BioPolis - Inventory and analysis of national public
policies that stimulate research in biotechnology, its
exploitation and commercialisation by industry in
Europe in the period 2002–2005
National Report of Iceland
BioPolis has been funded under FP6, Priority 5: Food Quality and Safety
Contract No. 514174
Gigi Manicad
Christien Enzing
Innovation Policy Group
TNO Quality of Life
The Netherlands
March 2007
Table of contents
Summary............................................................................................................................ 3
1.
Introduction and background.................................................................................. 5
1.1
General introduction ........................................................................................... 5
1.2
Characteristics of the national S&T and innovation system.............................. 6
1.3
National support and framework conditions for biotechnology ........................ 8
1.4
The main biotech policy and research actors .................................................... 11
2.
Funding of biotechnology R&D, transfer and commercialisation ..................... 15
2.1
Introduction....................................................................................................... 15
2.2
Non-policy-directed funding of biotechnology research .................................. 16
2.3
Policy-directed instruments .............................................................................. 16
2.3.1
Instrument of the Icelandic government, provided through RANNÍS...... 17
2.3.2
Instrument of the Icelandic government through Ice Tec ......................... 18
2.3.3
Instrument of the Icelandic government through the Ministry of Fisheries
18
2.4.
Charities ............................................................................................................ 19
2.5
Participation in 6th Framework Programme...................................................... 19
3.
Performance of the national biotechnology innovation system .......................... 20
3.1
Introduction....................................................................................................... 20
3.2
Performance in creating a knowledge base and supporting the availability of
human resources............................................................................................................ 20
3.3
Performance in knowledge transmission and application................................. 23
3.4
Industrial development...................................................................................... 24
3.5
Market conditions ............................................................................................. 24
4.
Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 25
4.1
Introduction...................................................................................................... 25
4.7
Dynamics: comparison with 1994-1998 ........................................................... 29
5.
Future developments ............................................................................................. 31
Annex 1
Annex 2
Annex 3
Annex 4
Annex 5
Annex 6
List of tables................................................................................................. 32
List of figures and charts............................................................................ 33
List of contact persons ................................................................................ 34
References .................................................................................................... 35
Performance ................................................................................................ 38
Abbreviations .............................................................................................. 49
2
Summary
Iceland has a small and open economy and an extensive welfare system. It is one of the
countries with the highest standard of living. Iceland is not a member of the EU but is a
member state of the European Economic Area (EEA). Today the six fastest-growing
industries in Iceland are information and communication technologies (ICTs), health
technologies (including pharmaceuticals), biotechnologies, genetics, biomedical
engineering and IT-based equipment production for food processing. Iceland’s GDP
(2001 data) is 8 472M EUR.
In 2001, Iceland’s Gross Domestic Expenditures on Research and Development (GERD)
was 260 635M EUR or 3.06% of its GDP. The government’s share was 34%, while
industry’s share was 46.16% (Eurostat, 2005); the rest came from abroad. During the
period 1999-2001, the GERD had increased by 40%. The private sector contribution was
still below the EU average of 55% (mainly coming from one company, DeCode
Genetics), while public funding was the highest within the OECD.
For the last 20 years, Iceland has consistently attributed high importance to biotechnology
R&D. Since the mid-1980s, Iceland has invested in biotechnology, particularly in the area
of human genomics. Despite the lack of a specific biotechnological R&D programme, the
country has made a deliberate policy choice to support biotechnology.
Aside from the private sector, biotechnology research is also conducted by the public
sector: universities and public research institutes. In addition, a couple of private, nonprofit research organisations funded through charities also conduct biotechnology
research. In the past decades, the share of research and development conducted by
national research institutes has fallen from around 70% to 20%, but the research efforts of
universities have been increasing substantially. It should be noted that the public sector
contribution to biotechnology research in Iceland is only about 7%, while 1% comes from
charities. The private sector accounts for 92% of total funding for biotechnology in the
country.
In terms of performance in creating a knowledge base and supporting the availability of
human resources, in the period 1994-2004, Iceland first significantly increased and then
afterwards decreased its output of biotechnology publications per million capita. Iceland
has consistently produced a significantly higher average of biotechnology publications
than the EU25. Iceland has also overtaken the output level of the USA in the last years of
this period. With regard to biotech publications per biotechnology public R&D
expenditure, for the period of 2002-2004, Iceland has the impressive record of 474, and
performs much higher than the EU25 average. When considering the number of citations
per biotechnology publication, Iceland also shows a much higher performance than both
the USA and the EU25. Icelandic biotechnology publications can especially be found in
the field of human health, followed well behind by generic biotechnology. The biggest
growth rate is in animal biotechnology. With regard to graduates in life sciences, the
number of graduates significantly declined between the 1998-2000 and 2002-2004
periods. Nevertheless, Iceland’s performance has been significantly ahead of the EU25
average, and for the period 2002- 2004, Iceland overtook the USA.
3
With regard to performance in knowledge transmission and application, considered over
a 10-year period, Iceland’s output of biotech patent applications per biotech publications
has risen considerably. After the first period of 1994-1996, Iceland had significantly
overtaken the output averages of both the EU25 and USA. With regard to biotech patent
applications per million capita, Iceland’s output has experienced an even more dramatic
increase in the last 10 years. Iceland’s performance is significantly ahead of the EU25
and the US averages. No data is available relating to biotechnology start-ups.
Concerning public funding for biotechnology during the period 2002-2005, the available
data shows a sharp increase in 2003 followed by a sharp decrease in 2004. This coincided
with the implementation of new laws and corresponding reorganisation. The funding for
biotechnology significantly increased in 2005 but did not reach the 2003 level. The sharp
devaluation of the Icelandic krono in 2005 had a bearing on the budget. In terms of policy
goals, the adoption of biotechnology for industrial applications received the lion’s share
of budgetary allocations. As for application areas, health biotechnology received the
largest budget allocation, comprising approximately 37% of the funds. For the biotech
activities covered, research networks predominated with the largest budget allocation of
about 43% of the funds. This was consistent with Iceland’s emphasis on research
collaboration between the public and private sector.
Despite the drop in public research funding in 2004, the period 2002-2005 still showed an
increase in funding as compared with 1994-1996. Comparing both periods, the average
total funding increased from 0.67M ECU to 3.66M EUR. Basically, the policy areas
remained the same for both periods with the notable exception of the promotion of highlevel biotechnology research during the first period. This goal was no longer covered in
the second period. Alliances and cooperation received much policy attention for both
periods. The government continued to support biotechnology by encouraging linkages
and cooperation between the public and private sectors.
Regarding future developments, the newly established programme on Postgenomic
Biomedicine Nanoscience and Nanotechnology will run until 2009 with a total budget of
about 3M EUR. The Technology Development Fund will also continue. Aside from these
funding instruments, there are, as yet, no other indications that new policy-directed
instruments for biotechnology will be created in the near future.
4
1.
Introduction and background
1.1
General introduction
The Republic of Iceland is an island in the northern Atlantic Ocean between Greenland,
Norway, Ireland, Scotland and the Faroe Islands. The island is, geologically, extremely
active, having many volcanoes and geysers. Hence, there is widespread availability of
geothermal power. Additionally, the numerous rivers and waterfalls are harnessed for
hydroelectric power. This power plays an important role in the country’s manufacturing
sector. As for the country’s other major geographic features, approximately 10 per cent of
the island is covered in ice. Many fjords are located along its 4 970 km-long coastline,
where most towns are located. The island's interior, the highlands of Iceland, is an
uninhabitable arctic desert. Iceland has a land area of 103 000 km² (Wikipedia, 2006) but
is sparsely populated, with about 290 600 inhabitants (Eurostat, 2005).
Iceland has a small open economy and an extensive welfare system. It is one of the
countries with the highest standards of living. Iceland is not a member of the EU but is a
member of the European Economic Area (EEA). Iceland has a similar legislative
framework for business and industries to those prevailing in the EU (WTO, 2000). Its
Gross Value Added (GVA) (2001 data) is approximately 6 426M EUR. About three
quarters of Iceland’s merchandise exports are fish and fish products. This marine sector
accounts for 55% of its foreign currency earnings (Iceland Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
2006). Foreign currency earnings are very important since the country has always been
heavily dependent on exports for most of its necessities (WTO, 2000). Although the
marine sector is the most important single economic activity, the significance of this
sector has been steadily decreasing over the years due to a combination of declining fish
stocks and significant growth in the service sector (WTO, 2000). Taking advantage of
Iceland's low energy costs, power-intensive industries like aluminium and ferrosilicon
production account for Iceland’s second-largest export sector (22% of total merchandise
exports). Tourism and financial services are also growing sectors (EU, 2005).
Recent technological developments and corresponding government policy have resulted
in a continuous growth of knowledge-based industries and services. Today the six fastestgrowing industries in Iceland are: information and communication technologies (ICT),
health technologies (including pharmaceuticals), biotechnologies, genetics, biomedical
engineering, and IT-based equipment production for food processing. (Finnbjörnsson,
2003).
Between 1999 and 2001, Iceland’s Gross Domestic Expenditures on Research and
Development (GERD) increased by 40% (RANNÍS, 2005). Its 2001 the GERD was 260
635M EUR or 3.06% of GDP. It’s GDP (2001 data) was 8 472M EUR. The
government’s share of the GERD was 34%, while private industry’s share was 46.16%
(Eurostat, 2005); the rest came from abroad (RANNÍS 2005). The private sector
contribution was still below the EU average of 55% (mainly coming from one company:
DeCode Genetics); while public funding was the highest within the OECD (EU
5
TrendChart, 2005). About 93% of private sector research expenditure was directed
towards biotechnology (OECD, 2004).
