bank to label India an “extreme dual economy” (Dutz,
2007). Moreover, India has the lowest input and output indicators in research of the
group, its number of scientific publications 12 times fewer than the EU and 3.5 times
fewer than China in 2012, which reflects the different focus of the Governments of both
countries regarding research. Despite being the second most populous country in the
world (with the United Nations projecting India to overtake China as the world’s most
populous country as early as 2028), the share of India’s R&D investment in science,
technology and innovation is less than 2.5% of the global figure (Government of India,
2013). The Government has however committed to improve on this performance.
Other countries covered for comparative purposes included Japan and South
Korea. Japan, a country four times smaller than the EU, has the highest numbers of
researchers per million inhabitants (5,180 in 2012) and the highest numbers of patent
applications submitted (287,580 in 2011). And South Korea has had the highest increase
in R&D expenditure (34% growth rate since 2005) and increase in numbers of
researchers (40% in five years).
33
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
34
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Appendix 3 Agenda of the workshop
08:30 - 09:00 Registration and arrival
09:00 - 09:30 Welcome and introduction to the study - Joanna Chataway and Cecile
Hoareau McGrath (RAND Europe)
Plenary session Moderator: Stijn Hoorens, RAND Europe
09:30 -10:00
Opening address - Jean- Pierre Bourguignon (European Research Council)
10:00 - 10:05 Background of the work - Rene Von Schomberg (European Commission,
Directorate-General for Research)
10:05 - 10:15 Overview of current international research priorities of DG Research - John
Claxton (European Commission, Directorate-General for Research)
Coffee break
10:15 - 10:30
Regional overviews Moderator: Stijn Hoorens, RAND Europe
10:30 - 11:00 Overview of Grand challenges and research collaboration in India - Dinar Kale
(Open University)
11:00 - 11:30 Overview of Grand challenges and research collaboration in the US - Dale
Eppler (US Mission to the European Union)
11:30 - 12:00 Overview of Grand challenges and research collaboration in China; and
Meeting Global Challenges through Better Governance - Gang Zhang (OECD)
12:00 - 12:30 Presentation of working group sessions - Veronika Horvath (RAND Europe)
12:30 - 13:30 Lunch
Facing Grand challenges: Interactive afternoon session
13:30 - 14:55 Interactive plenary afternoon: Defining modes of collaboration – Moderator
TBC
14:55 - 15:05
15:05- 16:30
Coffee break
Breakout sessions: Defining topics for collaboration and option for
collaboration on the 7 Grand challenges (Moderators to be assigned on a
voluntary basis)
16:30-17:00
Coffee break
17:00-17:30
Wrap-up and reporting back to the plenary on the outcomes of the breakout
sessions by the rapporteurs
17:30-18:00
Conclusion
The workshop will be followed by an optional dinner at the Brasserie Le Saint Germain,
Place Rogier 1. Please note that the dinner is not covered by the project.
35
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
36
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Appendix 4 List of participants to the workshop
Name
Position
Organisation
Executive Agency for Higher Education
Adrian Curaj
General Director
and Research Funding
Alessandro Rosiello
Senior Research Fellow
University of Edinburgh
Director - office of Int. Idea International Institute for Democracy and
Andrew Bradley
to the EU
Electoral Assistance (Int. Idea)
Ben Baruch
Associate analyst
RAND Europe
Cecile Hoareau Mcgrath
Analyst
RAND Europe
Cheng Fan
Researcher
Frauhofer ISI
Claudia
de
Castro
Caldeirinha
Director of Brussels office
Freedom House
German Marshall Fund of the United
Corinna Horst
Deputy Director
States
Energy,
Environment,
Dale Eppler
Science and Technology US Mission to the European Union
Counsellor
David Carter
Research Administrator
Cambridge University
Dinar Kale
Lecturer
Open University
Research fellow - EU-China Brussels Institute of Contemporary China
Duncan Freeman
relations
Studies
Senior researcher
Edwin Horlings
Rathenau Institut
Emma Harte
Intern
RAND Europe
Department for European and
International Affairs, Ministry for Higher
Florence Lelait
Chief Officer
education and Research
OECD, Directorate for Science, Technology
Gang Zhang
Principal Administrator
and Industry
Hui Lu
Analyst
RAND Europe
Jana Vecerkova
Project manager
European Young Innovators' Forum
Email
adrian.curaj@uefiscdi.ro
Alessandro.Rosiello@ed.ac.uk
a.bradley@idea.int
bbaruch@rand.org
cmcgrath@rand.org
Cheng.Fan@isi.fraunhofer.de
caldeirinha@freedomhouse.org
chorst@gmfus.org
epplerdb@state.gov
djc64@cam.ac.uk
Dinar.Kale@open.ac.uk
dfreeman@vub.ac.be
e.horlings@rathenau.nl
eharte@rand.org
florence.lelait@recherche.gouv.fr
Gang.ZHANG@oecd.org
hlu@rand.org
Jana.Vecerkova@eyif.eu
37
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Jean-Pierre Bourguignon
Jo Chataway
Kerry Brown
Loet Leydesdorff
Mari Hjelt
Massimo Riccaboni
Ming Cao
