Strengths and Weaknesses of EURussia Cooperation in Science

1
Strengths and Weaknesses of EU-Russia Cooperation
in Science Technology

• J.P. CONTZEN
• ISTC-STCU International Conference
• Ljubljana, March 10th, 2008

2
The European Union and Russia (1)

• Beyond a strong common historical and cultural
  background, does the rationale for international
  cooperation apply to the relations between the
  European Union and Russia? The answer requires a
  comparative analysis of the strengths and
  weaknesses of the respective ST systems

3
The European Union and Russia (2)

• The rough image of the Russian ST system
• The heir to a superb scientific system yielding
  excellent technologies in a certain number of
  areas corresponding to the national priorities of
  the Soviet Union
• In phase of recovery from the catastrophic 90s,
  has shown its resilience during these difficult
  years
• For decades, funded and demand-driven through
  governmental plans, notions of market and pricing
  still largely absent

4
The European Union and Russia (3)

• Maintaining strength in basic science, somewhat
  weaker in translation sciences, uneven
  technological level
• Universities still lagging in research
• Relatively modest Industry-funded (and
  -performed?) ST explaining weakness in
  industrial innovation, deepened through absence
  of a significant internal market
• Not fully integrated in the international
  networking
• Abundant human resources but what about the
  future generations?

5
The European Union and Russia (4)

• Beyond the perception of those in direct contact
  with the Russian system, what do the ST
  indicators tell about this system? The very
  recent OECD Science, Technology and Industry
  Scoreboard 2007, the EC Science, Technology an
  Innovation Key Figures 2007 contain very useful
  information, complemented by other relevant data
  sources, e.g. the European Patent Office

6
Some data about ST (1)

• The following indicators are helpful in
  assessing the respective strengths of potential
  partners
• Gross Expenditure on RD (GERD) and RD
  intensity, i.e. GERD as of GDP
• RD by source of funding and by performing sector
• Researchers in total workforce
• Strength of tertiary education

7
Some data about ST (2)

• Gross Expenditure on RD (GERD) in Billions US
  (PPP 2005) and average annual growth 1995-2005
• EU 27 231 B, 3
• OECD 772 B, 3.5
• Russian Fed. 16.7 B, 6
• Italy 17.7 B, 2.5
• Slovenia 0.55 B, - 3 (2000-2005),
  growing now

8
Some data about ST (3)

• RD intensity, i.e. GERD as of GDP
• EU 27 1.84
• OECD 2.2
• Russian Fed. 1.1
• Italy 1.1
• Slovenia 1.22 (1.49 in 2005)
• In terms of GERD and RD intensity, Russia is
  quite similar to Italy

9
(No Transcript)
10
Some data about ST (4)

• In terms of source of funding and performing
  sector, the Russian Federation is quite different
  from most EU countries and notably Slovenia
• In Russia only 30 of GERD is financed by
  business enterprise vs. 60 in Slovenia (above EU
  27 average of 54.5)
• In Russia, about 65 of the total RD is
  performed according to OECD by business (careful
  about definition of business performers in the
  RF!) while in Slovenia this figure is about 60

11
(No Transcript)
12
Some data about ST (6)

• In terms of researchers in the total workforce
• Russia has to be considered as overstaffed
  according to world standards but the current
  attrition of the RD workforce will bring it back
  to the general trend experienced elsewhere
• Slovenia with 6.5 Researchers (FTE) per 1000
  total employment for a RD intensity of 1.50 is
  in excess of the EU average and slightly above
  this general trend

13
(No Transcript)
14
Some data about ST (7)

• In terms of strength of the tertiary education
• Russia leads with 55 of the total population
  aged 25 to 64 having a tertiary degree, well
  above the OECD average of 28 while Slovenia
  places itself at 18

15
(No Transcript)
16
Some data about ST (8)

• In terms of output of any ST system, patent
  filings constitute an important element
• The degree of internationalization can be
  measured by the flow of exchanged students, a
  condition for future ST collaboration and by the
  internationalization of research projects

