| Countries often use national R&D investment indicators, targets and benchmarks to contextualise the performance of their public research system. Policy debates frequently focus on how the funding is attributed, e.g. block funding criteria, share of competitive vs. block funding and the share of basic vs. applied research. | |
| The largest numbers of policies support the internationalisation in public research as well as competitive research funding. | |
| Policy initiatives indicate public research organisations as beneficiaries with slightly more frequency compared to individual researchers. | |
| Initiatives often stress the importance of making the results of publicly funded research openly accessible, i.e. by promoting open science and enhanced access to research data. | |
| Policies with the largest budgets are typically institutional funding programmes that include support not only for R&D investment but also for teaching activities. |
As part of their response to the 2019 EC-OECD STIP survey, countries indicated the main policy debates around government support to their Public research systems (raw data included below in Annex A). The following issues were recurrently raised in national debates:
Several countries highlight R&D intensity targets as indicators used to gauge the state or progress of their public research systems. Austria, for example, highlights its national gross expenditures in R&D (GERD) amounting to 3.19% of GDP in 2019 and how this figure exceeds the European target value (3% of GDP). Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia) and Estonia aim to raise public R&D spending to 1% of GDP by 2020 and 2022, respectively. Greece and Malta have set GERD targets of 1.3% and 2% of GDP by 2020, respectively. The United Kingdom and Finland have set higher GERD targets though under a longer timeframe, i.e. 2.7% of GDP by 2027 and 4% of GDP by 2030, respectively.
A central topic of debate concerns the criteria used to allocate public research funding. Countries often debate how funds are attributed using formulas that include performance metrics (e.g. publications, citations, PhD graduates, patents filed). For example Iceland, where funding for Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) is mostly based on student numbers, recognises the need to revise its model to include additional variables. Sweden, where institutional funding is currently calculated based on historical allocations (70%) and the quantity and quality in research and the degree of cooperation with industry and society at large (30%), is creating an indicator system to improve its methodology.
Some countries have sought to broaden funding allocation beyond performance-based criteria. The Czech Republic, for instance, now considers institutions' long-term strategy development and socio-economic benefits and impacts. The Netherlands seeks to ensure that the recognition and rewards system better reflects the core tasks of public research organisations (e.g. education, research and impact) so that the appreciation academics receive is better aligned with societal needs. Concerning the European Union's funding mechanisms, an area of debate is whether current evaluation and allocation mechanisms based on bibliometrics and peer review are fair.
In some instances, discussions on funding allocation raise the issue of striking a balance between block and competitive funding. For example, Korea (where the rate of project-based funding ranges between 30-60%) is considering to increase the block funding ratio as a means to shape the roles and responsibilities of Public Research Institutes (PRIs). In 2018 Norway increased block funding of the technological institutes in its revised long-term plan research and higher education, a decision that has materialised in the national budget for both 2019 and 2020. Portugal highlights calls to increase the share of block funding attributed to the research organisations, as a means to fund new government-led policy initiatives, e.g. a new scientific employment legal framework, which improves the employment conditions of non-permanent researchers leading to an increase in the cost of research personnel. If the block funding were to remain unchanged, universities will have to factor the new cost structure into the competitive funding that they are able to capture.
Another dichotomy frequently raised in national debates is whether to fund basic or applied research. The Slovak Republic and Czech Republic, for instance, identify a need to strengthen applied research. Countries such as Brazil, Canada, Italy and Japan raise the need to conduct research that can be readily used by industry (see Science-industry knowledge transfer and sharing). The European Union stresses the need to balance supporting two different kinds of research: (i) research based on predetermined top-down priorities (i.e. close to market and applied research) evaluated on the basis of impact; versus (ii) bottom-up basic research evaluated on the basis of excellence. In New Zealand, while there are arguments that it is more difficult to make a funding case for basic or ‘blue skies’ research due to it being harder to justify end-user benefits, this kind of research is deemed critical for driving innovation through expanding the scientific knowledge base.
Other countries underline the importance of leveraging research infrastructures. China, for example, seeks to promote the open sharing of large-scale scientific instruments and facilities composing the national S&T infrastructure, to serve STI actors, the economy and society as a whole. South Africa also recognises the need for systematic efforts to upgrade and expand research infrastructures. Australia cites how its 2018 Research Infrastructure Investment Plan is informing investment into platforms necessary for collaborative research in a variety of fields including high performance computing, health sciences, and earth and environmental systems. In Iceland, more effective investment in research infrastructures, including international infrastructures was one of the actions in the National Science Policy and Action Plan during 2017-2019. Canada has seen discussions on the appropriate roles in supporting the public research infrastructure at the federal, provincial and territorial levels as well as the private sector's, HEIs' and PRIs' responsibilities.
National debates around the public research system are often structured with scientific excellence as a policy goal. This is a central theme in countries like Germany, Spain, Austria, Ireland and Cyprus (to name a few), where various flagship initiatives are introduced with the goal of promoting research excellence.
Some countries indicate the need to strengthen the roles of regional actors in the public research system. In Argentina, for instance, a key discussion is the amount and distribution of federal budget for STI development, with particular focus on strengthening capabilities of less-favoured regions. One of the main components of Russia's national project "Science" is the establishment of world-class research and educational centers across its regions. Germany continues to strengthen its public research system through science policy that is largely implemented by joint programmes between the federal government and the Länder governments. One of the four pillars of Thailand's 2020-2027 Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Policy and Strategy concerns regional development and inclusiveness of R&D activities. The United Kingdom's Strength In Places Fund aims to extend excellence from the “golden triangle” of Oxford, Cambridge and London to the rest of the country. Sometimes countries see a trade-off between providing regional support and promoting research excellence. Finland, for example, highlights discussions on whether it should pool more resources to develop critical mass in larger research-intensive universities or continue to maintain a network of smaller HEIs in most regions of the country.
Frequent policy themes at the centre of national debates include the internationalisation of public research (e.g. in Italy, South Africa and Spain, among others) and the promotion of open science and enhanced access to research data (e.g. in Iceland, China, France and the Europian Union, among others). Accordingly, large numbers of policies address these themes (see Section 3).
Finally, the availability of highly qualified human resources for research and innovation is often regarded as a critical determinant of the performance of the national public research system (see related policy area).