Philiippe Martin
Ralf Engel
Robbin te Velde
Salil Gunashekar
Samantha Christey
Severina Shopova
Silvia Luber
Suparna Karmakar
Susan Vesel
Susanne Bührer
Veronika Horvath
May 2014
President
Director
Team leader
Professor/expert
Partner
Visiting professor
Associate Professor
Senior Policy analyst
European Research Council
RAND Europe
Chatham House
University of Amsterdam
Gaia
KU Leuven
University of Groningen
Science Policy and foresight, European
Commission
Foresight, strategic analysis and
competitive intelligence, French Ministry
Chief Officer
for Higher Education and Research
Principal researcher
Dialogic
Analyst
RAND Europe
Communications team - European
Team leader
Research Council
Public
Administration European Research Council
Adviser
Policy officer
European Commission
Marie Curie Fellow
BRUEGEL
Science and innovation US Mission to the European Union
officer
Researcher
Fraunhofer ISI
Associate analyst
RAND Europe
JeanPierre.BOURGUIGNON@ec.europa.eu
jo.chataway@rand.org
kerry.brown@euecran.eu
loet@leydesdorff.net
mari.hjelt@gaia.fi
massimo.riccaboni@kuleuven.be
m.cao@rug.nl
philippe.martin@ec.europa.eu
ralf.engel@recherche.gouv.fr
tevelde@dialogic.nl
sgunashe@rand.org
Samantha.CHRISTEY@ec.europa.eu
Severina.SHOPOVA@ec.europa.eu
Silvia.LUBER@ec.europa.eu
suparna.karmakar@bruegel.org
VeselSR@state.gov
susanne.buehrer@isi.fraunhofer.de
vhorvath@rand.org
38
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Bibliography
Anderson, Mellissa S. 2011. ‘International research collaborations: anticipating
challenges instead of being surprised’. London: Routledge (first published in
The Europa World of Learning 2011). As of 5 March 2014:
http://www.educationarena.com/pdf/sample/sample-essay-anderson.pdf
Anderson, S., Gundel, S. & Vanni, M. 2010. ‘The impacts of climate change on food
security in Africa: A synthesis of policy issues for Europe’. International
Institute for Environment and Development. As of 2 March 2014:
http://www.eiard.org/media/uploads/File/documents/thematic_studies/final_
report_iied_16_april_2010.pdf
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) media release. 2013. New
initiative promotes Canadian-European innovation collaboration. As of 2
March 2014: https://www.aucc.ca/media-room/news-and-commentary/newinitiative-promotes-canadian-european-innovation-collaboration/
Asunmaa, P. 2013. ‘Security and defence – what is there to be expected in
December?’. Finish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As of 2 March 2014:
http://www.finland.eu/Public/default.aspx?contentid=292209&nodeid=35742
&culture=en-US
Atis4all. 2014. As of 24 March 2014: http://collaborativeportal.atis4all.eu/enGB/default.aspx
Australian Government Department for Industry. As of 24 March 2014:
http://www.innovation.gov.au/science/internationalcollaboration/Pages/defau
lt.aspx
Barjak, F. & Robinson. S. 2008. ‘International collaboration, mobility and team
diversity in the life sciences: impact on research performance’. Social
Geography 3: 23-35. As of 28 February 2014: http://www.socgeogr.net/3/23/2008/sg-3-23-2008.pdf
Block, M.A. 2006. ‘The state of international collaboration for health systems research:
what do publications tell?’ Health research policy and systems 4 (7). In
Rosseel et al.; 2009.
Bobylev, L. 2013. ‘Russia collaboration to aid EU under H2020’. Horizon 2020 Projects
interview. As of 2 March 2014: http://Horizon 2020projects.com/globalcollaboration/interview-working-with-russia/
Boekholt, P.; Edler, J. Cunningham, P. & K. Flanagan. 2009. Drivers of international
collaboration in research. Brussels: European Commission, DirectorateGeneral for Research International Cooperation.
Bound, K. & I. Thornton. 2012. Our frugal future: lessons from India’s innovation
system. London: Nesta.
Bound, K., Saunters, T., Wilsdon, J. & Adams, J. 2013. China’s absorptive state,
research, innovation and the prospects for China-UK collaboration, London:
39
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
NESTA.
As
of
22
April
2014:
http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/chinas_absorptive_state_0.pdf
Brouwers, N., Susan M., Lyons, T., Hardy, G., Chopard, J.; Matusick, G., Ruthrof, K. &
Valentine, L.. 2013. ‘Fostering collaboration toward integrative research
development’, Forest, 4, 329-42.
Bucci, Steven P., Rosenzweig P. & D. Inserra. 2013. ‘A Congressional Guide: Seven
Steps to U.S. Security, Prosperity, and Freedom in Cyberspace’. The Heritage
Foundation Backgrounder #2785 on National Security and Defence. As of 5
March 2014: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/acongressional-guide-seven-steps-to-us-security-prosperity-and-freedom-incyberspace
Buonocuore, C. & Luengo. X. 2012. ‘Potential scenarios for EU-LAC collaboration in
health research’. As of 28 February 2014:
http://abest.mincyt.gob.ar/files/EULAC%20HEALTH/Grupo%201Potential%20Scenarios%20for%20EULAC%20Collaboration%20in%20Health%20Research.pdf
Cédric P. 2004. International Energy Technology Collaboration And Climate Change
Mitigation. Paris: OECD Environment Directorate International Energy
Agency.