The development of the biotechnology sector in Iceland has been stimulated by both
policy and biological factors. Decades ago, Iceland made an explicit policy choice to
become a strong nation in biotechnology-related research. Today, high activity in the area
of genomics and pharmacy medical start-ups in Iceland is due to these significant
governmental decisions of 20 years ago (EU TrendChart, 2005). In terms of biological
factors, Iceland’s geological composition provides the country with unique geothermal
biodiversity, which includes thermophilic organisms (such as bacteria and viruses), which
are of scientific and commercial interest for industry and medicine. Iceland also has
extremely rich fishing grounds, providing unique marine biodiversity. Another biological
factor is Iceland’s population-based genetics. Iceland’s population is relatively
homogenous, as it has remained in relative genetic isolation since the Norwegian and
Celtic ancestors settled the country in the 9th and 10th centuries. The bulk of the presentday population is recorded in a database that extends as far back as the settlement of the
country more that 1 100 years ago, and it includes genetic, medical and genealogical data
for approximately 80% of the population. Moreover, the combination of extensive
genealogical records, biobanks (tissue, DNA, plasma, cells and blood) and data registries
make Iceland an ideal place to conduct genome and population-wide linkage scans for
diseased-linked genes.
The first biotechnology firm was established in 1938. Lysi Ltd. uses marine lipids for the
production of vitamins A and D. The most important biotechnology firm in Iceland is
DeCode Genetics, which was founded in 1996. Also important is the Iceland Genomics
Corporation (UVS), which was established in 1998. Today there are many biotechnology
firms in Iceland. Many of them are small and engaged in research in the fields of: human
health (diagnostics, therapeutics, genomics and molecular modelling, biopharmaceuticals,
stem cell research); agriculture (plants, animals, biofertilisers, fish health and marine
derived products, molecular pharming in plants); and industry (bioprocessing, functional
foods, chemicals and cosmetics) (Iceland BIO, 2005 and Finnbjörnsson, in print).
1.2
Characteristics of the national S&T and innovation system
Government-funded research in support of economic development started in 1937 with
the establishment of the University Laboratories. In 1940, the National Research Council
(NRC) was established by the government as a policy body for research. NRC focused on
the study and exploitation of natural resources on land and in the and sea (Finnbjörnsson,
2003). In 1981, there was a major shift in research focus from natural resources towards
health and biotechnology (OECD, 2004). The role of business enterprise involvement in
R&D was also recognised. This was a key policy element also in the 1990s and continued
in the 2000s. The emphasis given to business sector involvement resulted in the rapid
growth of private sector involvement in R&D (EU TrendChart, 2000). In 1985, the
Technology Fund was established for applied research and technological development.
6
The NRC used the Technology Fund to establish technological priorities and applications
in specific fields, especially biotechnology (Finnbjörnsson, 2003).
It was only in 1999 that the Icelandic government actually directly initiated programmes
in research and development. The two programmes were concerned with information
technology and the environment. These programmes ended in 2004. Prior to this period,
research funding was allocated to institutions and through open response mode for
selected priority areas.
In January 2003, new legislation on the organisation of science and technology policy
and the funding of research and technological development in Iceland was enacted. This
new law saw the previous Icelandic Research Council replaced by other offices, including
a new Science and Technology Policy Council (STPC). STPC is headed by the Prime
Minister of Iceland. Its mission is to strengthen scientific research, scientific training and
technology development in support of Icelandic cultural development and increased
economic competitiveness. The Law on Public Support to Scientific Research established
the Research Fund through the fusion of the previous Science Fund and the Technology
Fund of the Icelandic Research Council. Finally, the Law on Public Support to
Technology Development and Innovation in the Economy established a new Technology
Development Fund. This law also provides for the establishment of an innovation centre,
which is to be linked to IceTec.
In 2004, the Prime Minister’s Office published the strategy paper ‘Science and
Technology Policy of Iceland’. The long-term goal is ‘to enhance the cultural and
economic strength of Iceland in a competitive international environment, to ensure that
Iceland’s economy and quality of life rank at the forefront of nations’ (STPC, 2004).
The political responsibility for the stimulation of innovation rests with the STPC. It
develops Iceland’s long-term innovation policy. This is expressed through the
formulation of the country’s science and technology policy documents.
Under the STPC, policy declarations are prepared by the Science Board and the
Technology Board. These boards are subcommittees within the STPC. With the
introduction of STPC, innovation policy has become an inter-ministerial issue since the
chief responsibility for assisting the STPC in preparing policy-oriented papers lies with
the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture and the Ministry of Industry and
Commerce, respectively.
Overall coordination is provided by a secretariat to the STPC, which is lodged within the
Ministry of Education and Science (STPC, 2004). Figure 1.1 provides an overview of the
main policy actors in Iceland.
7
Figure 1.1
Structure for STI policy in Iceland
Source: RANNÍS, 2006
At the operational level, the Icelandic Centre for Research (RANNÍS) is the main actor. It
functions as STPC’s operational arm. RANNÍS’s mission is to give administrative and
operational support to the boards and funding bodies, to manage international
cooperation, to monitor the effects and impacts of policies, and to provide informed
advice to the STPC and its boards and subcommittees.
1.3
National support and framework conditions for biotechnology
Some 20 years ago, Iceland made a deliberate policy choice to support biotechnology.
Since the mid-1980s, Iceland has invested in biotechnology, particularly in the area of
human genomics. At the time of the NRC, about a third of the Technology Fund was
reserved for biotechnology. This was also linked to the Science Fund, which supported
related biomedical and clinical research. Another fund, the Building and Equipment
Fund, was used to build up facilities in biotechnology (Finnbjörnsson, 2003). Hence, in
total about 40%-50% of the national research fund was allocated for biotechnology
research.
8
During the period 1990-2001, Iceland went through a period of economic stagnation.
This was reflected in a decrease in national funding for biotechnology. The Technology
Fund contribution went down as far as 5%-10% (OECD, 2004). During this period, the
emphasis on biotechnology research was maintained through substantial funding from the
Nordic Fund for Innovation, now called the Nordic Innovation Centre. Hence, the
importance of biotechnology research has been accorded not through specific
programmes but through funding allocations from national funds (Finnbjörnsson pers
com, 2006).
The history of public sector biotechnology policy cannot be divorced from private sector
influence. A major breakthrough came from the private sector with the establishment of
the two genome companies, DeCode Genetics (Íslensk erfðagreining in Icelandic) in
1996, and the Iceland Genomics Corporation (IGC or Urður, Verðandi, Skuld in
Icelandic) in 1998. Both firms based their business ideas on the genealogical transparency
of the Icelandic society. The establishment of these companies created a need in Iceland
for well-educated staff in the field of biotechnology. The government encouraged and
provided incentives for Icelanders working abroad to return to and work in Iceland.
It is only very recently that Iceland started to have a specific programme instrument for
biotechnology. In fact, it is also only very recently that Iceland started to work on an
R&D programme in general.
Regulation
With regard to biotechnology framework conditions, given the extensive population
databases and biobanks, a number of framework conditions regarding privacy and ethical
use are in place in Iceland (Iceland BIO, 2005):
- The Data Protection and Privacy Act (DPPA), no. 77/2000, aims to provide protection
of personal information in accordance with basic principles and rules of personal
privacy, guaranteeing the reliability and quality of such information, and its free
passage in the inner market of the EEA.
- The current Act on Patient’s Rights, no. 74/1997, established the jurisdiction of the
National Bioethics Committee.
- Regulation no. 284/1986 on Pharmacological Clinical Trials is concerned with the
rights of participants in such trials under correct experimental design.
- Act no. 110/2000 on Biobanks sets the framework for the operation of biobanks with
regard to both research and clinical samples.
- The objective of Act no. 139/1998 on a Health Sector Database is to authorise the
creation and operation of a centralised database of non-personally identifiable health
data, with the aim of increasing knowledge to improve health and health services.
Regarding framework conditions on biotechnology and genetically modified organisms
(GMOs), comprehensive legislation on the biotechnology industry has not yet been
passed. However there are a number of related, relevant legislations:
9
- A general Act on the Utilisation of Terrestrial Resources was passed in 1998 (57/1998)
but does not address the question of biotechnological utilisation specifically. Article 34
of the act incorporates the utilisation of thermophile micro-organisms into this
legislation.
- Animal rights in research are protected by Regulation no. 279/2002 on Animal
Experiments, which conforms to the EU regulatory framework.
- Act no. 18/1996 on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) deals with the protection
of Iceland’s nature, ecosystem, plants and the health of humans and animals from
harmful and undesirable effects of GMOs.
With regard to framework conditions involving stem cells, it should be noted that
embryonic stem cell research is allowed in Iceland, but therapeutic and reproductive
cloning are prohibited. The provisions relevant for embryonic stem cells research are:
- Act on Artificial Fertilisation, no. 55/1996, which addresses research on embryos.
- In Regulation no. 568/1997 on Artificial Fertilisation, it is further stipulated in Article
22 that it is prohibited to carry out research on embryos based on Act no. 55/1996,
Article 11, unless the research fulfils the criteria of a scientific study.
Public acceptance
With regard to public acceptance, the Eurobarometer survey showed that 86% of
Icelandic respondents believe that biotechnology and genetic engineering will have a
positive effect on their way of life over the next 20 years. Icelanders’ optimism stood out
among European countries. Icelandic respondents were even more positive (95%) about
medicines and new medical technologies. With regard to high-tech agriculture, 72% were
positive. Iceland again stood out for its very strong opposition to human cloning enabling
couples to have a baby in spite of a genetic disorder. However, with regard to cloning
human stem cells from embryos for organ transplant, the majority of Icelandic
respondents approved, but only if it is highly regulated and controlled. This could be
attributed to another part of the survey, in which 64% of the Icelandic respondents said
that science and technology decisions should be guided by ethics and morals
(Eurobarometer, 2005).
Table 1.1
Response expressed in percentages outlining the extent of Icelandic
approval on the application of new technologies
Topics for consideration
Never
27
Only in
exceptional
circumstances
27
Only if highly
regulated and
controlled
37
Animal cloning for research in
human diseases
Human cloning so couples can
have a baby despite genetic
disorder
Cloning human stem cells from
embryos for organ transplant
Growing meat from cell cultures
to avoid slaughter of animals
Developing GM crops to
increase variety of regionally
81
8
7
16
22
52
7
71
8
8
4
9
19
19
37
19
6
10
In all
circumstances
Dnk*
5
4
Topics for consideration
grown food
Developing GM bacteria for
cleaning up environmental
catastrophes
Never
Only in
exceptional
circumstances
Only if highly
regulated and
controlled
In all
circumstances
Dnk*
25
14
36
18
7
* DNK: do not know
Source: Eurobarometer, 2005.