Figure 1 displays the number of policy initiatives reported by themes within the Public research system policy area. By a wide margin, the most frequent themes are Internationalisation in public research and Competitive research funding. The latter includes different types of grant programmes and funding schemes allocated competitively, whereas the former includes various types of incentives encouraging the internationalisation of domestic Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) and Public Research Institutes (PRIs) or building international linkages through researchers themselves. The third most recurring themes is Public research strategies, containing national agendas emphasising the research system. This is followed by Open science and enhanced access to publications and research data, capturing initiatives that implement digital infrastructures and reforms or otherwise facilitate access to publicly funded research outputs. The fifth most recurring theme is Research infrastructures and large equipment, including large-scale infrastructure investments and roadmaps and equipment sharing schemes and mechanisms.
As it is to be expected, the largest portion of initiatives in this policy area target public research actors (Figure 2). Higher education institutes (HEIs) and Public research institutes (PRIs) are more often directly addressed, though policies also target directly Established researchers, Postdocs and early-career researchers and PhD Students (in decreasing order). For all these public research actors, "open access" is a recurring keyword (obtained by hovering the corresponding bars in the figure with the mouse), which stresses the importance policies give to the accessibility of results obtained from publicly funded research. Private R&D labs are also targeted by policies, although much less so compared to their public sector counterparts. Firms are involved in about a third of policies compared to HEIs and PRIs. Keywords suggest that many policies targeting Firms promote research funding, addressing societal challenges and encourage science-industry linkages (e.g. via research infrastructures and smart specialisation strategies). Knowledge intermediaries play a more significant role in the Science-industry knowledge transfer and sharing policy area.
Figure 3 shows that Project grants for public research is the most frequently used instrument to support basic and applied research. It is closely followed by National strategies, agendas and plans, which are widely used by countries to give strategic direction to public research organisations, research infrastructures and their role in contributing to technological development, innovation, open access and social challenges (see keywords). Institutional funding for public research is also a frequent instrument (usually with higher budget expenditures compared to project grants), capturing block funding and performance contracts for public research organisations. In HEIs, resources are often used to jointly fund public research and teaching activities. Another recurrent instrument is Information services and access to databases, employed through various kinds of entities (e.g. by libraries or research infrastructures) to promote open science and enhanced access to research data (see keywords). Dedicated support to research infrastructures, contributes to the creation of new facilities, resources and services used by the science community to conduct research and foster innovation. Networking and collaborative platforms are also employed to foster research cooperation and coordination, often in international contexts and to tackle social challenges (as the frequent keywords indicate). Interestingly, some grants are also directed to the private sector, i.e. Grants for business R&D and innovation in the interest of fostering science-industry cooperation and public research commercialisation (see relevant policy area).
Initiatives in this policy area that do not have any budget allocations typically include National strategies, agendas and plans, aiming to set out and articulate governments' vision for public research (Figure 4). This includes envisaged structural reforms and provisions for open access to research data (see keywords). As it is the case in most policy areas, initiatives with smaller yearly budget expenditures (i.e. up to 5 M EUR) are more numerous. These include grants funding research that are directly targeted at scientists. Initiatives with larger budgets place further emphasis on institutional actors, e.g. by targeting HEIs, PRIs and research infrastructures. The 'training' keyword indicates that initiatives with largest budgets (More than 500M EUR) often bundle R&D funding with teaching activities (this keyword is also present in Institutional funding for public research, as shown in Figure 3).
Figure 5 shows that the United States has reported the largest number of initiatives in this policy area, followed by Italy, Germany and Poland. The chart shows only the number of policy initiatives reported by countries and gives no indication of their scale or scope. The figure should therefore be interpreted with care. Clicking on a given bar in the chart will bring you to the corresponding country dashboard for Public research system policies.
Table 1 contains the answers provided by countries (and other entities) to the following question: Briefly, what are the main ongoing policy debates around government support for your country's public research system? You may use the table's search box to filter the data by country or keyword. You may also dowload the data in Excel format.
Table 1. Policy debates in the Public research system policy area
| Response | |
|---|---|
| Argentina | The following topics framed most recent debates on national R&D policies: - The priority setting mechanisms of the current National STI Plan “Argentina Innovadora 2020” to enrich diagnosis and contents of the “Argentina Innovadora 2030” follow-up proposal, as well as prioritisation for sub-national STI policies, regional and sectorial programmes and inter-ministerial initiatives. - The amount and distribution of federal budget for STI development, with particular focus on strengthening capabilities of less-favoured regions, and special concern on satisfying specific social demands to insure that public funded research contributes to a harmonious wellbeing. - The profile, performance and federal distribution of human resources of the scientific community (researchers, technologists, innovators, entrepreneurs, science administrators) and how these meet the needs and interests of CONICET, universities and R&D centers where these actors perform. - Improving institutional evaluations and resources and tools for the accountability of publicly funded projects. - Boosting open science and transparency by facilitating access to (i) primary research data; (ii) open access publications; (iii) statistical visualizations; (iv) funded projects; (v) researchers curricula; and, (vi) online applications for scientists, entrepreneurs, technicians, journalists and governmental actors. - Develop new instruments to support business involvement in STI novel supplies, by connecting researchers, technologists, professionals, organizations and companies with venture capital interested in supporting and financing scientific projects, innovations and novel products. |
| Australia | Australia’s public research sector is known for its capacity to attract excellent international researchers and students to our universities, bringing spill over effects to the national economy. Australia has a high quality research system and performs strongly against most measures of achievement. Despite accounting for only 0.3 per cent of the world's population, we produce more than 3 per cent of research publications (2015) and around 12.6% per cent of the top 10% of highly cited publications (2015). However, collaboration between small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and researchers is low by OECD standards, with 2.7 per cent of SMEs collaborating with higher education or public research institutions in 2012-14. There is interest in investigating the ways businesses and higher education sectors can better work together. Australia continues to be focused on approaches to better support research collaboration, the translation of research into social and economic benefits, as well as supporting high-quality basic research, driving efforts to improve research engagement and impact. Another area of focus is the need for Australia’s research-training system to better equip students with transferable skills, thereby ensuring their ability to apply their knowledge in the workforce. Australia is investing in national research infrastructures and open data platforms to coordinate and integrate research domains across the country. The 2018 Research Infrastructure Investment Plan, based on an earlier National Research Infrastructure Roadmap, has informed planning and investment into platforms necessary for collaborative research in a variety of fields including high performance computing, health sciences, and earth and environmental systems. Data-based research infrastructure built through this initiative seek to meet a range of needs, such as coordination for state and national research efforts, as well as provide an interface for academia, private enterprise and international researchers. Ongoing scoping is being conducted into how to efficiently prioritise future research infrastructure investments as the sector continues to evolve digitally and thematically. |