Collaborating Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance. As of 25 March 2014:
http://fs-unep-centre.org/content/collaborating-centre-climate-sustainableenergy-finance
Council of the European Union. 2008. Outcome of proceedings on subject of Council
conclusions concerning a European partnership for international scientific and
technological cooperation. Brussels, 3 December 2008 (16.12)(OR. Fr). As of
6
February
2014:
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&gc=true&sc=false&
f=ST%2016763%202008%20INIT&r=http%3A%2F%2Fregister.consilium.eu
ropa.eu%2Fpd%2Fen%2F08%2Fst16%2Fst16763.en08.pdf
De Corte, R. Blommaert, J. & Verniers, R. (n/a) Approaches to North-South, SouthSouth and North-South-South Collaboration, ISBN 97890812450. As of 2
March
2014:
https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/229636/1/POLICY_PAPER_V
LIR_UWC__NSS.pdf
Delegation of the European Union to China (1). 2013. 1st EU-China Innovation
Cooperation Dialogue Joint Press Statement. As of 25 February 2014:
http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/china/press_corner/all_news/news/2013/
20131127_en.htm
Delegation of the European Union to China (2). 2014. 1st EU-China Innovation
Cooperation Dialogue Joint Press Environment. As of 25 February 2014:
http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/china/eu_china/science_tech_environmem
ent/environment/index_en.htm
May 2014
40
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Delegation of the European Union to China. 2014. Environment collaboration between
EU
and
China.
As
of
25
February
2014:
http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/china/eu_china/science_tech_environmem
ent/environment/index_en.htm
Delegation of the European Union to India. 2009. Working with India to tackle climate
change: EU action against climate change in Europe and India. New Delhi:
European Union As of 2 March 2014:
http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/india/documents/publications/eu_brochur
e_final_press_low.pdf
Environment News Agency. 2013. U.S. and India Build Climate, Clean Energy
Cooperation. As of 25 February 2014:
http://ensnewswire.com/2013/06/24/u-s-and-india-build-climate-clean-energycooperation/
ERA-NET. 2007. Deliverable D4: SWOT-analysis on common strategic issues on
research programmes on innovative energy systems for the ERANET INNER.
European Commission. 2002. EU-India Science and Technological Cooperation
Agreement. Official Journal of the European Communities: L213 / 40. As of 4
February 2014:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/pdf/india_agreement.pdf#view=fit&pagem
ode=none
European Commission. 2005. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats in
Energy Research. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research Sustainable
Energy Systems.
European Commission. 2008. Working together to tackle common challenges more
effectively, COM(2008) 468 final, Brussels: Office of Official Publications of
the European Union.
European Commission. 2009. Drivers of International collaboration in research- Final
report. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research.
European Commission. 2010. 'Europe2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union,
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social, Committee and the Committee of
the Regions. Brussels: Office of Official Publications of the European Union,
SEC(2010) 1161, 2010. As of 4 February 2014:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/innovation-unioncommunication_en.pdf
European Commission. 2010b. Consultation and cooperation mechanism between
directorate – general for health and consumers of European Commission and
the State Food and Drug Administration of the People’s Republic of China. As
of
27
February
2014:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/dgs_events/cps_day2010/docs/co
nsultation_coop_mechanism_sanco_sfda_en.pdf
May 2014
41
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
European Commission. 2011. Impact assessment accompanying the Communication
from the Commission ‘Horizon 2020 – The Framework Programme for
Research and Innovation’. Brussels: SEC(2011) 1427 final. As of 13 March
2014:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/Horizon
2020/pdf/proposals/horizon_2020_impact_assessment_annexes.pdf
European Commission. 2011b. A resource-efficient Europe – Flagship initiative under
the Europe 2020 Strategy, Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social,
Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels: Office of Official
Publications of the European Union, COM(2011) 21. As of 5 February 2014:
http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficienteurope/pdf/resource_efficient_europe_en.pdf
European Commission. 2011c. Commitment 21: Facilitating Effective Collaborative
Research and Knowledge Transfer. As of 2 March 2014:
http://i3s.ec.europa.eu/commitment/27.html
European Commission. 2012. Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in
research and innovation: A strategic approach. Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the European Commission (2007)
‘Responding to global challenges: the role of Europe and of international
science and technology cooperation’. Brussels: Directorate-General for
Research and International Collaboration.
European Commission. 2012b. EU Research and Innovation: Tackling Societal
Challenges. Brussels: Directorate General for Research and Innovation. As of
4
February
2014:
http://www.ncpincontact.eu/nkswiki/images/7/73/H2020_societal_challenges.pdf
European Commission. 2012c. State of the Innovation Union 2012 - accelerating
change: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. Brussels: Office of Official Publications of the
European Union: 21.3.2013 COM(2013) 149 final, 2012 (3). As of 4 February
2014:
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0149:FIN:en:PDF
European Commission. 2012d. The 2012 EU Industrial R&D investment scoreboard. As
of
4
February
2014:
http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/research/scoreboard_2012.htm
European Commission. 2012e. Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in
research and innovation: A strategic approach. Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels:
COM(2012)492, 2012 (4). As of 5 February 2014:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/pdf/com_2012_497_communication_from
_commission_to_inst_en.pdf
May 2014
42
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
European Commission. 2013. 1ST EU –China cooperation Dialogue Joint Press
Statement, Delegation of the European Union to China. As of 27 February
2014:
http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/china/press_corner/all_news/news/2013/
20131127_en.htm
European Commission. 2013b. International RTD Cooperation. As of 13 February
2014:
http://www.ncpincontact.eu/nkswiki/images/4/40/Bilateral_agreements.pdf
European Commission. 2013c. State of the Innovation Union 2012 - accelerating
change: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. Brussels: Office of Official Publications of the
European Union: COM(2013) 149 final (3). As of 4 February 2014:
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0149:FIN:en:PDF
European Commission. 2014. Consultation and cooperation mechanism between
directorate – general for health and consumers of European Commission and
the State Food and Drug Administration of the People’s Republic of China. As
of
27
February
2014:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/dgs_events/cps_day2010/docs/co
nsultation_coop_mechanism_sanco_sfda_en.pdf
European Commission. 2014b. National funding programmes in mainland China. As of
27 February 2014: http://access4.eu/China/274.php
European Community and Government of Brazil. 2005. ‘Agreement for scientific and
technological cooperation between the European Community and the
Federative Republic of Brazil’. Official Journal of the European Union, L
295/38. As of 2 March 2014:
http://www.access4.eu/_media/Brazil_EU_ST_agreement.pdf
European Grid Infrastructure. 2013. Secure, federated data-analysis capability for the
European Research Area. As of 2 March 2014:
http://www.egi.eu/export/sites/egi/news-and-media/publications/EGIGrandVision-V6.pdf
European Network for Cyber Security. 2013. As of 25 March 2014:
https://www.encs.eu/encs-and-cssc-sign-mou-to-strengthen-collaborationin-cyber-security-for-critical-infrastructures/
European Research Area Board. 2009. Preparing Europe for a new Renaissance, a
strategic view of the European Research Area. Brussels: European
Commission Directorate General for Research.