Because comprehensive, population-wide data on genetic, medical and genealogical
information combined with genealogical records and biobanks already exist, it is not
surprising that only 8% of the population said that they will never approve the storage of
genetic data covering the whole population to study the genetic base of diseases.
However, Icelandic respondents had more reservations on using genetic data to catch
criminals, 43% indicating that they would never approve. This indicates that while 70%90% of the Icelandic population volunteered to give samples for gene research (Iceland
BIO, 2005), they have very strong reservations about how genetic data actually should be
used.
1.4
The main biotech policy and research actors
The policy actors described in Section 1.2 also deal with biotechnology. With regard to
biotechnology research, aside from the private sector, biotechnology research is also
conducted by the public sector: in three universities and in six public research institutes.
In addition, two private, non-profit research organisations funded through charities,
which also receive government donations, also conduct biotechnology research. In past
decades, the share of research and development conducted by public research institutes
had fallen from around 70% to 20%, but the research efforts of universities have been
increasing substantially (Iceland, BIO 2005).
Universities
The University of Iceland is by far the largest teaching and research institution in Iceland.
It hosts 40 research institutes and a number of academic departments. The University of
Iceland is active in research and cooperates with both public and private sectors. The
institutes and departments engaged in biotechnology research include the following
(University of Iceland, 2006):
- The Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (Faculty of Medicine) is
mostly focused on molecular genetics and nutritional biochemistry. Research topics
include: genetics of specific diseases, method development, gene therapy,
developmental biology and experimental and human nutrition.
- The Department of Biochemistry of the Science Institute (Faculty of Science) covers:
the purification, properties and applications of proteins, and enzymes in particular; the
molecular basis of cold adaptation in proteins; gene technology and its application in
industry; metabolic studies in connection with heart disease; and studies on
pharmacologically-active substances from Icelandic plants.
11
- The Institute of Biology (Faculty of Science) conducts research on the innate immunity
of anti-bacterial and anti-fungal peptides for pharmaceutical uses.
- The Department of Pharmacy/Pharmaceutical Laboratory (Faculty of Medicine) has
research interests in drug delivery, natural product chemistry and medicinal chemistry.
The main research areas have been micro-encapsulation of drug products, peptide
delivery, topical delivery of ophthalmic drugs, pharmaceutical application of
cyclodextrins, isolation of biologically active compounds from Icelandic plants and
marine products, synthesis of pharmacologically active 1,3,4-oxadiazole compounds,
and solubility and stabilisation of drugs in aqueous solutions.
- The Department of Microbiology (Faculty of Medicine) is a research, service and
teaching institution operating under the direction of the National Hospital. The
department conducts scientific research in clinical bacteriology, parasitology and
mycology.
Since 1986, a research laboratory for molecular genetics has been operating within the
National Blood Bank that carries out various kinds of research on genetic codes and
genetic diseases. A new field is transplantation research, mainly within the field of stem
cell transplantation. It has been conducting research on human umbilical cord blood stem
cells and bone marrow. In cooperation with the University Hospital’s Faculty of
Haematology, stem cells have been used clinically to treat malignant haematological
disorders.
The Faculty of Natural Resource Sciences of the University of Akureyri conducts
research in the fields of aquaculture, biotechnology, fisheries science and environmental
studies for the purpose of disseminating new and practical knowledge in the community.
The faculty places special emphasis on cooperation with related enterprises and research
institutes (University of Akureyri, 2006).
The Hólar Agricultural College conducts research on the development of sustainable
aquaculture of Arctic charr. This research includes: the development of micro-satellite
probes as tools to combat the pressing problem of genetic mixing of cultured and wild
stocks; finding molecular markers for economically important traits to improve the
efficiency of breeding programmes for this species; and identifying and quantifying
biological variability in economically important traits and their genetic and
environmental origins (Hólar Agricultural College, 2006)
Research institutes
IceTec, the Technological Institute of Iceland, is a research and technological institution.
Its primary function is to transfer technology and expertise to business and industry, and
to assist companies in innovation, productivity and research and development. IceTec is
an independent institute, operating under the Ministry of Industry. In recent years,
IceTec’s non-grant income has increased considerably. Today 75% of overall revenues
are privately derived. IceTec conducts applied research in biotechnology, materials and
production technology, food technology and environmental issues (IceTec, 2006).
12
The Marine Research Institute (MRI) is a governmental institute responsible to the
Ministry of Fisheries and is financed through the national budget. The goal of MRI is to
conduct research on the marine environment and its living resources around Iceland. This
includes fish genetics (MRI, 2006).
The Icelandic Fisheries Laboratories (IFL) is an independent research institute under the
Ministry of Fisheries. The mission of the institute is to increase the value, quality and
safety of marine catches through research, development, dissemination of knowledge and
advice. IFL’s research emphasis is on biotechnology, new processing technology,
aquaculture, the processing and improved quality of chilled seafood products and the
safety and wholeness of marine seafood (IFL, 2003).
The Institute of Freshwater Fisheries Research (IFF) conducts research on rivers and
lakes and their biota. There are also research activities in the field of aquaculture and
salmon ranching (IFF, 2006).
The Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) is an independent institution that is responsible
to the Ministry of Agriculture. It conducts biotechnology research related to plant
pathology and breeding (grasses, potatoes, birch trees) (ARI, 2006). ARI has now been
transformed into the Agricultural University of Iceland.
The Icelandic Forest Research Station is the research branch of the Iceland Forest Service
operating under regulations set by the Ministry of Agriculture. Its main research fields are
in silviculture, land reclamation, forest genetics (including genecology and tree breeding),
ecological genetics, forest site research, forest ecology, carbon sequestration and
entomology (Icelandic Forest Research Station, 2006).
Private-non profit organisations
The Molecular and Cell Biology Research Laboratory of the Icelandic Cancer Society
keeps a bank of biological specimens and conducts basic cancer research. The main
emphasis is on breast cancer, including studies on alterations in oncogenes and tumour
suppressor genes, particularly p53. Genetic studies conducted on families with a high
incidence of breast cancer contributed to the identification of the breast cancer
susceptibility gene BRCA2. Smaller research projects deal with haematological
malignancies, stomach cancer and prostate cancer. The laboratory is also engaged in stem
cell research using three-dimensional cell culture assay, the aim being to identify the
cellular and molecular pathways that can modulate breast morphogenesis (Icelandic
Cancer Society, 2006).
The Heart Preventive Clinic and Research Institute of the Icelandic Heart Association
(IHA) is an independent institution operated by the IHA. The institute’s activities are
supported financially by contributions from the national treasury. The institute conducts
research on cardiovascular genetics, for example (IHA, 2006).
13
Another biotechnology actor is the Biotechnology Fund, an investment company (venture
capital/private equity) that primarily supplies seed money and early-stage investment
within the fields of biotechnology, medicine and pharmaceutics (EU TrendChart, 2005).
14
2.
Funding of biotechnology R&D, transfer and commercialisation
2.1
Introduction
This chapter reviews the funding of biotechnology research and commercialisation. In the
report, we make a distinction between policy-directed funding and non-policy-directed
funding of biotechnology.
Policy-directed funding includes funding directed by explicit policy decisions about
specific instruments, such as R&D programmes encouraging collaboration, industrial
research grants, support for centres of excellence, support for commercialisation of
research, support for start-ups, programmes encouraging mobility of researchers,
programmes with open calls, etc. This policy-directed funding can include
biotechnology-specific policy instruments and generic policy instruments.
Biotechnology-specific policy instruments are instruments that have been specifically set
up to stimulate biotechnology. Generic policy instruments are instruments that are not
dedicated to a specific technology, but which in principle stimulate all technologies,
including biotechnology. The BioPolis project only considers those generic instruments
that make a reference to (the stimulation of) biotechnology activities in the policy of the
funding organisation running the programme or that of the ministry/government
department itself.
Non-policy-directed funding of research is linked to structural government support for
scientific education, research and research infrastructure. This type of funding is mainly
given through block grants to universities and (government) research institutes and the
open-call system of research councils. Research councils, research institutes and
government research institutes develop their own programmes through which
biotechnology may be supported. The BioPolis project only considers funds given
through block grants to (government) research institutes and the open-call system of
research councils.
In this chapter, funding of biotechnology research through policy- and non-policydirected instruments, and of biotechnology commercialisation through policy-directed
instruments, are presented. Data were collected through desk research (publications,
documents, websites of national and regional public funding organisations and/or
governmental departments), a survey conducted by representatives of funding
organisations that manage the generic and biotech-specific programmes, and interviews
with representatives of organisations that are involved in non-policy-directed and policydirected funding. Websites of the funding organisations and their programmes and the
names of contact persons that participated in the survey and/or who were interviewed can
be found in Annex 3 (List of contact persons) and Annex 4 (References). Section 2.2
presents the non-policy-directed funding and Section 2.3 the policy-directed funding.
Charities also play an important role in the funding of biotechnology research in some
countries; they are addressed in section 2.4. The final section provides a short overview
of European funding of biotechnology research in Iceland through the 6th Framework
Programme.
15
2.2
Non-policy-directed funding of biotechnology research
In addition to policy-directed instruments, biotechnology research is also funded through
direct budget allocations to universities and research institutes, and increasingly through
open grant competitions. However, according to a representative from RANNÍS, there is
no data available on the budget for non-policy-directed funding for biotechnology. The
current accounting systems of the research institutes in Iceland do not differentiate funds
according to specific research fields such as biotechnology.
2.3
Policy-directed instruments
This section provides an overview of available national policy-directed instruments
supporting biotechnology research, transfer and commercialisation.
Table 2.1 provides an overview of the generic and biotech-specific instruments in Iceland
that provided funding for biotechnology research in the period 2002-2005. The figures
are presented in more detail in the rest of this section.