| Austria | According to Statistics Austria, an estimated € 12.8 billion was spent on Austrian research and development (R&D) in 2019. Thus, the projected total sum of Austrian R&D spending rose by 4.5% compared to 2018, reaching 3.19% of gross domestic product (GDP). This would place Austria above the European target value of 3% for the sixth consecutive year. In the past ten years 2009 – 2019, R&D Investments increased nominally by 71.1%, but gross domestic product only by 39.1% - the growth in R&D Investment has therefore exceeded economic growth, confirming that the Austrian economy is becoming increasingly research intensive. In quantitative terms, the private business sector accounts for the largest share of R&D spending (49%, or approximately EUR 6.3 billion). This share rises to 64.5% of R&D spending when adding the funds provided by enterprises outside Austria. Thus, Austria is steadily approaching the distribution target for research funding (two-thirds from the private sector, one-third from the public sector) defined in the Austrian Strategy for Research, Technology and Innovation (RTI) 2020. While R&D intensity is an important indicator, it reveals little about the quality of output and structural change. Austria is therefore interested in further developing existing indicators (e.g. European Innovation Scoreboard) in order to be able to map new developments and challenges. This should enable better evidence-based policies. Finally, all parts of the Future Initiative for Research, Technology and Innovation (i.e. the new RTI strategy until 2030), the Excellence Initiative for top-level basic research, the Research Financing Act, the merger of three existing advisory bodies (RTI), and the research funding database) aim at supporting and improving Austria’s public research system. |
| Belgium (Brussels authority) | An important debate is developing around the importance of a balanced policy mix. Research, development and innovation (RDI) policy increasingly focuses on the development of challenge-oriented and top-down policy instruments. Safeguarding intellectual and creative independence is a challenge, both for programmes with academic and non-academic actors. The academic sector in particular calls for trust in knowledge institutions and the importance of sufficient resources for fundamental and free intellectual research. Such a debate goes beyond the competences of the Brussels-Capital Region (BCR) and calls for a coordinated policy between the different political levels and areas of competence. The BCR’s particular focus is on creating bridges between research and development (i.e. knowledge transfer), between knowledge and innovation, within a number of strategic innovation areas and local strongholds, which are of paramount importance for the creation of sustainable socio-economic development of the Region. The Regional government does not solely impose research topics on research actors, but challenges research institutions and other research entities to come up with their own suggestions for thematic programmes, which are in line with the strengthening of the local socioeconomic fabric. Current policy support stresses new research configurations and methods, such as cooperative and co-creative research (living labs, experimental platforms, etc.) that bring together different research actors including academia, businesses, public bodies, and citizens. Technology/knowledge transfer between academia and society/industry and support of early-phase start-ups will be a key goal as well, all with the objective of accelerating the processes along the innovation chain and shortening the time-to-market or time-to-society. Therefore, the Region will continue its structural support to technology transfer offices, to encourage valorisation from academic research results. This support is regularly monitored to improve the efficiency of the Region’s technology transfer system. Besides, it is expected that academic research in the future will contribute even more to the production of knowledge that is specific to the Brussels context, allowing social and environmental challenges to be tackled. |
| Belgium (Federal Government authority) | The debate concerning the federal public research system mainly focuses on increasing the autonomy of the research institutes and the best way this could be achieved. This debate also concerns the division of labour between the central administration on the one hand and the institutes on the other hand. For example, will there be performance agreements, and if so, what will they stipulate? All federal research institutes under Belspo have been peer reviewed. Recommendations were issued on the scientific performance as well as on the organisational structure. Some general conclusions are in the process of being elaborated that will to look at some elements common to all of the institutes. Other federal research institutes (not under Belspo) working in public health have been merged to create bigger organisations, with more resources (human and money wise) and avoiding duplication of research, which has mutually enriched the different research departments. |
| Belgium (Flanders authority) | In its policy memorandum 2019-2024, the VARIO (Flemish Advisory Council for Innovation and Entrepreneurship) calls to continue to focus on research and innovation as a priority. The goal must be to achieve the 1% objective for publicly funded R&D intensity by the end of the next government period. As regards R&D expenditures, Flanders has been catching up strongly in the past few years. In 2017, Flanders invested 7,499 billion EUR or 2,89% of GDP in R&D (GERD/GDP). Flanders scores remarkably better than the EU average, and it is year after year improving its position compared to the EU average. At this moment, Flanders just falls short of belonging to the absolute European top. In 2019, the government further increased expenditure for science and innovation (+15%) and R&D-expenditure increased by 19% compared to 2018. This is the result of an increase in the annual budget for R&D and economy of 280 million EUR and of a one-off investment of 120 million EUR. In total, 2.9 billion EUR was foreseen for science and innovation of which 1.9 billion EUR was specifically assigned to R&D. The aim of the government is to reach the 3% target for R&D-expenditure by 2024. This means that by 2024, there will be a 250 million EUR increase in the annual budget for R&D. During the period 2019-2024, 195 million EUR of one-off investments will be made in R&D-infrastructure. |
| Belgium (Wallonia authority) | In 2019, the PPS (Walloon Science Policy Council) identified five main issues relevant for research policy in Wallonia in which the government must act: - Continue and expand recent efforts to raise public R&D spending to 1% of GDP to reach the 3% target by 2020, with special attention to the financing of universities and fundamental research; - Develop the strategic management of the regional RDI system; - Facilitate the valorisation of research results, for example, by taking into account the valorisation dimension throughout the research project’s development and by facilitating the access of firms to the skills necessary to put a new product on the market (financing, marketing, etc.); - Implement an integrated STEM strategy; and - Encourage Walloon research teams to participate in European research programmes by developing a strong policy to increase the number of applicants and improve their success rate. |