European Research Area Board. 2012. ERAB recommendation on research and
innovation policy for Grand challenges. Brussels: European Research Area
Board.
May 2014
43
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
European Research Area Committee. 2012. European Research Area Guidelines on
Intellectual Property (IP) Management in International Research
Collaboration Agreements between European and Non-European Partners. As
of
2
March
2014:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovationunion/pdf/international_cooperation_guidelines_erac_kt_group.pdf
European Research Area Committee. 2012b. Strategic Forum for International S&T
Cooperation. Brussels: ERAC-SFIC 1353/12, 25 April. As of 5 February 2014:
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&gc=true&sc=false&
f=ST%201353%202012%20INIT&r=http%3A%2F%2Fregister.consilium.eur
opa.eu%2Fpd%2Fen%2F12%2Fst01%2Fst01353.en12.pdf
European Science Foundation. 2011. Cross-border research collaboration in Europe.
Strasbourg: European Science Foundation. As of 27 February 2014:
http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/links/cssd/mo_fora/careers/CrossBorderRes.Col
lab.pdf
European Union – India. 2012. Joint Declaration on Research and Innovation
Cooperation.
As
of
25
March
2014:
http://www.access4.eu/_media/joint_declaration_research_innovation_2012
_en.pdf
Ferguson, J. 2013. ‘Partnering for Impact – IFPRI-European Research Collaboration
for Improved Food and Nutrition Security’. IFRI blog. As of 2 March 2014:
http://www.ifpri.org/blog/partnering-impact-ifpri-european-researchcollaboration-improved-food-and-nutrition-security
Fogarty International Center. 2009. US-India research collaborations celebrated. As of
24
February
2014:
hhttp://www.fic.nih.gov/NEWS/GLOBALHEALTHMATTERS/Pages/1209_india.a
spx
Fowery, D., Mowery, D.C. & R. Nelson. 2012. ‘Public R&D and social challenges: what
lessons from mission RD programs.’ Research policy, 41: 1697-1702
Futrell, R. 1983. The United States Air Force in Korea: 1950–1953. Washington, D.C.:
Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force.
Gardner, Andrew. 2013. ‘EU: 'Defence matters'.’ European Voice. As of 2 March 2014:
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2013/december/eu-defence-matters/79180.aspx
Garrido, M. V., Kristensen, F.B. Palmhøj Nielsen, C. & Busse, R. 2008. ‘Health
Technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe.’ Observatory
Studies Series: No 14. As of 27 February 2014:
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/90426/E91922.pdf
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M.
(1994) The New Production of knowledge, the dynamics of science and
research in contemporary societies, London: Sage.
May 2014
44
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Government of China, China 12th Five –Year Plan, the National People’s Congress,
China (English version). As of 27 February 2014:
http://www.britishchamber.cn/content/chinas-twelfth-five-year-plan-20112015-full-english-version
Government of India, Twelfth five year plan (2012-2017). 2013. Faster, more inclusive
and sustainable growth: Volume 1. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Haselip, J, Mugabe, J. & Baudoin. A. 2013. ‘Africa-EU research collaboration on
climate change, food security and water linkages: An overview of emerging
issues and potential research priorities.’ caast-net-plus.org. As of 2 March
2014: http://africanclimate.net/en/node/8237
Hayes, B. 2009. ‘NeoConOpticon: The EU Security-Industrial Complex.’ Transnational
Institute. As of 2 March 2014:
http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/neoconopticon-report.pdf
Haythornthwaite, C, Lunsford, K. Bowker, G., & Bertram C. 2006. ‘Challenges for
Research and Practice in Distributed, Interdisciplinary Collaboration.’ In
Research and Practice in Distributed, Interdisciplinary Collaboration, Idea
Group Inc. 148. As of 5 March 2014:
http://people.lis.illinois.edu/~chip/pubs/05challenges.pdf
Hennink, M., & Stephenson. R. 2004. ‘Opportunities and choices working paper No. 9.’
As of 27 February 2014:
http://www.socstats.soton.ac.uk/choices/Policymakers%20WP9.PDF
Heuninckx, B. 2008. ‘A Primer to Collaborative Defence Procurement in Europe:
Troubles, Achievements and Prospects’. Public Procurement Law Review:
Volume 17, Issue 3, 123-145.
Hoareau, C. 2012. Deliberative governance in the European Higher Education Area:
the Bologna process as a case of alternative governance architecture in
Europe, in Journal of European Public Policy, 19(4): 530-548.