Table 2.1
National public policy-directed biotechnology-stimulating
instruments in the period 2002-2005 (M EUR)
Instrument
Generic
(Defunct)
Science
Fund and Technical
Fund
Research Fund
Technology
Development Fund
AVS Plan
Biotech-specific
Postgenomic
Biomedicine
Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology
Programme
Biotechnology House
TOTAL
Source: BioPolis Research
Funding organisation
Budget
% of
total
Use of
DF/SF
RANNÍS
9.3
63.4
None
RANNÍS
1.1
7.5
None
RANNÍS
1.22
8.3
None
Ministry for Fisheries
0.56
3.8
None
RANNÍS
1.28
8.7
None
IceTec
1.2
14.66
8.2
100%
None
16
2.3.1 Instrument of the Icelandic government, provided through RANNÍS
The Postgenomic Biomedicine Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Programme
The programme is based on assessments provided by STPC’s working committees
regarding proposals from the scientific and business communities. The new programme
was prepared jointly by the council’s Science Committee and Technology Committee. It
is implemented as a single research programme and is active in two categories: genomics
and nanotechnology. The focus of the first category is on postgenomic biomedicine, a
field in which Iceland assessed itself to have proportionately substantial knowledge,
thereby making it possible to achieve significant success through a concerted effort of the
public and private sectors. The purpose of the research programme is to promote
interdisciplinary collaboration in Iceland, as well as increase the country’s strength in
biology and medicine on an international level. An effort will be made to maximise the
utilisation of existing technologies and equipment. It is also intended to strengthen
research and research teams in the main areas of molecular and cell biology, which have
already achieved international recognition. Emphasis will be placed on basic research and
applied research, and on close collaboration between businesses, research institutes and
universities for the development of the Icelandic economy. At the end of the research
programme, the strength of the Icelandic scientific and technological community in
biosciences is expected to be recognised as being at the forefront worldwide and to have
established leadership in niche areas. The areas of research are (STPC 2005):
- Stem cells and developmental biology;
- Immune responses, immune regulation, inflammation;
- Cancer and regulation of cell growth;
- Vascular biology in health and diseases;
- Neurobiology, degenerative diseases and ageing.
The total budget of the Postgenomic Biomedicine Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
Programme till 2009 is about 3 M EUR.
The Technology Development Fund
The Technology Development Fund was created in 2003 through legislation on the
organisation of science and technology policy and the funding of research and
technological development in Iceland. The fund reflects part of STPC’s objective to
increase available funds for competitive grants.
The fund operates under the auspices of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce and is
administered by RANNÍS. The fund’s objective is to strengthen research and
development in the field of technological development aimed at innovation in the
Icelandic economy. It gives support to spin-off ventures and innovative firms to secure
economic benefits for the nation and to improve its competitive capacities (RANNÍS,
2006). The fund has a rather unique character: it can take initiatives to establish
programmes and specific actions in consultation with the business community, research
institutes and universities in areas likely to have economic returns and a decisive impact
on economic sector development or on groups of companies. Moreover, the fund is also
permitted to enter into partnerships with venture capital investors for seed and early risk
17
financing towards the establishment of firms, which base their operations on
technological R&D and involve novelty in the economy. By 2005, 10.7% had been
allocated by the fund for biotechnology research.
The Research Fund
The Research Fund is the most important public sector tool for reinforcing the research
community infrastructure through project grants based on applications from business and
public institutions. This fund replaces the previous Science and Technical Funds, thereby
ending the previous demarcation in funding criteria between basic and applied research.
STPC gives increasing priority to larger projects and encourages the formation of
knowledge clusters and larger research teams. The 2005 annual budget of the Research
Fund amounted to 5.91M EUR (RANNÍS, 2005).
2.3.2 Instrument of the Icelandic government through Ice Tec
The Biotechnology House was built by research institutes and the University of Iceland to
foster applied R&D in biotechnology. The Biotechnology House is a publicly-funded
science park that works towards high-level industry-oriented research; the transmission of
knowledge from academia to industry and its application for industrial resources; and the
adoption of biotechnology for new industrial applications. It is focused on plants, the
environment and industrial biotechnology research. It has resulted in the creation of
several well-known biotechnology firms in Iceland. The Biotechnology House is hosted
by the IceTec’s biotechnology department. IceTec’s goal is to strengthen the Icelandic
economy through R&D, counselling, entrepreneurship, etc.
2.3.3 Instrument of the Icelandic government through the Ministry of Fisheries
The Added Value of Seafood (AVS) Plan is a new research fund that was created under
STPC’s 2004 resolution. The AVS Plan was established by the Icelandic Ministry of
Fisheries. As fishery and fish processing have traditionally been a strong economic sector
in Iceland, the AVS Plan intends to respond to worldwide competitiveness by
strengthening research and product development to support an increase in the value of
Icelandic marine products. The fund supports innovative projects in the fields of new
technology, development of new products, improved quality, food safety, increased
productivity and environmental friendliness, and self-sustaining production. The AVS
Plan has a subdivision on biotechnology. The Plan was prepared in consultation with
experts from fisheries and fish processing industries. In addition, the fund is intended to
provide an appropriate infrastructure for new technology-based firms to facilitate their
survival and growth; upgrade innovation-related skills and diffuse new technologies in
enterprises; and increase the rate of commercialisation/marketing of the results of
innovation activity in enterprises.
18
2.4.
Charities
As mentioned in section 1.4, charities are also actively engaged in the funding of
biotechnology research in Iceland. In particular, the Icelandic Cancer Society funds
research in the Molecular and Cell Biology Research Laboratory. In addition, the
Icelandic Cancer Society also provides small research grants for which other research
organisations in Iceland may also apply.
Table 2.2
Overview of biotechnology-stimulating instruments used by charities in
2002-2005 (in M EUR)
Instrument
Funding for Molecular and
Cell Biology Research
Laboratory
Small research funds
n.a.: data not available
Source: BioPolis Research
2.5
Charity
Duration
Budget
Icelandic Cancer Society
Starting
date
n.a.
n.a.
1.79
Icelandic Cancer Society
n.a.
n.a.
0.05
Participation in 6th Framework Programme
Table 2.4 shows Iceland’s involvement in the Sixth Framework Programme, which
addresses biotechnology/life sciences research. Iceland has been particularly active in life
sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health. It coordinates six programmes. Iceland
has also participated in food quality and safety activities. However, there has so far been
no participation in the bio-nanotechnology area.
Table 2.3
Involvement of Iceland in biotechnology/life sciences programmes
of the 6th Framework Programme
Sixth Framework Programme1
Participations as
coordinator
Participations as
member of the project
2
team
13 (0.15%%)
Thematic priority
1. Life sciences, genomics and
6 (0.79%)
biotechnology for health
2. Nanotechnologies, section bio0
0
nanotechnology
5. Food quality and safety
0
6 (0.38%)
1
First and second call, all types of projects.
2
Persons/groups can participate in more than one project, which has resulted in greater participation.
Source: BioPolis Research
19
3.
Performance of the national biotechnology innovation system
3.1
Introduction
This chapter analyses the performance of Iceland’s biotechnology innovation system for
two or three time periods (depending on data availability), as shown by a range of
indicators for scientific and commercialisation performance. Each time period includes
several years, to avoid capturing erratic trends. National trends are benchmarked against
the performance of the EU25 member states and the USA. For each policy area, a
comparison is made between Iceland’s performance and that of the EU25 and USA. For
each area, data of a number of different indicators for Iceland, USA and EU25 are also
shown. The values of EU25 have been chosen as a reference in each indicator. The
absolute figures used to calculate the values for the indicators presented and the sources
for the data can be found in Annex 5. In principle, for each indicator, data are presented
for three periods. The periods chosen can vary considerably between the indicators; Table
A.5.1 presents for each indicator the specific years for each period.
3.2
Performance in creating a knowledge base and supporting the availability of
human resources
Over a ten-year period, Iceland first significantly increased and then decreased its output
of biotechnology publications per million capita (from index 199 in 1994-1996 to index
263 in 1998-2000 to index 214 in 2002-2004 – see Chart 3.1). In the same time frame, the
number of USA publications dropped from index 208 in 1994-1996 to index 166 in 20022004. Consequently, Iceland overtook the output level of the USA in periods 2 and 3.
Iceland has consistently maintained a considerably higher output of biotechnology
publications than the EU25, by at least 100%.
Although the number of biotechnology publications actually increased, its share in
relation to the total number of publications diminished from index 138 in 1994-1996 to
index 110 in 2002-2004. It was still higher than the EU25 average, though not as high as
USA figures. With regard to biotech publications per biotechnology public R&D
expenditure, for the period 2002-2004, Iceland had an impressive record of 474, and
performed much higher than the EU25. When considering the number of citations per
biotechnology publication, Iceland also showed a much higher performance than both the
USA and EU251. On the other hand, the citation output slightly decreased over the tenyear period.
1
Small countries show a relatively large citation rate. A possible explanation might be that, in terms of
number of publications, usually large countries have a larger "middle quality" share of research results (in
terms of impacts), leading to a "dilution" of papers with outstanding impact from these countries in a large
number of medium-impact publications, while smaller countries have usually "low in the number, but good
in quality" publications. This could be explained by a certain concentration of resources in small countries
towards selected research groups. In other words, small countries may concentrate their resources in
outstanding research units, which would lead to the effect that a lower number of publications may have
greater impact. It should be noted, that we did not explore this "small-country" bias in detail during the
BioPolis project. Additional research would be required to confirm this explanation.
20
In terms of graduates in life sciences, the number significantly declined from index 281 in
1998-2000 to index 139 in 2002-2004. Nevertheless, Iceland’s performance exceeded
that of the EU25, and in the period 2002-2004, it surpassed the USA. This was due to a
decline in the number of US PhD graduates from index 321 in 1998-2000 to index 131 in
2002-2004.