17
Patents (1)

• Russia and other CIS countries are strong in
  national applications as exemplified by following
  figures
• Patent filings by residents per Billion Dollars
  GDP world average 19, ranging from S. Korea
  116.2 - Japan 107.3 - Germany 22.6 Georgia 21.1
  - USA 17.7 - Russian Federation 17.6 Belarus
  16.9 - Ukraine 14.7 China 9.4 - India 2.3
  and Mexico 0.6

18
Patents (2)

• Patent filings by residents per Million Dollars
  spent in RD world average 0.81, ranging from S.
  Korea 4.60 - Japan 3.49 - Belarus 3.15 - Russian
  Federation 1.46 Ukraine 1.42 - Germany 0.92 -
  China 0.78 - USA 0.71 - India 0.23 - Mexico 0.14
  Belgium 0.08- Portugal 0.07

19
Patents (3)

• BUT
• Weakness of Russia for registering international
  patents, notably the triadic patents, about 5 of
  the total (EU 27 shares 28 of the total)
• These international patents are generally with
  foreign co-inventors and Russia has the highest
  share (64) of foreign ownership of domestic
  inventions filed internationally

20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
Patents (4)

• In Russia, very few patents are owned by
  universities, less than 2 to be opposed to
  nearly 10 in Ireland

23
(No Transcript)
24
Patents (5)

• What about Slovenia? As shown by the next graph,
  Slovenia is performing fairly well for EPO
  patent applications, not very far from the Irish
  performance

25
(No Transcript)
26
Russias internationalization of students

• If Russian Universities are still attracting
  foreign students (3 of world total), the number
  of Russian students enrolled in Universities of
  OECD countries is quite low less than 17,000
  from Russia over a total of 900,000 in 2002 in
  comparison China sent 152,000 students and India
  82,000
• The flow increased significantly recently about
  50,000 Russian students went abroad in 2007

27
Russia and the European Union

• The following diagram demonstrates the strength
  of Russia as foreign participant in the Framework
  Programme of the European Union, in this
  particular case FP6

28
Comparison of foreign participations in FP6
29
Lessons for EU-Russia cooperation (1)

• The statistical data confirm the intuitive
  feeling about Russian ST strengths and
  weaknesses with question marks about the
  importance of business RD and about the validity
  of patents as an indicator of the innovation
  potential
• Basically, cooperation could rely on the current
  strengths of Russia
• Basic science
• Big science Fusion, Space, High Energy Physics

30
Lessons for EU-Russia cooperation (2)

• Technological niches materials, nuclear
  technologies, biotechnologies, remembering that
  they rely essentially on public financing and
  public execution
• Using a more refined approach, cooperation might
  be beneficial on emerging industrial products
  the recent development of small and medium size
  enterprises in Russia could constitute a
  favorable factor in this respect

31
Lessons for EU-Russia cooperation (3)

• To facilitate cooperation, Russia should surmount
  some basic weaknesses linked to its too much
  inward looking approach. Such approach could be
  explained by several factors
• Language
• Weak networking in the past
• Lack of active presence in international meetings
• Different approach to cooperation, notably
  reluctance to share financial burden

32
Lessons for EU-Russia cooperation (4)

• Discrepancies in Intellectual Property Rights
  policies
• Different project management styles
• Political obstacles such as visas, export control
  and information disclosure issue
• Differences in ST structures
• Weak implication of industry
• Meager involvement of the younger

33
Conclusion

• In spite of these obstacles, Russia remains for
  the European Union an attractive partner for ST
  cooperation. Real opportunities exist for
  creating win-win situations. Beyond a better
  mutual understanding based on enhanced personal
  contacts, what is mostly needed , is the
  manifestation of a clear political will, on both
  sides, for removing the most worrisome obstacles.
  

34
??????? ?? ???? ???????? HVALA ZA VASHO
POZORNOST