| Brazil | The main ongoing policy debates around Brazil’s government support for the public research system are: (i) private sector links; (ii) priority setting; and (iii) undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate evaluation incentives. Private sector links Brazil’s public research system needs to be further linked with the private sector, particularly by better addressing its needs and opportunities. There should be an increase in the number of public research system-private sector interactions, collaborations and partnerships. This could be fostered throughout the public research system’s governance and operations. Priority setting This debate focuses on how the public budget for research should be distributed amongst the scientific areas and industries so that Brazil maximizes the economic and social returns of STI investments. The adoption of mission-oriented innovation policy principles is being explored as a possible approach. Undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate evaluation incentives This debate concerns evaluation incentives in higher education currently present in Brazil’s public research system, i.e. evaluation criteria for undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate education and research production. In particular, whether these stimulate the Brazilian education and research community the right behaviors and decisions which may enhance their contributions to Brazil’s economic and social development. Appropriate criteria should drive teachers, students and researchers to: (i) focus on areas and subjects more related to the main national challenges; (ii) increase their involvement with private sector R&D; and, (iii) stimulate their entrepreneurship ambitions. Aiming at increasing value-added content of key production chains, the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovation and Communications (MCTI) is launching a series of Applied Technology Centers (ATCs). These are meant to act as hubs for national laboratories and research institutions. The first ATCs focus on artificial intelligence and advanced materials (niobium, rare earths, graphene and other carbon-based nano-materials). ATC labs complement the existing lab network and integrate public research institutions and companies in both setting R&D targets and sharing costs. There are plans for other ATCs, the next focusing on assistive technologies for handicapped individuals and on water (covering scientific, economic and social dimensions). |
| Bulgaria | The Ministry of Education and Science (MES) is now at the final stage of an agreement with the World Bank to review public expenditures on R&D, which will cover analysis of the quality and coherence of the policy mix. The World Bank will assist MES in performing an in-depth analysis of the design, implementation and governance of specific STI support instruments, by institution and by their position within the policy mix. The analysis will consist of collecting information on a sample of STI programmes. The World Bank will support MES in evaluating the efficiency of a sample of existing STI instruments to measure their ability to produce expected outputs given the inputs and resources used. The analysis consists of collecting information for a sample of STI programmes on administrative costs, and a survey model of beneficiaries to collect information on outputs and the quality of services provided. This will support designing of the next programming period 2021-2027 for research and innovation instruments. In 2018, as a result of the European Commission’s support through its Policy Support Facility (PSF), Bulgaria introduced an update of its Research Performance Assessment procedures, using bibliometric counts of publications, weighted on the basis of the quality of journals, in combination with Category normalized citation based impact metrics to take into account both the volume as well as the actual impact of the research output. Other factors that are taken into consideration include the integration of research teams in national and international networks, and PhD graduates. The system considers the ability of the evaluated organisations to attract funding, patents registered and share of open science publications. The Assessment Committee is to report the annual evaluation analyses of the ROs and HEIs performance, presented by research areas. One of the mechanisms through which the performance based system in Bulgaria aims to improve the efficiency of the research system is through the concentration of resources. This has been introduced in 2018 in the design of the National Science Programmes pilot. Areas of impact have been identified as a result of prior consultations with the Ministries and Regional Administrations in order to achieve synergy between sectoral policies and programmes. The selection of beneficiaries for the implementation of the activities under the National Science Programmes and the distribution of the funding is based on an analysis of the results of the scientific activities of the ROs and HEIs in the respective scientific field. In this way, a funding mechanism based on the results is put in place. The differentiation between research-oriented HEIs and HEIs focused on tuition is fundamental for the quality improvement. The Ordinance regulating the state subsidies for HEIs’ specific research activities, (Ordinance, under the art. 91 of the Higher Education Law, on the conditions and procedure for the planning, distribution and spending of the subsidies from the state budget allocated for the specific scientific research or artistic activities of the state higher education institutions) has been applied since 2014 and the share of funding depends on the results from the application of scientific performance indicators (e.g. publications, citation impact, PhD graduates, patents) of the State HEIs. |
| Canada | The policy debates surrounding Canada’s public research system take place within a context of broader science, technology and innovation priorities: skills development and retention; (co-)financing among partners, including provincial and territorial governments; private sector involvement and innovation; and organization and coordination models. There is ongoing desire to increase the number of professional, science and tech-related jobs in the Canadian economy as a share of total employment to 40% by 2025. To support this goal, the public research system both supports and relies on highly qualified personnel. Policy debates within this broader discussion include discussions around how to increase the proportion of under-represented groups, including women, and encourage their participation in Canada’s research systems. Funding of the research system, particularly of research infrastructure, is also an ongoing debate. Such debates centre on the appropriate roles at the federal, provincial and territorial, private sector, and institutional level and the corresponding funding responsibility to support Canada’s public research infrastructure. The importance of coordination and national cohesiveness is also prominent in Canada’s policy debates, focusing on the need to streamline services and functions to improve ease of access for researchers. Other prominent topics include the importance of facilitating open and collaborative science between academia, government, and the private sector to effectively maximize science and research outcomes, while ensuring that publicly-funded research infrastructure primarily benefits Canadian researchers. |
| Chile | The main current debate focuses on allocating public budgets for research and development. There are ambitions and expectations, especially in the public research sector, to increase the R&D budget. OECD 2017 statistics indicate that, while the average OECD Member Country allocated 2.37% of GDP as gross domestic expenditure on R&D, Chile’s level of investment reached only 0.36% of GDP. In 2017, Chilean human resources dedicated to R&D activities reached 16,620 people (2.01 per thousand employment). Chile is among the lowest performing OECD member countries in these research indicators, which implies a great challenge for the country. There is a consensus that R&D and innovation acts as an engine increasing productivity, economic growth and social development (especially in the long term). Investing in R&D is also recognised as a key determining factor of the country’s international competitiveness. |