Chart 3.1
Iceland biotechnology knowledge base indicators: comparison with EU25
and USA figures in three periods (index values)
100 = EU25
0
100
200
300
400
500
Period 3
Period 2
Period 1
Biotech Publ pMC
USA
BT Publ / MEcu pub. BT
R&D
BT Publ/ Total Publ
Citation per BT Publ
Graduates in Life
Sciences pMC
Source: BioPolis Research
Data: Science Citation Index
Icelandic biotechnology publications are mainly concentrated in the field of human health
followed, far behind, by generic biotechnology. A comparison of the figures for 19941996 and 2002-2004 shows that this picture has not really changed. When both periods
are compared, the share of human health biotechnology has slightly decreased from 60%
to 57%, although for the same period the index figures increased from 70 to 112. The
share of generic biotechnology decreased from 29% to 20%, although the index figures
showed a slight increase during the same period.
With regard to the division of biotechnology publications over various research fields,
Charts 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 show the various shares for Iceland, the USA and EU25 in the
periods 1994-1996 and 2002-2004.
21
Chart 3.2.1 Share of subfields, as a percentage of total biotechnology publications, for
Iceland: comparison with EU25 and USA figures (1994-1996)
70%
Iceland
EU25
USA
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Plant BT
Health BT
Animal BT
Food BT
Industrial BT
Environmental
BT
Generic BT
Source: BioPolis Research
Data: Science Citation Index
Chart 3.2.2
Share of subfields, as a percentage of total biotechnology publications, for
Iceland: comparison with EU25 figures (2002-2004)
70%
Iceland
EU25
USA
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Plant BT
Health BT
Animal BT
Food BT
Source: BioPolis Research
Data: Science Citation Index
22
Industrial BT
Environmental
BT
Generic BT
With regard to the number of biotechnology publications in various biotechnology
subfields, publications in animal biotechnology have grown substantially, far more than
in the USA and EU25 (Graph 3.3). The number of animal biotechnology publications
increased by 241% between 1994-1996 and 2002-2004. Food biotechnology (+133%)
and industrial biotechnology (+100%) also show an increase, while plant biotechnology
(75%) and health biotechnology (60%) grew considerably.
Icelandic growth in these subfields was higher than EU25 and USA growth figures –
none more so than in the field of animal biotechnology. However, there was only a 15%
increase for Iceland’s generic biotechnology and zero growth in environmental
biotechnology. In the latter, the USA and EU25 are both significantly ahead of Iceland.
Chart 3.3
Growth rates of biotechnology subfield publications in Iceland:
comparison with EU25 and USA figures (1994-1996 and 2002-2004)
300%
Iceland
EU25
USA
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
Plant BT
Health BT
Animal BT
Food BT
Industrial BT
Environmental BT
Generic BT
Source: BioPolis Research
Data: Science Citation Index
3.3
Performance in knowledge transmission and application
Over the ten-year period covered, Iceland’s output of biotech patent applications per
biotech publications rose dramatically (from index 34 in 1994-1996 to index 297 in 20022004). Chart 3.4 also shows that after the first period (1994-1996), Iceland had
significantly overtaken the outputs of both the EU and USA. With regard to biotech
patent applications per million capita, Iceland’s output had an even more dramatic
increase (from index 68 in 1994-1996 to index 701 in 2002-2004). Iceland’s performance
was substantially ahead of that of the EU and USA (Index 295 and Index 190 for the
23
corresponding periods). In terms of biotechnology start-ups, there was no available data
for Iceland.
Chart 3.4
Performance indicators for Iceland’s biotechnology knowledge
transmission and applications (1994-1996, 1998-2000 and 2002-2004)
100 = EU25
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Period 3
Period 2
Period 1
BT Patent/BT Publ
USA
BT Patents pMC
BT Start-ups pMC
Source: BioPolis Research
Data: Science Citation Index
3.4
Industrial development
In the BioPolis project, the indicators used for performance in industrial development are:
Number of biotechnology companies pMC; Number of Biotech IPOs pMC; and Venture
Capital in EUR pC.
Iceland has no biotechnology IPOs pMC, and there are no data available on the number
of biotechnology companies pMC and Venture Capital in EUR pC in Iceland.
3.5
Market conditions
In the BioPolis project, two indicators are used for performance in market conditions:
Approved Biomedicines (1995-2002) and Field Trials (1996-2002).
For the period covered, there are no approved biomedicines in Iceland. Similarly, field
trials are absent in the country.
24
4.
Conclusions
4.1
Introduction
In this chapter, conclusions are drawn about the availability and characteristics of the
generic and biotechnology-specific instruments through which the Icelandic government
has funded biotechnology research, technology transfer and commercialisation. A
comparison will also be made with the period 1994-1998.
4.2
Public funding of biotechnology through policy instruments
Table 4.1 presents the generic and biotechnology-specific policy-directed instruments for
Iceland. Based on available data, public funding for biotechnology research shows a
sharp increase in 2003 followed by a sharp decrease in 2004. This coincided with the
implementation of the new laws and corresponding reorganisation described in section
1.2. Funding for biotechnology significantly increased in 2005 but did not reach the 2003
level. The sharp devaluation of the Icelandic krono in 2005 had a significant bearing on
the budget.
With regard to commercialisation activities, there is no data available for the
Biotechnology House. It should be noted that the public sector’s contribution to
biotechnology research in Iceland is only about 7%, while 1% comes from charities.
According to Finnbjörnsson, the private sector accounts for 92% of total funding for
biotechnology in the country (Finnbjörnsson, in print).
Table 4.1
Public funding of biotechnology, by non-directed,
specific instruments, in the period 2002-2005 (in M EUR)
RESEARCH
1. Non-policy-directed
2a. Policy-directed, Generic
2
(Defunct) Science Fund and Technical Fund
Research Fund
Technology Development Fund
AVS Plan
Total
2b. Policy-directed, Biotech-specific
Postgenomic Biomedicine Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology programme
Biotechnology House
Total
COMMERCIALISATION
2
generic
and
2002
2003
2004
2005
Total
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
3.5
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
3.5
5.8
n.a.
n.a.
0.09
5.89
n.a.
0.4
0.48
0.20
1.08
n.a.
0.7
0.74
0.27
1.71
9.3
1.1
1.22
0.56
12.18
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
1.28
1.28
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.58
1.2
2.48
The Science Fund and Technical Fund were abolished in 2004. Budget expenditures for biotechnology in
2002 and 2003 were based on a survey conducted by RANNIS (Finnbjörnsson in print).
25
2002
2003
2004
2005
Total
n.a.
3.8
n.a.
6.19
n.a.
1.38
n.a.
3.29
n.a.
14.66
1a. Policy-directed, Generic
Biotechnology House
GRAND TOTALS
n.a.: not available
Source: BioPolis Research
4.3
Specific features of the instruments3
Table 4.2 provides information about the recipients of grants, and the proportion of grants
provided by public authorities. The recipients of the grants are public research
organisations (PROs), small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and large firms (LF)
– except for the Biotechnology House, which does not cover LFs.
Table 4.2
Instrument features
Instrument
Generic
Technology
Development Fund
AVS Plan
Biotech-specific
Postgenomic
Biomedicine
Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology
programme
Biotechnology
House
Source: BioPolis Research
4.4
Funding agency
Participants/Recipients
Financial
contribution
required (%)
ReciPublic
pients
authorities
PROs
SMEs
LFs
RANNÍS
√
√
√
√
Ministry for
Fisheries
√
√
√
√
RANNÍS
√
√
√
√
IceTec
√
√
√
Policy goals4
The policy goals covered by the four instruments are presented in Table 4.3. Available
data shows that the adoption of biotechnology for industrial applications received the
largest budget allocations. High level industry-oriented (and applied) research received
3
This section does not include the Research Fund and former Science Fund and Technology Fund.
This section does not include the budgets of the Research Fund and former Science Fund and Technology
Fund.
4
26
the second largest budget allocation. Both of these goals are highly consistent with the
national goals, as described in Chapter 1.
Table 4.3
Coverage of policy goals and funding, by national policy-directed
instruments, in the period 2002-2005 (M EUR)
1
Generic
Technology Development
Fund
AVS Plan
Total
Biotech-specific
Postgenomic Biomedicine
Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology
programme
Biotechnology House
Total
Grand Total
% of Grand Total
n.a.: not available
2
3
Policy goals
5
0.51
n.a.
n.a.
0.51
0.26
0.26
0.26
6.91
0.51
0.30
0.30
0.81
21.54
0.26
6
9
0.38
n.a.
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.26
0.30
0.60
0.51
0.56
0.60
0.26
0.51
0.56
0.98
0.64
13.56
14.89
26.06
17.02
5 = Transmission of knowledge from academia
to industry and its application to industrial
resources
6 = Adoption of biotechnology for new industrial
applications
7 = Firm creation
8 = Social acceptance of biotechnology
9 = Business investment in R&D
10= Bio-safety, risk assessment
1 = High level of biotechnology research
2 = High level of industry-oriented (and applied)
research
3 = Knowledge flow and collaboration among
scientific disciplines
4 = Availability of human resources
Source: BioPolis Research
4.5
Biotech research application areas5
The application areas that are covered by the four instruments are presented in Table 4.4.
Available data shows that health biotechnology stands out, with the biggest allocation of
funds (about 37%). This is highly consistent with Iceland’s performance, as described in
Chapter 3.
5
Ibid.
27
Table 4.4
Coverage of biotech research application areas and funding, by policydirected instruments, in the period 2002-2005 (M EUR)
Biotech application areas
1
Generic
Technology
0.13
Development Fund
AVS Plan
n.a.
Total
0.13
Biotech-specific
Postgenomic
Biomedicine
Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology
programme
Biotechnology House
0.18
Total
0.18
Grand Total
0.31
% of Grand Total
9.45
n.a.: not available
1 = Plant biotechnology
2 = Animal biotechnology
3 = Environmental biotechnology
4 = Health biotechnology
2
3
4
5
6
9
0.06
0.13
0.19
0.06
0.32
0.38
n.a.
0.06
n.a.
0.13
n.a.
0.19
n.a.
0.06
n.a.