Hou, X. 2011. ‘Challenges on China-EU Sustainable Collaboration in Agricultural
Education and Research: The Case of NWAFU.’ As of 2 March 2014:
http://korny.uni-corvinus.hu/cneucoop_fullpapers/ps/hou.pdf
KPMG (2011) ‘China’s twelfth year plan: an overview’, March, URL:
http://www.kpmg.com/CN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Publicat
ionseries/5-years-plan/Documents/China-12th-Five-Year-Plan-Overview201104.pdf
Kamalski, J., & A. Plum. 2013. ‘Comparative Benchmarking of European and US
Research Collaboration and Researcher Mobility.’ Science Europe and
Elsevier. As of 18 February 2014: http://info.scival.com/researchinitiatives/science-europe
Katz, S., & Martin, B. 1997. ‘What is research collaboration?’ Research Policy, 26: 118.
May 2014
45
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Kraemer-Mbula, E., & Pogue. T.E. 2010. ‘ERAWATCH COUNTRY REPORTS 2010: South
Africa.’ ERAWATCH Network. As of 2 March 2014:
http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/erawatch/export/sites/default/galleries/gen
eric_files/file_0086.pdf
Leydesdoff, L., Wagner, C. and Bornmann, L. (2014) ‘The European Union, China, and
the United States in the Top-1% and Top-10% Layers of Most-FrequentlyCited Publications: Competition and Collaborations’, Cornell University Library,
As of 16 March 2014: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1404/1404.0462.pdf.
León, L.R. 2012. ‘Collaboration in Eco-Innovation Research in the European Union.’
Eco-innovation Observatory. As of 2 March 2014: http://www.ecoinnovation.eu/images/stories/Reports/brief_n14_fp7%20network.pdf
Matusick, G. Ruthrof, K. & Valentine, L. 2013. ‘Fostering Collaborations towards
Integrative Research Development.’ Forests: 4, 329-342.
Matzner, K., & Cao. J. 2014. ‘EU-China ICT Final Cooperation Plan.’ Fraunhofer
Gesellschaft: Germany. As of 4 February 2014: http://openchinaict.eu/files/2014/01/D4.1-Cooperation-Plan_27.01_Public-Version.pdf
Met Office Joint Weather and Climate Research Programme (JWCRP). 2014. As of 25
March 2014 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/collaboration/jwcrp
Miguélez, E. & Moreno. R. 2013. ‘Do labour mobility and technological collaborations
foster geographical knowledge diffusion? The case of European regions.’
Research Institute of Applied Economics Working Paper. As of 2 March 2014:
http://www.ub.edu/irea/working_papers/2013/201314.pdf
Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Science and Technology of India.
2005.
Introduction.
As
of
25
March
2014:
http://www.dst.gov.in/about_us/intro_DST.htm
Mwang’ombe, A. W. 2013. ‘Climate change and its anticipated impact on African
agricultural systems. What are the main issues and gaps in scientific
knowledge?’ Presentation for a workshop entitled ‘Key challenges for AfricaEU research collaboration on climate change, water and food security’. As of
2 March 2014: http://cavs.uonbi.ac.ke/sites/default/files/cavs/UNEPClimate%20Change%20%20and%20its%20anticipated%20impact%20on%2
0African-26.6.2013_0.pdf
National Federation of Voluntary Bodies. 2014. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.fedvol.ie/Research_Collaborations/Default.229.html
National Institute of Defence Studies (Japan). 2013. East Asian Strategic Review. As of
13 February 2014: http://www.nids.go.jp/english/publication/eastasian/e2013.html
National Science Foundation. 2013. NSF Strategic Plan FY 2011-2015. Arlington: NSF.
NATO Science for Peace and Security Programme. 2012. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_85373.htm?
May 2014
46
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
NESTA. 2012. Our Frugal future, lessons from India’s innovation system, URL:
http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/our_frugal_future.pdf
Nuclear Threat Initiative. 2013. U.S., India Agree to Collaborate on Advanced Defence
Technologies. As of 25 February 2014: http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/usindia-agree-collaborate-new-defence-technologies/
NWO (The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research). 2014. ‘European nations
that consolidate their strengths jointly rank best in the world.’ NWO online
exchange between Robert-Jan Smits (director-general Research and
Innovation of the European Commission) and Jos Engelen (chair of NWO and
former deputy director of CERN). As of 28 February 2014:
http://www.nwo.nl/en/ourambitions/international+collaboration/european+nations+that+consolidate+t
heir+strengths+jointly+rank+best+in+the+world
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2006. China will
become world’s second highest investor in R&D by end of 2006. As of 21
April
2014:
http://www.oecd.org/general/chinawillbecomeworldssecondhighestinvestorinr
dbyendof2006findsoecd.htm
OECD. 2012. Meeting global challenges through better governance: international
cooperation in science, technology, and innovation, Paris: OECD.
OECD. 2009. OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: China. Paris: OECD.
OECD. 2011. Opportunities, Challenges and Good Practices in International Research
Cooperation between Developed and Developing Countries, Paris: OECD.
OECD. 2012. Meeting Global challenges through a better governance, Paris : OECD.
OECD. 2012b. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2012, Paris : OECD.
OECD. 2012c. Environmental Outlook to 2050, output from the IMAGE model, Paris:
OECD.
Oliver-Johnson, Lisa N., & J. James. 2013. ‘What are the challenges to inter-agency
collaboration.’