| China | A key priority in China is the construction of science and technology innovation centres and national laboratories to strengthen national strategic scientific and technological strengths and continuously improve the national innovation system. Other priorities include strengthening the construction of independent innovation teams, improve the integration of scientific research resources, improve the collaborative innovation mechanism with universities, research institutes, enterprises, and the government, maximising the advantages of all aspects, and form an overall joint force to promote scientific and technological innovation. The governance system needs to explore the establishment of an efficient and coordinated innovation system, accelerate the pace of scientific and technological system reform, and foster a good innovation pattern combining production, education, and research, integrating upstream, midstream, and downstream, and coordinating large and small enterprises. The system should also integrate national innovation resources, establish a new operating mechanism of goal-oriented, performance management, collaborative research, and open sharing, and build breakthrough-type, lead-based, and platform-type national laboratories. These laboratories should work with other types of research institutions, universities, enterprise R&D institutions, in order to form a new pattern of collaborative innovation with complementary functions and healthy interaction. Relevant departments have recently formulated and promulgated documents aimed at expanding scientific research-related autonomy of universities and research institutes, to strengthen and optimise the layout of governmental research institutes and to increase stable support for basic research institutes. Research institutes have also formulated institutional charters to ensure their independent management and operation. A key challenge is the tendency towards short-term research, which makes it difficult to produce real innovations. The Chinese government aims to address this challenge by revising various evaluation mechanisms. Activities include further advancing the reform of science and technology evaluation, implementing the reform and deployment of project evaluation and organisation evaluation, and accelerating the establishment of a classification and evaluation system oriented to the quality, contribution, and performance of scientific and technological innovation. These reforms should break the tendency of "only papers, only professional titles, only academic qualifications, and only awards", adhering to the combination of evaluation and use, and strengthen the dominant position of talent evaluation by employers. Besides reforming evaluation mechanisms, scientific research integrity mechanisms should be improved. Activities include the construction of a research integrity information system covering the whole country and increasing the amount of investigation and punishment of violations and research misconduct. To improve the efficiency of scientific and technological resources in the public research system, China should adhere to the policy of “innovating mechanisms, revitalizing existing stocks, integrating and perfecting, and opening and sharing.” The country needs to improve the policy and institutional environment, strengthening the working mechanism and management system, building linked with local and regional departments, and promoting open sharing pilots in key regions and departments. Furthermore, an open sharing operation mechanism should be explored, while also strengthening supervision and evaluation and information disclosure. The construction of policies and regulations has been continuously strengthened to optimise the open and sharing institutional environment for scientific and technological resources. The Chinese government seeks to promote the open sharing of large-scale scientific instruments and facilities composing the national S&T infrastructure, to serve STI actors, the economy and society as a whole. In 2017, related departments have introduced the "Measures for the Management of Scientific Data" to strengthen the standardised management of scientific data and promote a shared utilisation system. |
| Colombia | The current national strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) has a territorial approach, arising from the “STI Pact” from the 2018-2022 National Development Plan. This document proposes an increase in research and development investment of 1.5% of GDP by 2022 (doubling the investment). This implies seeking the sustainability of STI resources, both from current sources such as that of the General Royalty System’s (SGR) STI Fund (SGR-FCTeI), as well as the search for new sources. There is currently a proposal for reforming the SGR-FCTeI. Through this fund, the government has established the Bicentennial Doctoral Grants and allocated resources for the institutional strengthening of higher education institutions. These new instruments have supported public research institutes to generate knowledge and technologies of public interest. A need has been identified to review how these programs have performed and redesign them accordingly. |
| Costa Rica | There is an ongoing debate about the Higher Education Fund (Fondo Especial para la Educación Superior Pública, FEES), which finances public universities. Costa Rican fiscal problems puts pressure for the reduction in costs and accountability for the allocation of these universities resources, which are mainly invested in day-to-day expenses and salaries for teaching. These expenses are defined by law, thus the reduction in FEES would primarily affect the allocation of funds for R&D. Another debate is about appropriate incentives for researchers that support industry needs. Traditionally, incentives in public universities have focalised in academic outputs (e.g. publications). Changing them requires important modifications in internal regulations of universities, which implies a lengthy process of discussion and analysis. |
| Croatia | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: An ongoing discussion pertains to finding new funding models for the Croatian research and development (R&D) system. National investment in R&D is rather low; most of the funds serve to pay researchers’ salaries. Another challenge for the R&D system resides in the lax conditions for scientific advancement, leading to a rather large number of young researchers in high scientific positions. To secure more funds for research, the Ministry of Science and Innovation has introduced multi-annual contracts signed with public research organisations (PROs). The contracts stipulate that the Ministry distributes part of the research budget based on the research performance of the PROs. |
| Cyprus | The Cyprus R&I Strategy Framework that was adopted by the National Board for Research and Innovation (NBRI) in May 2019. It aims to act as a driver for strengthening Cyprus' economy and for becoming a regional hub in the fundamental areas of research, scientific excellence, innovation and technological development. It defines appropriate fields of action to support the achievement of national objectives and promotes investments in the medium- and longer-term. The R&I Strategy Framework revolves around three principal strategic pillars: (i) Research Excellence; (ii) knowledge transfer and commercial exploitation; and (iii) Innovative Entrepreneurship. Furthermore, six horizontal pillars act as enablers of strategic importance: (i) governance, (ii) the National R&I Strategy; (iii) cultural change; (iv) international linkages; (v) communication and diffusion; and, (vi) the digital transformation. The Strategy Framework is implemented through a set of policy measures and activities targeting the aforementioned strategic pillars and enablers, kick-starting the reform of the national R&I system and facilitating a strong boost of the research and innovation ecosystem. More information on the actions that are included in each pillar/enabler is available at NBRI’s website (www.nbri.gov.cy). |
| Czech Republic | The Czech Republic’s RDI environment has seen significant change over the past decade. Financial resources raised from the European Structural and Investment Funds have significantly contributed to the development of the research and innovation ecosystem, strengthening research and innovation infrastructure, capacities and capabilities for excellent RDI in both public and private sectors. Since 2017, evaluation of research organisations has broadened from a purely RDI performance-based assessment to a comprehensive evaluation, taking into account also the governance, long-term strategy development and socio-economic benefits and impacts of research organisations (new methodology M2017+). In the "Innovation Strategy of the Czech Republic 2019-2030", which the Government adopted in 2019, one of the main objectives is to strengthen the innovation chain: basic research -> applied research -> innovation -> product -> profits -> reinvestment in research. These measures include, inter alia, strengthening the institutional component of research organisations‘ public funding based on excellence, and strengthening targeted support to those research institutions whose RDI results are applied in practice. Another goal is to focus much more on an increased participation in the EU Framework Programmes, in particular in the forthcoming Horizon Europe. |