0.32
0.38
1.02
0
0.06
1.83
0.3
0.3
0.16
4.88
1.02
1.21
36.89
0.26
0
0.06
1.83
0.52
0.52
0.84
25.61
0.26
0.64
19.51
5 = Food biotechnology
6 = Industrial biotechnology
7 = Basic biotechnology
8 = Ethical, legal, social aspects of biotechnology
9 = General (including capacity building, support for
patenting, etc.)
Source: BioPolis Research
4.6
Stimulation of biotech activities through the instruments
Biotech activities covered by the four instruments are presented in Table 4.5. Available
data shows that research networks stand out, with the largest allocation of funds (about
43%). This is highly consistent with Iceland’s emphasis on research collaboration
between the public and private sectors.
Table 4.5
Coverage and funding of biotech activities, by policy-directed instruments,
in the period 2002-2005 (M EUR)
1
Biotech activities
8
12
2
4
0.26
0.41
0
n.a.
0.26
0.41
n.a.
0
0.26
0.26
0.51
0.26
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
16
17
Generic
Technology Development
Fund
AVS Plan
Total
Biotech-specific
Postgenomic Biomedicine
Nanoscience and Nanotechnology programme
Biotechnology House
28
0.10
0.10
0.10
n.a.
0
n.a.
0.10
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
1
0.26
0.26
12.04
Biotech activities
4
8
12
0.51
0.26
0
0.92
0.26
0.10
42.59
12.04
4.63
16
17
Total
0
0
Grand Total
0
0.10
% of Grand Total
0
4.63
n.a.: not available
1 Basic research
11 Science and technology park
2 Applied research
12 Protection of IPR in public research organisations
3 Centres of excellence
13 Financial support for start-ups
4 Research networks
14 Non-financial support for start-ups
5 Mobility of researchers among disciplines
15 Creation of incubators
6 Biotechnology training
16 Awareness of biotech by companies not yet active the field
7 Mobility of researchers between academia
and industry
17 Grants for industrial research
8 Collaborative research between industry
18 Other incentives for business investment
and public research organisations
19. Support for public discourse activities
9 Establishment of research institute/centre of industrial
interest
10 Technology transfer office
Source: BioPolis Research
4.7
2
0.26
0.52
24.07
Dynamics: comparison with 1994-1998
This section compares the current period of study (2002-2005) with the Inventory Study
of Iceland,6 which covered the period 1994-1998. The basis of comparison is the average
total funding per annum (Table 4.6) and presence of policy instruments for specific
policy goals (Table 4.7).
Table 4.6 shows a dramatic increase in the average total funding per annum from 0.67M
ECU (Engelen-Smeets and Enzing, 1999) to 3.66 M EUR over the two periods.
Table 4.6
Biotechnology research funding through non-policy-directed and policydirected instruments, in 1994-1998 and 2002-2005
Funding
Average total funding per annum for
biotechnology research in 1994-1998
(M ECU)
National
0.67 ECU
Regional
None
Total
0.67 ECU
Source: BioPolis Research
Average total funding per annum
for biotechnology research in 20022005 (M EUR)
3.66
None
3.66
Table 4.7 compares the policy areas covered by the instruments during the two periods.
Basically, the policy areas remained the same for both periods with the notable exception
of the promotion of high-level biotechnology research during the first period. This goal
6
Engelen-Smeets, E.R. and C.M. Enzing, ‘National Report of Iceland’ (1999), in European Commission,
Inventory of Public Biotechnology R&D programmes in Europe: National Reports Volume 2 (AustriaIreland), Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2000.
29
was no longer covered in the second period. Alliances and cooperation received
considerable policy attention during both periods. The government continued to support
biotechnology by encouraging linkages and cooperation between the public and private
sectors.
Table 4.7
Presence of policy-directed instruments for specific policy goals in the
periods 1994-1998 and 2002-2005
Presence of instruments
Policy areas
Policy goals
1. To promote a high level of biotechnology
basic research
2. To promote a high level of industryoriented (and applied) research
3. To support knowledge flow and
collaboration among scientific disciplines
4. To assure availability of human resources
2. Knowledge
5. To facilitate transmission of knowledge
transmission and from academia to industry and its
application
application for industrial purposes
6. To stimulate the adoption of
biotechnology for new industrial applications
7. To assist firm creation
3. Market
8. To monitor and improve social
acceptance of biotechnology
4. Industrial
9. To encourage business investment in
development
R&D
* G = Generic instruments; ** S= Biotechnology-specific instruments
Source: BioPolis Research
1. Creation of
knowledge base
and human
resources
30
1994-1998
G*
S**
√
2002-2005
G
S
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
5.
Future developments
The newly-established programme on Postgenomic Biomedicine Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology will run until 2009, with a total budget of about 3M EUR. The
Technology Development Fund and the Research Fund will also continue. According to a
representative from RANNÍS, aside from these three funding instruments, there are as yet
no other indications that new policy-directed instruments for biotechnology will be
created in the near future.
31
Annex 1
List of tables
No.
Title
Page
Table 1.1
Response expressed in percentages outlining
the extent of Icelandic approval on the application
of new technologies
10
Table 2.1
National public policy-directed biotechnology-stimulating
instruments in the period 2002-2005 (M EUR)
16
Table 2.2
Overview of biotechnology-stimulating instruments
used by charities in 2002-2005 (in M EUR)
19
Table 2.3
Involvement of Iceland in biotechnology/life
Sciences programmes of the 6th Framework Programme
19
Table 4.1
Public funding of biotechnology, by non-directed,
Generic and specific instruments, in the period
2002-2005 (in M EUR)
25
Table 4.2
Features of instruments
26
Table 4.3
Coverage of policy goals and funding, by national
policy-directed instruments, in the period 2002-2005 (M EUR)
27
Table 4.4
Coverage of biotech research application areas and funding,
28
by policy-directed instruments, in the period 2002-2005 (M EUR)
Table 4.5
Coverage and funding of biotech activities, by policy-directed
instruments, in the period 2002-2005 (M EUR)
28
Table 4.6
Biotechnology research funding through non-policy-directed
and policy-directed instruments, in 1994-1998 and 2002-2005
29
Table 4.7
Presence of policy-directed instruments for specific policy goals 30
in the periods 1994-1998 and 2002-2005
32
Annex 2
List of figures and charts
No.
Title
Page
Figure 1.1.
Structure for STI policy in Iceland
8
Chart 3.1.
Iceland biotechnology knowledge base indicators:
comparison with EU25 and USA figures in three
periods (index values)
21
Chart 3.2.1.
Share of subfields, as a percentage of total
biotechnology publications, for Iceland: comparison
with EU25 and USA figures (1994-1996)
22
Chart 3.2.2.
Share of subfields, as a percentage of total biotechnology
publications, for Iceland: comparison with EU25 figures
(2002-2004)
22
Chart 3.3.
Growth rates of biotechnology subfield publications
in Iceland: comparison with EU25 and USA figures
(1994-1996 and 2002-2004)
23
Chart 3.4.
Performance indicators for Iceland’s biotechnology
knowledge transmission and applications (1994-1996,
1998-2000 and 2002-2004)
24
33
Annex 3
List of contact persons
Thorvald Finnbjörnsson,
RANNÍS
Hallgrímur Jónasson,
IceTec
Arndís Ármann Steinþórsdóttir,
Ministry of Fisheries
Gudrun Agnarsdottir,
Icelandic Cancer Society
34
Annex 4
References
ARI, 2006.
http://landbunadur.rala.is/ (accessed 05/01/06)
Decode Genetics, Annual Report, 2003.
http://www.decode.is/
Engelen-Smeets, E.R.W and C.M. Enzing, ‘National Report of Iceland’, Inventory of
public biotechnology R&D programmes in Europe:- National Reports Volume 2 (AustriaIreland), Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,
1999.
EU, ‘The EU's relations with Iceland’, 2005.
http://www.eu.int/comm/external_relations/iceland/intro/index.htm (accessed 05/01/06)
Eurobarometer, ‘Social values, Science and Technology’, 2005.
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/ archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf
European TrendChart on Innovation, Annual Innovation Policy Report for Iceland, 20032004.
http://trendchart.cordis.lu /reports/documents/CR_Iceland_September2004.PDF
European TrendChart on Innovation, Annual Innovation Policy Trends and Appraisal
Reports, Iceland, 2004-2005.
http://trendchart.cordis.lu/reports/documents/Country_Report_Iceland_2005.PDF
European TrendChart on Innovation, Country Report: Iceland, 1999-2000.
http://trendchart.cordis.lu/reports/documents/CR_Iceland_September
Finnbjörnsson, T., ‘Iceland (Historical Review)’, Good Practices in Nordic Innovation
Policies. Part 2: Innovation Policy Trends and Rationalities, Oslo, STEP Centre for
Innovation Research, 2003.
http://www//step.no/reports/Y2003/0703.pdf
Finnbjörnsson, T., ‘Analysis of R&D in biotechnology in Iceland 2001 to 2003’, in print.
Hólar Agricultural College, 2006.
http//www.holar.is (accessed 05/01/06)
IceTec, 2006.
http://www.iti.is/ (accessed 05/01/06)
Iceland BIO, Life Sciences in Iceland, 2005.
http://www.invest.is/ (accessed 05/01/06)
35
Icelandic Cancer Society, 2006.
http://www.krabb.is/ (accessed 05/01/06)
Icelandic Fisheries Laboratory, Annual Report 2003, 2003.
http://www.rfisk.is (accessed 05/01/06)
Icelandic Forest Research Station, 2006.
http://www.skogur.is/ (accessed 05/01/06)
IFF, 2006.
http://www.veidimal.is/ (accessed 05/01/06)
IHA, 2006.
http://www.hjarta.is/ (accessed 05/01/06)
Lúðvíksson, V., ‘A short note on The New Law on the Organisation of Science and
Technology Policy in Iceland’, 2003.
http://www.rannis.is/page.asp?id=728
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
http://www.iceland.is/ (accessed 05/01/06)
MRI, 2006.
http://www.hafro.is/index_eng.php (accessed 05/01/06)
OECD, ‘R&D in the Field of Biotechnology in Iceland’, DSTI/EAS/STP/NESTI(2001)5,
OECD, Paris, 2001.