As
of
5
March
2014:
http://www.academia.edu/4530782/WHAT_ARE_THE_CHALLENGES_TO_INT
ERAGENCY_COLLABORATION
Parnell, J. 2012. ‘EU and China sign climate change deal’. Responding to climate
change, 20 September, 1.34 pm. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.rtcc.org/2012/09/20/eu-and-china-sign-climate-change-deal/
Patnaik, N. 2012. China overtaking India in science, spending on research and
development to be doubled. The Economic Times, Jan 4, 2012.
Planning Commission, Government of India. 2013. Twelfth five year plan (2012-2017).
Economic sectors: Volume 2. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Planning Commission, Government of India .2013. Twelfth five year plan (2012-2017).
Social Sectors: Volume 3. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
May 2014
47
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Planning Commission, Government of India. 2013. Twelfth five year plan (2012-2017).
Faster, more inclusive and sustainable growth. Volume 1. New Delhi: SAGE
Publications.
Program for International Research Collaborative webpage. 2007. As of 25 March
2014: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/soceuro/
Promoting African – European Research Infrastructure Partnerships (PAERIP). As of 25
March 2014: http://www.paerip.org/
Psaltis, C. 2007. ‘International Collaboration as Construction of Knowledge and its
Constraints.’ Integrative Psychological and Behavioural science 41:187–197.
As
of
28
February
2014:
http://www.academia.edu/187603/International_collaboration_as_constructi
on_of_knowledge_and_its_constraints
RCUK India. 2013. Enhancing collaboration between research and industry. As of 25
February
2014:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/f
ile/229663/Enhancing_Collaboration_between_Research_and_Industry.PDF
Research Councils UK. 2010. Food security research in India. As of 12 February 2014:
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/india/FoodReport.pdf
Ricci, M 2014. ‘Outcomes of the December Defence Council.’ Nouvelle Europe. As of 2
March 2014: http://www.nouvelle-europe.eu/en/outcomes-decemberdefence-council
Santopinto, P., Muniz, F., Dobrowolska-Polak, M. & Würzer. 2013. National Visions of
EU Defence Policy - Common Denominators and Misunderstandings. EU
Foreign Policy, CEPS Paperbacks.
Seth G., McHutchison, J.G.., Peterson, E., Cairns, C., Harrington, R., Califf R. &
Schulman, K. 2009. ‘Ethical and Scientific Implications of the Globalization of
Clinical Research.’ N Engl J Med 360:816-823. As of 5 March 2014:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb0803929
Schindler, H. R., Schmalbein, N., Steltenkamp, V., Cave, J., Wens, B., & Anhalt, A.
2012. SMART TRASH: Study on RFID tags and the recycling industry. Report
prepared for the European Commission. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation,
TR-1283.
Schmid, E., Brigitte Knopf, S., La Branche, M. (n/a). ‘Social Acceptance in Quantitative
Low Carbon Scenarios’. Presentation at International Conference: Connecting
Civil Society and Science, Stuttgart, Germany, Oct 20-21, 2011.
Schubert, A., & Braun. T. 1990. ‘International collaboration in the sciences, 19811985’. Scientometrics 19, 3-10.
Science Europe and Elsevier’s SciVal Analytics. 2013. Comparative Benchmarking of
European and US Research Collaboration and Researcher Mobility.
May 2014
48
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Simmonds, P. 2001. ‘Bilateral R&D cooperation policies of the EU member states.’
Report of the European Commission, Brighton: Technopolis.
Siva, N. 2010. ‘China to scale up collaborations in infectious disease research.’ Nature
Medicine
16(
938)
As
of
12
February
2014:
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v16/n9/full/nm0910-938b.html
Stijne, J.K. 1986. ‘A History of science policy in the United states, 1940-85.’ Science
policy study background report n. 1 prepared for the task force on science
policy, committee on science and technology’, US House of representatives,
99th Congress, 2nd session. US Government Printing office, 120 pp.
Washington, DC.
Strehlow, H. V. & Von Dorrien, C. 2006. ‘Strengths and Deficiencies of International,
European and Regional Collaboration and Coordination of MariFish Partner
Countries.’ Federal Research Centre for Fisheries. As of 28 February 2014:
http://www.cofasp.eu/marifish/publications/D3.3-Report-on-strengths-andweaknesses-of-collaboration.pdf
Strengthening Engagement in Public Health Research (STEPS). 2011. STEPS report:
public health research – Europe’s future. University College London. As of 28
February
2014:
http://www.steps-ph.eu/wpcontent/uploads/STEPS_Report.pdf
Styhre L. 2013. ‘Exploring university-industry collaboration in research centres.’
European Journal of Innovation Management. Vol. 16, Iss: 1, pp.70 – 91.
Technopolis. 2009. ‘Drivers of international collaboration in research: final report.’
Brussels@ European Commission. As of 27 February 2014:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/pdf/drivers_sti.pdf
or
http://www.technopolisgroup.com/resources/downloads/reports/drivers_sti.pdf
The Economic Times. 2013. ‘India, US to launch joint research collaboration on wheat.’
As of 25 February 2014: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/201304-09/news/38404765_1_punjab-agricultural-university-food-securitywheat-research
The Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China. 2014.
National funding opportunities. As of 27 February 2014:
http://www.most.gov.cn/eng/programmes1/200610/t20061009_36225.htm
Tomar, S. 2013. ‘National Cyber Security Policy 2013: An Assessment.’ Institute for
Defence Studies and Analyses. As of 25 February 2014:
http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/NationalCyberSecurityPolicy2013_stomar_
260813
TRB/ECTRI. 2009. EU/US Transport Research Collaboration: Challenges and
opportunities- A Report of the TRB/ECTRI Working Group on EU/US Transport
research collaboration.