| Denmark | In 2017 approx. 66.311 billion DKK was spent on research and development in Denmark. The business community conducted research and development worth 42.9 billion DKK, corresponding to approx. 2.0 per cent of GDP, and thus carried out about two-thirds of the total research and development in Denmark in 2017. The public sector thus performed the remaining one-third worth DKK 23.5 billion DKK, corresponding to approx. 1.1 percent of GDP. According to Statistics Denmark, as of 2019 Denmark is among the countries that spend the most public funding on research and development per inhabitant. The average of public funding for research and development in 2017 for the 28 EU countries was 193.2 euros per year per inhabitant. The figure for Denmark was EUR 454.6 per inhabitant. Among the countries that have reported data to Eurostat for 2017, only Norway allocated more. Since the new government came to power in June 2019, the main debate has concerned how the public research system can contribute to green research and societal challenges. Recently the government earmarked an additional 1 billion DKK to green research. The funds will be used to develop new knowledge and solutions to the climate and environmental challenges the world faces. |
| Estonia | International evaluations recognise that, in general, Estonian research is internationally competitive and forward-looking. Estonia has a number of successful research groups, many of which are at an outstandingly high level, especially in the fields of natural sciences. International cooperation is extensive and the science infrastructure is at a high standard. However, there are critical trends that might affect the countries' future research performance. Despite rapid GDP growth, Estonia has poor total factor productivity, which is likely to become a constraint for further growth, especially as Estonia’s overall R&D spending and business expenditure on R&D have not kept up with GDP growth. Since 2011, the Estonian government has committed itself to spending 1% of GDP on R&D, a target that has yet to be achieved. In December 2018, just a few months before parliamentary elections, the political parties, universities’ representatives, the president of Academy of Sciences, and business sector representatives signed an agreement to reach 1% public spending on RDI by 2022. The rectors committed to excellence in science and increasing cooperation with the business sector. Scientists, represented by the president of the Academy of Sciences and the president of the Young Academy of Sciences promised to work in a balanced manner on basic and applied research, and to prioritise research necessary for the societal and economic development of Estonia. Business sector representatives committed to intensify innovation activities and seek further possibilities to increase university-business cooperation. However, during the budgetary negotiations for 2019 and 2020, the increase in RDI spending was not as high as was hoped on the basis of the agreement, due to the tight budgetary conditions leading to disappointments among the research communities. Another issue is how to improve access to research results and data In this regard, the principles of open science are currently being developed and aligned with the overall open data policy. |
| European Union | The most salient policy debate is the balance yet to be struck in supporting two different kinds of research: (i) research based on predetermined top-down priorities (i.e. close to market and applied research) evaluated on the basis of impact; versus, (ii) bottom-up basic research evaluated on the basis of excellence. A related issue is the balance between project-based competitive research funding and institutional or block funding. In this respect, an area of debate is whether evaluation and allocation mechanisms are fair (particularly bibliometrics and peer review). Over the years, the Scientific Council of the ERC has taken measures on gender balance, open access, widening European participation, strengthening international participation and innovation. It has also looked at ethics review, remuneration, interdisciplinarity and the ERC’s budget allocation between scientific domains. In terms of recent prominence, Science Europe’s Plan S initiative has contributed to putting the debate of open access in the spotlight. |
| Finland | The main focus during the past few years in Finland has been the target of 4% GDP spent of R&D funding by 2030, set by the Finnish Research and Innovation Council (RIC) and later confirmed by the Government of Prime Minister Antti Rinne. The ratio was 2.73% in 2017. This is understood to be a very ambitious goal and most ongoing policy debates around R&D and public research system revolve around it. The key in achieving this target is seen to be stimulating private sector R&D activities and how the public research system plays a key role in this. Among policy debates currently discussed are the following: the ideal ratio between competitive research funding (channelled mostly through the Academy of Finland) against the basic funding provided directly to higher education institutions by the Ministry of Education and Culture. Higher education institutes have higher degree of freedom to spend the basic funding as they see fit, while bulk of the competitive funding is directed to research activities. Furthermore, there has been some discussion on the right balance between research funding directed to teams of researchers and individual researchers. The former is understood to facilitate co-operation between researchers while the latter may offer more security and stability for research careers. Other policy debates have involved the decreased funding to clinical research, the former government's cuts on R&D and innovation spending and the right balance between funding to public research institutes and higher education institutions. Finally, an ongoing debate remains that over whether Finland should pool more resources to develop critical mass in larger research-intensive universities or continue to maintain a network of smaller higher education institutions in most regions of the country. |
| France | The French Government is in the process of preparing a multi-year research programming bill that would replace the current National Research Strategy (SNR 2015-2020). This will be presented to parliament in 2020 with a view to enactment in 2021. The National Open Science Plan announced by the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation in July 2018 makes open access for publications and project-based research data mandatory. It sets up an Open Science Committee and supports major structuring initiatives related to publications and data. It also has a training component and an international component that are essential for the mobilisation of scientific communities and the influence of France in this area. http://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gou.... |
| Germany | Science policy in the German public research system is largely implemented by joint programmes ("pacts") of the federal government together with the Länder governments. These programmes are based on five principles: enabling excellent science, providing reliable and ample funding perspectives, respecting autonomy and responsibility of higher education and research institutions, establishing new (infra)structures for new challenges, and strengthening the links between science and society. In 2018 and 2019 major agreements between the federal government and the Länder were achieved: on the continuation of federal funding for teaching tasks of the universities with a strong focus on quality of education; on the continuation of the “Pakt für Forschung und Innovation” concerning increases in basic funding for the large non-university research organisations and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft”; on initiatives to strengthen “Fachhochschulen” for applied sciences; and on a common mechanism to fund research data infrastructure and high-capacity computing. The Excellence Strategy (Exzellenzstrategie) is a funding programme of the Federal Government and the Länder to strengthen cutting-edge research at universities in two funding lines: Clusters of Excellence and Universities of Excellence. The “Clusters of Excellence” funding line provides project-based funding in internationally competitive fields of research at individual universities or university alliances. The “Universities of Excellence” funding line sets out to strengthen universities or university alliances as institutions and to expand their leading international position in research on the basis of successful Clusters of Excellence. The Excellence Strategy was adopted in 2016 to succeed the Excellence Initiative. The transfer of ideas, knowledge and technologies from research to practice is a societal and economic necessity. Innovation processes have changed and accelerated in recent years. The Federal Ministry of Research and Education aims to strengthen transfer and to implement it as ‘the third mission’ of universities besides research and education. This aim is supported by specific agreements in pacts and targeted support measures. Additionally, in 2020, an R&D tax support scheme will be introduced. It will further support cooperation between businesses and research institutions. |