OECD, ‘OECD Science, Technology and Industrial Outlook 2004’. Country Response to
Policy Questionnaire, 2004.
http://www.oecd.org/document/63/0,2340,en_33873108_33873476_33995839_1_1_1_1,
00.html
Prokaria.
http://www.reykjavikresources.com/ (accessed 05/01/06)
RANNÍS, 2005.
http://www.rannis.is/ (accessed 08/11/05)
36
RANNÍS, R&D Statistics 2003, 2005.
http://www.rannis.is/ (accessed 08/11/05)
STPC, ‘Science and Technology Policy Iceland’, 2004.
http://www.rannis.is/ (accessed 08/11/05)
STPC, Postgenomic Biomedicine Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 2005.
University of Akureyri, 2006.
http://www.unak.is/ (accessed 05/01/06)
WTO, Trade Policy Reviews: Iceland January 2000, 2000. http://www.wto.org/
37
Annex 5
Performance
Introduction
This Annex includes the data that was used to develop the indicators discussed in Chapter
3. Chapter 3 describes four sets of indicators used to measure the performance of the
national biotechnology system of innovation, in terms of:
1. Creating a knowledge base and supporting the availability of human resources:
Charts 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.3
2. Knowledge transmission and application: Chart 3.4
3. Industrial development: Chart 3.5
4. Market conditions: Chart 3.6
The indicators aim to capture trends in performance and compare the national situation
with that of a reference region. To present trends in performance, most indicators are
provided for three or two different time periods, depending on data availability. To avoid
capturing erratic trends, each time period includes several years, again depending on data
availability. Information on which years have been captured for each period and
comments concerning the index used can be found in the last two columns of Table A5.1.
Table A5.1.
Performance indicators, charts, comments and time periods
Indicator
Chart
Comments
Time periods
Ind. 1
Biotech
publications per
million capita
(pMC)
3.1
Index: Reference
Region EU25 =100
and US data for
comparison
(1) 1994-1996,
(2) 1998-2000,
(3) 2002-2004
Ind. 2
Biotech
publications per
BT public R&D
expenditure
3.1
Only for those
countries included in
the inventory
Index: Reference
Region EU25 =100
BT Pub. 2002-2004 /
Total Pub. Expenditure
1994-1998 M Ecu
Ind. 3
BT patents / BT
publications
3.4
Index: Reference
Region EU25 =100
and US data for
comparison
(1) 1994-1996
(2) 1998-2000
(3) 2001-2003
Ind. 4
BT publications /
Total pub.
3.1
(1) 1994-1996
(2) 1998-2000
(3) 2002-2004
Ind. 5
Citations to BT
publications
3.1
Index: Reference
Region EU25 =100
and US data for
comparison
Index: Reference
Region EU25 =100
and US data for
comparison
Small country effect
38
(1) 1994-1998
(3) 2000-2004
Indicator
Chart
Comments
Time periods
(2) 1998
(3) 2002
Ind. 6
Graduates in life
sciences pMC
3.1
Index: Reference
Region EU17 =100
and US data for
comparison
Ind. 7
BT publications
in subfields, as
% of total BT
publications
3.2.1
Data in %
EU25 and US data for
comparison
3.2.2
1994-1996
2002-2004
Growth rate between
1994-96 (period 1) and
2002-04 (period 3)
Ind. 8
Growth rate of
BT publications
in subfields
3.3
EU25 and US data for
comparison
Small field effect
Ind. 9
Biotech patent
applications
pMC
3.4
EU25 and US data for
comparison
(1) 1994-1996
(2) 1998-2000
(3) 2001-2003
Ind. 10
Number of
biotechnology
companies pMC
Number of
biotech start-ups
pMC
3.5
European (data
available) and US data
for comparison
European (data
available) and US data
for comparison
(2) 2001
(3) 2004
Ind. 11
Ind. 12
(3) 2001-2003 (only
one period)
Number of
biotech IPOs
pMC
Venture capital
in € pC
3.5
Ind. 14
BT acceptance
index
No Chart Discussed
in text of
chapter 3
Source: BT Policy
Benchmarking 2005.
The biotechnology
acceptance index is a
composite index and
draws on questions
Q.12, Q.13.1 and
Q14.01 and Q14.09 of
the Eurobarometer
58.0
2002
Ind. 15
Eurobarometer
225
No Chart discussed
in text of
chapter 3
See section 3.3 and
sections 3.4.1, 3.4.2,
and 3.4.3 of the
Special
Eurobarometer 2257
2005
Ind. 16
Biomedicines
3.6
Source: BT Policy
Benchmarking 2005
Index: Reference
Region EU15 =100
US data for
1995-2002
Ind. 13
7
3.4
3.5
European (data
available) and US data
for comparison
European (data
available) and US data
for comparison
http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf
39
(3) 2002-2005
(2) 2002
(3) 2004
Indicator
Chart
Comments
3.6
Source: Biotechnology
Innovation Scoreboard
2002
Index: Reference
Region EU15 =100
US data for
comparison
Time periods
comparison
Ind. 17
Field trials
1996-2001
The following methodological issues are related to some of the indicators:
•
•
•
•
•
Indicator 3 (Patent BT / Publications BT) replaces the indicator BT publications
basic research/ BT publications applied research. Results of the EPOHITE
project have shown that the original indicator does not differ significantly in the
case of old EU member states. This might be the result of methodological
problems associated with the indicator, since the definition of basic and applied
research is based on a journal classification made by SCI. The explanatory power
of this indicator is therefore questionable.
To calculate the citation rate first the publications for the period 1994-1996 (set 1)
were searched and all the publications in 1994-1998 that cited any publications in
set 1 (set 2). Citation rate has been calculated by (number of publications in set 2)
/ (number of publications in set 1). However, many of the articles in set 2 cited
not only one article in set 1 and these duplicated citations are not taken into
account in our calculation. For example, if there are 2 articles in set 1 and they
each has one citation but cited by the same article, there is only 1 article in set 2.
The citation rate for the 2 articles in set 1 is 0.5 instead of 1. This depreciation is
more obvious in countries with more publications such as USA and EU25 since
the possibility to cite multiple articles in set 1 is large. Accordingly the citation
rates of USA and EU25 are a bit underestimated.
The indicator ‘Citations to BT publications’ seems to have a ‘small country
effect’ bias. Small countries show a relatively large citation rate. A possible
explanation might be that, as far as number of publications is concerned, larger
countries usually have a larger ‘middle quality’ share of research results (in terms
of impact) while smaller countries usually have a ‘low in number but good in
quality’ publications impact. This can be explained by the concentration of
resources allocated to selected research groups in small countries. Small countries
may concentrate resources in outstanding research units. Accordingly, fewer
publications may have greater impact.
The EU25=100 index is applicable in the indicator ‘Graduates in life sciences
pMC’ since data was only available for 17 member states.
For those countries starting from zero in period 1 (1994/1996), the growth rate of
BT publications in subfields was set to 100% if the number of publications in
period 3 (2002-2004) was larger than zero. On the other hand, if the country
reduced the number of publications to zero in the period 2002-2004, the growth
rate was -100%.Given that a relative growth rate was used, small fields tended to
40
•
have relatively larger growth rates.
To benchmark each country we chose EU25 (or EU15 if data was not fully
available) as the reference region. In those cases where data for EU25 or EU15
were not available, the reference corresponds to the sum of national data
available. Moreover, to ease the presentation of indicators with different scales in
a given chart, an index value was used.
Raw data for Charts in chapter 3
Raw data for Chart 3.1. BT publications per million capita (pMC): absolute and indexed
values
BT publications
EU25
Iceland
USA
Population (million)
94-96
98-00
02-04
1996
2000
2004
97521
116
119802
128716
209
135508
145646
198
154402
447
0
264
451
0
276
457
0
292
BT Publications/pMC
94-96
98-00
EU25
218
285
Iceland
433
749
USA
454
492
Source: BioPolis Research
Publications: SCI
Population: EUROSTAT and OECD
Index EU25=100
02-04
94-96
98-00
02-04
319
681
529
100
199
208
100
263
172
100
214
166
Raw data for Chart 3.1. BT publications per BT public R&D expenditure
BT
publications
Nonpolicydirected
funding
Policy-directed
funding
Biotec
specific
Total
public
spending
on BT
(Mecu)
BT
publications/
Mecu BT
public
expenditure
Index
Generic
20021994199419941994-1998
2002-2004/
2004
1998
1998
1998
1994-1998
EU25
145646
n.a.
Iceland
198
2.6
0
0
3
76
USA
154402
n.a.
Source: BioPolis Research
Publications: SCI
BT public expenditures in research: Inventory Project, Table 3.4 Executive Summary
41
474
n.a.