May 2014
49
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2010. Report on options to facilitate
collaborative technology research and development. As of 2 March 2014:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/sbsta/eng/inf11.pdf
UNAIDS. 2010. UNAIDS 2011-2015 strategy: Getting to zero. As of 11 February 2014:
http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/unaidspu
blication/2010/JC2034_UNAIDS_Strategy_en.pdf
United Nations. 2014. The partnership between the UN and the EU: the United Nations
and the European Commission working together in development and
humanitarian
cooperation.
As
of
12
February:
http://www.unric.org/html/english/pdf/UN-EC%20Report.pdf
United Nations. 2006. The partnership between the UN and the EU: the United Nations
and the European Commission working together in development and
humanitarian
cooperation.
As
of
12
February
2014:
http://www.unric.org/html/english/pdf/UN-EC%20Report.pdf
United Nations. 2012. State of the Future. United Nations Millennium Project.
United Nations. 2014. Research institutes in the UN system. As of 12 February:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan022689.pd
f
United Nations. 2006. The partnership between the UN and the EU: the United Nations
and the European Commission working together in development and
humanitarian cooperation. Brussels: United Nations. As of 12 February 2014:
http://www.unric.org/html/english/pdf/UN-EC%20Report.pdf
United States of America Department of Education (USA DoE). 2011. Fiscal Year 2012
Budget
Summary.
As
of
25
February
2014:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget12/summary/edlitesection2a.html
United States of America Department of State (USA DoS). 2012. United States – China
science and technology cooperation: Biennial report to the United States
Congress. Office of Science and Technology Cooperation and Bureau of
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. As of 6
February: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/197119.pdf
US Government. 2011. Feed the future: global food security research strategy. Feed
the
Future.
As
of
5
March
2014:
http://www.feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/FTF_research
_strategy.pdf
Van der Heijden, J. 2013. ‘Towards truly resilient cities: stop being soft on old
buildings.’ Blog page. As of 2 March 2014: http://www.ecobusiness.com/opinion/towards-truly-resilient-cities-stop-being-soft-oldbuildings/
May 2014
50
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Wachter, S. 2013. ‘Innovation through collaboration.’ As of 2 March 2014:
http://knowledge.insead.edu/healthcare/innovation-through-collaboration3027
Wagner, C. 2008. The New Invisible college: Science for development. Washington:
Brookings Institution Press.
Wagner, C., Brahmakulam, I., Jackson, B., Wong, A., Yoda, T. 2001. Science and
Technology Collaboration: Building Capacity in Developing Countries?, Santa
Monica: RAND Corporation, As of 28 February 2014:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1
357.0.pdf
Warwick Institute for Employment Research. As of 25 March 2014: http://www
2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ier/aboutier/
Websites accessed
Adapting to Climate Change in China (ACCC). As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.ccadaptation.org.cn
Atis4all website. As of 25 March 2014: http://collaborativeportal.atis4all.eu/enGB/default.aspx
Australian Government Department for Industry. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.innovation.gov.au/science/internationalcollaboration/Pages/defau
lt.aspx
BILAT-USA 2.0. As of 25 March 2014: http://www.euussciencetechnology.eu/
China
Development
Gateway.
As
of
25
March
2014:
http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/Brief/193304.htm
China Key Technology R & D programme, MoST, China,
http://gr.chineseembassy.org/eng/kxjs/gjjh/t146175.htm
China National Basic Research Programme (973 Programme), MoST, China:
http://www.973.gov.cn/English/Index.aspx
China National High Tech Research and Development Programme (863 Programme)
website
MoST,
http://www.most.gov.cn/eng/programmes1/200610/t20061009_36225.htm
China
Spark
Programme,
Most,
China,
http://ie.chinaembassy.org/eng/ScienceTech/ScienceandTechnologyDevelopmentProgramm
es/t112842.htm
China sustainable energy program. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.efchina.org/FProgram.do?act=overview
China
Torch
Program,
Most,
http://www.chinatorch.gov.cn/
;
http://www.china.org.cn/english/environment/213624.htm;
http://en.ndrc.gov.cn/newsrelease/P020070604561191006823.pdf
May 2014
51
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Chinesisch-Deutschen Zentrum für Wissenschaftsförderung. 2014. As of 21 April
2014: http://www.sinogermanscience.org.cn/
Collaborating Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance. As of 25 March 2014:
http://fs-unep-centre.org/content/collaborating-centre-climate-sustainableenergy-finance
Directorate General for Research and Innovation (DG RTD) Climate Change. As of 25
March
2014:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index_en.cfm?pg=climate
DragonSTAR. As of 25 March 2014: http://www.dragon-star.eu/
European Climate Research Alliance. As of 25 March 2014: http://www.ecraclimate.eu/
European Collaborative and Open Regional Innovation Strategies (EURIS). As of 25
March 2014: http://www.euris-programme.eu/en/homepage
European Commission (EC) Societal Challenges. As of 25 March 2014:
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/Horizon 2020/en/h2020-section/societalchallenges
European Commission (2). SFIC European partnership for international cooperation.