| Greece | Despite the rigid fiscal consolidation and austerity measures during the previous years, R&D intensity increased as a percentage of GDP as well as in absolute numbers. GERD reached 1.13% in 2017 whereas the initial target set for 2020 was 1.2% of GDP. These recent positive developments in R&D intensity led to an upwards revision of the target to 1.3% of GDP in 2020. This target is included in the National Reform Programme 2019, led by the European Union. Policies to enhance the public research system include: - Initiatives to enable technology transfer and strengthening the links between universities, public research institutions and the business sector (collaborative projects, intermediary organisations and mechanisms) - Flagship initiatives enhancing research activities and networking among public research organisations to address critical aspects of the Greek economy and society (in particular in the agro-food sector for olive oil, wine and honey production; personalized medicine for cancer, genetic cardio-vascular and neurodegenerative diseases; and climate change) - Enhance the visibility, competitiveness and active participation of Greek teams in the international research landscape (in Horizon 2020, initiatives under art.185 of the Treaty, in other international organisations). - Initiatives to reverse brain drain/ brain waste. Furthermore, an evaluation of performance of the public research centers and institutes operating under the auspices of GSRT is also foreseen to begin before the end of 2019. The evaluation will be carried out according to international standards. As far as research integrity is concerned, a new law entered into force in 2018 providing for the establishment of a Committee for Ethics and Integrity in Research in each university and public research centre. The Committee, composed of 5-7 specialized scientists, is mandated to examine the research projects carried out in the Institution on a moral and ethical basis. The decisions of the Committee are binding for the Institution. |
| Hungary | The Hungarian RDI system is undergoing major reforms led by the Ministry for Innovation and Technology. There are two strategic bases of the intended reforms: - A mid-term peer review of the implementation of the 2013-2020 Strategy conducted by international experts in 2016. - A 10-point resolution of the Hungarian Government on the need to reform the RDI system, in October 2018. The main elements of the reform include: - The establishment of the National Science Policy Council (as scientific advisory body of the Hungarian government). - The establishment of a unified National Research, Development and Innovation Fund. - An increase of the annual RDI public funding level by 25%. - The establishment of publicly funded research networks dealing with basic and applied research (Loránd Eötvös Research Network (LERN) and Bay Zoltán Applied Research Network, respectively). The LERN currently comprises of the 15 research institutes that were previously under the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HAS). Bay Zoltán Applied Research Network is an integrated publicly funded network dealing with applied research based on the funding and operational model of the German Fraunhofer network. The government’s intention with the establishment of the LERN is to create a better and more independent organisation with the following key elements: - The research network is not linked to the executive branch of the government but to the Parliament. Therefore it has the same independent status as the HAS. - Its budget is included in an independent chapter in Hungary’s central budget. It does not belong to the HAS, nor to the Ministry of Innovation and Technology (MIT). In the 2020 central budget, a higher amount appears on the LERN chapter than in 2019. - The LERN’s Governing Body will have 13 members of which 6 members are nominated by the HAS and another 6 members are nominated by the MIT. The chairman of the Governing Body will be appointed based on the mutual recommendation of the HAS president and the MIT minister. The Prime Minister appoints the members and the chairman for a term of 5 years. According to the regulation, at least two-thirds of members must be selected from the scientific field, in order to guarantee the scientific aspects of decisions. - The work of the Governing Body will be supported by a Scientific Council and an International Advisory Board formed exclusively of foreign scientists, guaranteeing a wide professional quality, in line with the research excellence principle and international transparency of the activities of the new network. These bodies do not exist in this form in the present structure of the HAS. - Real estate and other property used exclusively for research purposes will remain in the ownership of the HAS. However, the HAS will provide it free of charge to the research network for carrying out research tasks. |
| Iceland | The main focus of debate is the level of funding that is available for public research, including open competitive funds, and the way in which this could be increased and prioritised within the framework of future societial challenges that Iceland might face. In late 2018, resulting, amongst other approaches, from a wide public consultation, the government identified the main societal challenges for the period 2018-2021: Environment and sustainability, Health and welfare, and Life and jobs in the world of change. These should be emphasised in strategically placed funds or initiatives for research using public funds. There had also previously been an emphasis on Icelandic language technology, to promote Icelandic as a language in a digital world with an emphasis on strategic funding for "future proofing" Icelandic in light of digitalisation. In its policy from 2017-2019, the Science and Technology Policy Council emphasised the need for increased and more transparent funding for Higher Education Institutions, driven by a greater set of variables than the current model which is mostly based on student numbers. Subsequently a national Green paper on funding for Higher Education has been produced and is out for public consultation in late 2019. A working group will work further with the material to develop a new funding model for Higher Education Institutions in Iceland during 2020. Overall funding for higher education has increased from 81% of the OECD average in 2015 to 94% of the OECD average in 2016. In addition, the Science and Technology Policy Council identified policy development on Open Access, covering both data and publications, as one of its 10 priorities in its National Science Policy and Action Plan for the years 2017-2019. A working group on ”Policy on Open Science“ was established. The working group will submit proposals to the Minister of Education, Science and Culture by end of 2019. More effective investment in research infrastructures, including international infrastructures was one of the actions in the National Science Policy and Action Plan in 2017-2019. As a consequence, Iceland published a report mapping current research infrastructures in March 2019. New legislation allowing the establishment of and participation in European Research Infrastructure Consortia (ERIC) was agreed in parliament in the first half of 2019. A report on a Research Infrastructure Roadmap was finalised in 2019 and it is anticipated that the Board of the Infrastructure Fund will release a Roadmap for RI investment for Iceland in 2020. Legislative changes have been made to establish separate Boards for the Infrastrucure Fund and the Research Fund. |