Raw data for Chart 3.1. BT publications, as share of total publications: absolute and
indexed values
BT publications
EU25
Iceland
USA
Total publications
94-96
98-00
02-04
94-96
98-00
02-04
97521
128716
145646
860652
1024327
1117392
116
209
198
740
1051
1386
119802
135508
154402
889506
941191
1045894
Share of BT publication
Index EU25=100
94-96
98-00
02-04
94-96
98-00
02-04
EU25
11%
13%
13%
100
100
100
Iceland
16%
20%
14%
138
158
110
USA
13%
Source: BioPolis Research
Publications: SCI
14%
15%
119
115
113
Raw data for Chart 3.1. Citations to BT publications: absolute and indexed values
Citations to BT publications
EU25
Iceland
USA
Source: BioPolis Research
Data Citation: SCI
Index EU25=100
94-98
00-04
94-98
00-04
4.06
12.70
3.89
3.95
11.84
4.14
100
207
104
100
163
117
Raw data for Chart 3.1. Graduates in life sciences pMC: absolute and indexed values
Graduates in Life Sciences
EU17
Iceland
USA
Population (million)
1998 / 1999
2002
1998 / 1999
2002
46859**
65*
75253*
81316
75
70950
552**
0*
276*
431
0
288
Graduates pMC
1998 / 1999
Index EU17=100
2002
1998 / 1999
2002
EU17
85**
189
100
Iceland
239*
262
281
USA
273*
246
321
Index EU17=100 for 1998 is EU-16, because for Portugal no data availiable
* data for 1998; ** data for 1999
Source: BioPolis Research
Population source for US OECD
OECD Education Database
100
139
131
42
Raw data for Chart 3.2.1. BT publications in subfields, as share of total BT publications,
for the period 1994-1996
1994-1996
Total
Plant
Health
Animal
Food
Industrial
Environmental
Generic
EU25
100%
8%
53%
5%
3%
1%
1%
30%
Iceland
100%
3%
60%
4%
3%
0%
1%
29%
6%
56%
5%
2%
0%
0%
30%
USA
100%
Source: BioPolis Research
Publications: SCI
Raw data for Chart 3.2.2. BT publications in subfields, as share of BT publicationsa, for
the period 2002-2004
2002-2004
Total
Plant
Health
Animal
Food
Industrial
Environmental
Generic
EU25
100%
7%
58%
5%
4%
1%
1%
25%
Iceland
100%
4%
61%
9%
4%
0%
1%
21%
6%
59%
5%
3%
0%
1%
26%
USA
100%
Source: BioPolis Research
Publications: SCI
Raw data for Chart 3.2.1 BT publications in subfields for the period 1994-1996
1994-1996
EU25
Iceland
Total
Plant
Health
Animal
Food
Industrial
Environmental
Generic
97217
7629
51944
4375
2434
624
576
29635
117
4
70
5
3
0
1
34
7118
62274
5580
2230
296
459
33729
USA
111686
Source: BioPolis Research
Publications: SCI
Raw data for Chart 3.2.2 BT publications in subfields for the period 2002-2004
2002-2004
EU25
Iceland
Total
Plant
Health
Animal
Food
Industrial
Environmental
Generic
140984
10494
81220
6821
5017
1162
1126
35144
183
7
112
17
7
0
1
39
7910
84234
6872
4070
436
724
37434
USA
141680
Source: BioPolis Research
Publications: SCI
43
Raw data for Chart 3.3. Growth rate of BT publications in subfields between 1994-96 and
2002-04
1994-1996/2002-2004
Plant
Health
Animal
Food
Industrial
Environmental
Generic
EU25
38%
56%
56%
106%
86%
95%
19%
Iceland
75%
60%
240%
133%
0%
0%
15%
USA
11%
35%
Source: BioPolis Research
Publications: SCI
23%
83%
47%
58%
11%
Raw data for Chart 3.4. BT patents pMC: absolute and indexed values
BT patents
EU25
Iceland
USA
Population (million)
94-96
98-00
01-03
1996
2000
2003
4924
2
8590
8921
23
14396
10119
45
12348
447
0
264
451
0
276
455
0
292*
98-00
01-03
94-96
98-00
01-03
20
82
52
22
156
42
100
68
295
100
417
264
100
701
190
BT patents/pMC
94-96
EU25
11
Iceland
7
USA
33
Source: BioPolis Research
Publications: SCI
Patents: Questel Orbit
Index
Raw data for Chart 3.4. BT patents per BT publications: absolute and indexed values
BT patents
EU25
Iceland
USA
BT publications
94-96
98-00
01-03
94-96
98-00
01-03
4924
2
8590
8921
23
14396
10119
45
12348
97521
116
119802
128716
209
135508
140219
210
148853
BT patents/ BT publications
Index EU25=100
94-96
98-00
01-03
94-96
98-00
01-03
EU25
0.05
Iceland
0.02
USA
0.07
Source: BioPolis Research
Publications: SCI
Patents: Questel Orbit
0.07
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.21
0.08
100
34
142
100
159
153
100
297
115
44
Raw data for Chart 3.5. Number of BT companies pMC for the period 2001-2004:
absolute and indexed values
BT companies
Europe
EU Available
Iceland
USA
Population in T
2001
2002
2003
2004
2001
2002
2003
2004
1879
1643
n.a.
1457
1878
1650
n.a.
1472
1861
1782
n.a.
1473
1815
1605
n.a.
1444
452016
319337
452641
319484
454580
408602
456863
322210
285102
287941
290789
291685
BT companies pMC
2001
2002
2003
Index
2004
2001
2002
Europe
EU Available
5
5
4
5
100
100
Iceland
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
USA
5.11
5.11
5.07
4.95
99
99
Note: EU Available is the result of the sum of available EU member states
Source: BioPolis Research
Biotech companies: E&Y Beyond Borders 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, EuropaBio
2003
2004
100
n.a.
116
100
n.a.
99
Raw data for Chart 3.5. BT start-ups pMC for period 2001-2003 and year 2003: absolute
and indexed values
BT start-ups
Europe (EU 15 - Cyprus Greece + Norway +
Switzerland)
Iceland
USA
Europe (EU 15 - Cyprus Greece + Norway +
Switzerland)
Iceland
USA
Source: BioPolis Research
Start-ups: EuropaBio
Population in T
2001-2003
2003
2003
523
n.a.
355
Biotech
startup/pMC
132
n.a.
83
367051
Index
Biotech startup/pMC
Index
2001-2003
2001-2003
2003
2003
1.4
n.a.
100
n.a.
0.36
n.a.
100
n.a.
1.2
86
0.29
79
45
290789
Raw data for Chart 3.5. Number of BT IPO’s pMC: absolute and indexed values
EU Available
Iceland
USA
BT IPO
20022005
Population T
2002
2003
2004
2005
29
0
52
452927
287
287941
454869
289
290789
457154
291
291685
461593
294
IPO /pMC
Index
2002-2005
2002-2005
20022005
456636
290
290138
EU Available
0.00
100
Iceland
0.00
0
USA
0.00
282
Note: EU Available is the result of the sum of available EU member states
IPO data: E&Y 2002-2005, London Stock Exchange, Frankfurt Stock Exchange, Euronext, Nasdaq, Burril
& Company
Source: BioPolis Research
Raw data for Chart 3.5. Venture capital pC: absolute and indexed values
Venture capital in
biotechnology companies M€
2002
2002
2002
Europe
EU
Availiable
Iceland
USA
2002
Population in T
2003
2004
1100
920
2800
890
n.a.
883
n.a.
1111
n.a.
315584
n.a.
319663
n.a.
325131
n.a.
2288
2498
2855
287941
290789
291685
2002
Index
2003
2004
100
n.a.
100
n.a.
100
n.a.
282
311
286
Venture capital in €/pC
2002
2003
2004
Europe
EU
Availiable
2.8
2.8
3.4
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Iceland
USA
8
9
10
Source: BioPolis Research
VC data : E&Y Beyond Borders 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005
46
Raw data for Chart 3.6. Number of Biomedicines pMC
Biomedicines
Biomedicines /
pMC
1995-2002
Population
(Million)
2002
39
378
0,10
100
Iceland
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
USA
115
289
0.40
Note: EU 15 is the result of the sum of the 15 old EU member states
Source: BioPolis Research
Number of medicines: Benchmarking of public biotechnology policy 2005
n.a
387
EU15
Index
1995-2002
Raw data for Chart 3.6. Number of field trails pMC
Field trials
EU15
Population in M
Field trials pMC
Index
1996-2001
2001
1996-2001
1996-2001
1334
379
4
100
n.a.
24
n.a.
688
Iceland
n.a.
n.a.
USA
6745
278
Note: EU 15 is the result of the sum of the 15 old EU member states
Source: BioPolis Research
Field trials: Biotechnology Innovation Scoreboard 2002
Raw data for biotechnology acceptance. Data are mentioned in the text of Chapter 3.
BT Acceptance Index 2002
Index Average
N (sample size)
EU - 15*
100.29
16828
Iceland
n.a.
n.a.
*Weighted Average according to the weight "W13" of the Eurobarometer 58.2, which considers population
differences among countries and corrects for inconsistencies in the national samples
Source: BioPolis Research
BT acceptance index: Benchmarking of public biotechnology policy 2005
47
References:
Biotechnology Innovation Scoreboard 2002, European Commission, Enterprise and Industry DG, Brussels,
2002. http://194.78.229.48/extranettrend/reports/documents/report7.pdf, accessed 1/6/2005.
Enzing, C.M. et al., Inventory of Public Biotechnology R&D Programmes in Europe, Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1999.
Ernst & Young. Beyond Borders: The Global Biotechnology Report, Ernst & Young Global Health
Sciences, Cambridge, 2002, 2003, 2004.
Reiss, T. et al., Benchmarking of public biotechnology policy 2005, European Commission Enterprise and
Industry DG, Brussels, 2005. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/phabiocom/comp_biotech_comp.htm,
accessed 1/6/2005.
Websites:
London Stock Exchange: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/
Frankfurt Stock Exchange: http://deutsche-boerse.com/
Euronext: http://www.euronext.com/
Nasdaq: http://www.nasdaq.com/
Burril & Company: http://www.burrillandco.com/
EuropaBio: http://www.europabio.org/
EUROSTAT: http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/
OECD Education Database: http://www.oecd.org/
OECD Statistics: http://www.oecd.org/
STN International: http://www.stn-international.de/
Questel Orbit: http://www.questel.orbit.com/index.htm
48
Annex 6
Abbreviations
AVS
DPPA
EEA
ICETEC
IFF
IFL
IHA
MRI
RANNÍS
STPC
UVS
Added Value of Seafood
Data Protection and Privacy Act
European Economic Area
The Technological Institute of Iceland
Institute of Freshwater Fisheries
Icelandic Fisheries Laboratories
Icelandic Heart Association
The Marine Research Institute
Icelandic Centre for Research
Science and Technology Policy Council
Iceland Genomics Corporation
49
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced and/or published by print, photoprint,
microfilm or any other means without the previous written consent of TNO,
Fraunhofer and SPRU.
In case this report was drafted on instructions, the rights and obligations of
contracting parties are subject to either the Standard Conditions for Research
Instructions given to TNO, Fraunhofer and SPRU or the relevant agreement
concluded between the contracting parties. Submitting the report for inspection to
parties who have a direct interest is permitted.
© 2007 TNO (NL) - Fraunhofer (DE) – SPRU (UK)