As
of
22
April
2014:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/index.cfm?lg=en&pg=sfic-general
European Commission, Directorate General for Research and Innovation (DG RTD)
Climate Change website. 2011. As of 25 March 2014:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index_en.cfm?pg=climate
European Defence Agency (EDA). As of 25 March 2014:
https://www.eda.europa.eu/aboutus
European Network for Cyber Security. As of 25 March 2014:
hhttps://www.encs.eu/encs-and-cssc-sign-mou-to-strengthen-collaborationin-cyber-security-for-critical-infrastructures/
European security Trends and Threats In Society (ETTIS). As of 25 March 2014:
http://ettis-project.eu/?page_id=10
EU-Russia Collaborative Research Network. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.ric.vsu.ru/en/eu-russia_collaborative_research_network
Government of India Planning Commission website. As of 25 March 2014:
http://12thplan.gov.in/displayforum_list.php
Horizon 2020 page on Societal Challenges. As of 25 March 2014:
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/Horizon 2020/h2020-sections
IBrasil. As of 25 March 2014: http://www.ibrasilmundus.eu/general_information
Indo-European Research Facilities for Studies on Marine Ecosystem and Climate
(INDOMARECLIM). As of 25 March 2014: http://indomareclim-nerci.in/
May 2014
52
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Indo-French Centre for the Promotion of Advanced Research (IFCPAR) website. As of
13 May 2014: http://www.cefipra.org
International Agency for Research on Cancer website. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.iarc.fr/
ManuNet. As of 25 March 2014: http://www.manunet.net/links/transnational-radcollaboration-schemes-in-europe
Met Office Joint Weather and Climate Research Programme (JWCRP). As of 25 March
2014: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/collaboration/jwcrp
Millennium Project website. As of 25 March 2014: http://www.millenniumproject.org/millennium/overview.html
Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China. As of 25 March
2014:
http://www.most.gov.cn/eng/programmes1/200610/t20061009_36225.htm
National Academy of Engineering website on Grand challenges for Engineering (US
organisation).
As
of
25
March
2014:
http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/challenges.aspx
National Basic Research Program of China. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.973.gov.cn/English/Index.aspxScience
and
Technology
International Cooperation (Government of India, Department of Science and
Technology). As of 25 March 2014: http://www.stic-dst.org/bilateral.html
National Federation of Voluntary Bodies. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.fedvol.ie/Research_Collaborations/Default.229.html
National Knowledge Commission, India. As of 25 March 2014:
http://knowledgecommission.gov.in/
NATO Science for Peace and Security Programme. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_85373.htm?
Open China-ICT. As of 25 March 2014: http://openchina-ict.eu/
Program for International Research Collaborative webpage. As of 25 March 2014:
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/soceuro/
Promoting African – European Research Infrastructure Partnerships (PAERIP). As of 25
March 2014: http://www.paerip.org/
Southampton University Education department. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/education/research/collaborations.page?
Steve
Blank
website.
2013.
As
of
25
March
2014:
http://steveblank.com/2013/04/11/chinas-torch-program-the-glow-that-canlight-the-world-part-2-of-5/
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2009. MDGs systematic time-bound
evaluation of performance and systems (STEPS) indicators. As of 12 February
2014: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/mdg/mdgMay 2014
53
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
reports/mdgs-systematic-time-bound-evaluation-of-performance-andsystems.html
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) website section on
Development Policy and Analysis Division. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/index.sht
ml
United Nations 1540 Committee website. As of 25 March 2014:
https://www.un.org/en/sc/1540/
United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) section on peacebuilding and
post-conflict
recovery.
As
of
25
March
2014:
http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/about/peacebuilding.shtml
United Nations Environment Programme website. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.unep.org/About/
United Nations Millennium Development Goals website. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) website. As of 25
March 2014: http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=1
United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research website. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.unidir.org/
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) website
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime website. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/drug-prevention-and-treatment/index.html
United Nations Population Fund website (About section). As of 25 March 2014:
hhttp://www.unfpa.org/public/cache/offonce/home/about;jsessionid=A8E305
554AAA767647083F60D1185606.jahia02
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (About section). As of 25
March
2014:
http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BF3C2/(httpPages)/1889BA294D2950E
08025791F005CD710?OpenDocument
United Nations Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform website. As of 25 March
2014: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1070
United Nations University (UNU) website. As of 25 March 2014:
http://unu.edu/research
United States of America Department of State (USA DoS). 2012. United States – China
science and technology cooperation: Biennial report to the United States
Congress. Office of Science and Technology Cooperation and Bureau of
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. As of 6
February: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/197119.pdf
USAID
Grand
challenges.
As
of
25
March
2014:
http://www.usaid.gov/grandchallenges
May 2014
54
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
The International dimension of research and innovation cooperation
Warwick Institute for Employment Research. As of 25 March 2014: http://www
2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ier/aboutier/
White House Blog. 2013. ‘BRAIN Initiative Challenges Researchers to Unlock Mysteries
of
Human
Mind.’
As
of
24
February:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/04/02/brain-initiative-challengesresearchers-unlock-mysteries-human-mind
White House Office of the Press Secretary. 2013. ‘Joint Fact Sheet on Strengthening
U.S.-China
Economic
Relations.’
As
of
25
February:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/05/joint-fact-sheetstrengthening-us-china-economic-relations
White House Office of the Press Secretary. 2013. ‘U.S.-India Joint Statement.’ As of 12
February: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/27/us-indiajoint-statement
White House. 2014 ‘21st Century grand challenges’, URL:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/grand-challenges
World Food Programme (WFP) website (About section). As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.wfp.org/about/strategic-plan
Worldbank 8th Project, http://www.worldbank.org/projects/
World
Bank.
As
of
25
March
2014:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFI
CEXT/0,,contentMDK:23166237~pagePK:146736~piPK:226340~theSitePK:2
26301,00.htmll
World Health. 2014b. ‘Organization Collaborating Centres’. As of 25 March 2014:
http://www.who.int/collaboratingcentres/cc_historical/en/
May 2014
55