| Ireland | In late 2015, Government agreed to the publication of Innovation 2020, Ireland’s cross Government strategy for research and development, science and technology, and to the adoption of its vision of Ireland becoming a “Global Innovation Leader” as a whole of Government policy goal. I2020 sets out the roadmap to deliver on this vision with a focus on maintaining and improving standards in the excellence of research, developing the talent to facilitate research and innovation and ensuring there is tangible and positive impact upon the needs of our society and economy. Direct public spending on RDI increased considerably in the 2000s, from €607 million in 2004 to a record €930m in 2008. Investment fell as a result of the economic crash to a low of €719 million in 2014 but recovered to an estimated €766m in 2018. While the Irish economy has recovered and strengthened in the past number of years, levels of public investment have not returned to the peak of 2008. This can be attributed to the limited fiscal space which has impacted on budget allocations across Government departments and also to the fact that the very high levels of public investment in the years to 2008 were unsustainable. Public spending is principally undertaken by DBEI and the Departments of Education and Skills, Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Health, and Communications, Climate Action & Environment. Ireland’s low levels of public investment in RDI place us 24th in the EU28 for public RDI expenditure according to the recent European Innovation Scoreboard. Across Government, there is a compelling need to ensure that the importance of funding for RDI is kept to the fore. Significant increases in public investment will be required to make progress in delivering on the key objectives in Innovation 2020 and to leverage increases in Business Expenditure on R&D (BERD) through, inter alia, requirements for industry to match State funding in collaborative programmes, and improving programmes targeted at increasing BERD. As has been recognised in Future Jobs Ireland, investment in innovation is an essential component in developing the economic and social infrastructure necessary to ensure a resilient and competitive enterprise base and in addressing many societal challenges. In addition to Future Jobs Ireland, innovation is a common thread running through many government policies, including, Enterprise 2025 Renewed and the National Development Plan 2018-2027 (NDP). The first Pillar of Future Jobs Ireland, “Embracing Innovation and Technological Change”, will build on progress made to date by focusing on securing the quantity and quality of skilled workers required in light of increased automation and digitisation, improving the capacity of enterprise to absorb technology and exploit its advantages and opportunities; and encourage greater RDI activity to keep Irish enterprise at the frontier of innovation. Achieving the Innovation 2020 vision of becoming a Global Innovation Leader is recognised in Future Jobs Ireland as being key to fully embedding resilience and ensuring long term sustainable growth. The higher education element of Ireland's public research system is guided in the main by two central strategies: Innovation 2020 and the National Strategy for Higher Education. Out of the latter flows the Higher Education System Performance Framework 2018-2020, on the basis of which bilateral performance compact agreements have been reached by the HEA with each higher education institution. A ‘compact’ sets out how that institution’s ambitions and plans intend to contribute to delivery of each of the six 2018-2020 Framework system-level objectives (one of which pertains to research and innovation). Some of the main current debates in Ireland around research and innovation policy include how one builds on economic impact and toward greater societal impact of research. This is consistent with international developments. The role of research and innovation in sustainable regional development is also a live issue and will be teased out in the formulation of Future Jobs Ireland 2020. And the balance of research investment is another live discussion: the balance between investment in investigator-led research vs. centre-led research; between and across disciplines; across the basic-applied/TRL spectrum; and between national support and international success. |
| Israel | The main policy debate regarding support for public research relates to the components of the research funding model for Israel's research universities, including how the model can be optimized in order to promote excellence in research. |
| Italy | The policy debate is oriented to discuss three main issues at different levels: the national, with the goal of increasing enterprises’ collaborative activity in the field of research and innovation; the European to co-create the next European framework programme for research and innovation; and international to foster Italy's internationalisation of research in terms of researchers mobility, and shared projects and infrastructures. Debates are focused at national level with the National Operational Program (PON) Research and Innovation 2021-2027. As for the 2014-2020, the PON is the instrument through which Italy contributes to the improvement of the quality of higher education and to the strengthening of research, technological development and innovation, realizing the objectives of the European Union's cohesion policy in favor of its territorial areas more disadvantaged. At the international level, ongoing debates resulted in recent years in some relevant outputs, such as the PRIMA and the BLUEMED-EU initiatives, focused on promotion of collaborative research within the Mediterranean countries, including non-EU, in which the Italian commitment in terms of budget and political engagement has been relevant. Other activities such as the debate on the future European framework program of research and innovation Horizon Europe or the dialogue within the “5+5 Science Dialogue initiative” that was presided by Italy in 2018. The Central European Initiative that was presided by Italy in 2019 gave the opportunity for Italy to approach a debate about the role for cooperative research not only within the EU area but also including neighbouring non-EU countries. Other national debates include the internationalisation of Italian research and higher education (coordinated by the Ministry of foreign affairs) and international cooperation, space exploration and the space economy (coordinated at an inter-ministerial level). All of these issues are discussed at the ministerial level and supervised by the Council of Ministries. |
| Japan | As for the present state of research capabilities, as measured by the number and quality of academic publications, the government recognises Japan’s relative decline compared to other countries. Basic research capabilities are the source of scientific and technological innovation, and the strength of basic research capabilities has a significant impact on international competitiveness. It is necessary to drastically strengthen Japan’s research capabilities with a view to the future, through the triple reform of human resources, research funding, and the research environment. At the same time, the government recognizes that Japan alone has limited resources, such as human resources and funding for research. Japan needs to strengthen research capabilities while actively cooperating with the rest of the world. Basic research capabilities are potentially high and are expected to contribute to the creation of seeds that will lead to disruptive innovation. To promote this, it is important for the public and private sectors to cooperate to find promising seeds and to foster young researchers who will tackle them. This cooperation should go beyond conventional university-industry collaboration. While private investment in universities and national research institutes in Japan is on the rise, it has not yet reached a full-fledged level. Further efforts are needed to expand the scope of such investment. In light of the declining birthrate and ageing population, Japan is facing a serious labor shortage, forcing it to rely on foreign workers in some fields. In the future, it will be necessary not only to improve productivity by making full use of AI and robots and drastically activating start-ups, but also to strengthen the quality of “human resources”, which is Japan’s greatest asset, to meet the needs of the times. The government considers it an urgent task to build a system in which all people participate in society based on the concept of a human-centered society. |
| Kazakhstan | Since 2018 the Ministry of Education and Science, higher education institutes (HEIs), public research institutes (PRIs) and society representatives have discussed issues raised by the scientific community on how to increase the transparency of decisions on grant and program-oriented funding process. These discussions featured open voting and online broadcasting of meetings of experts. Topics of discussion included defining clear criteria selection for projects of public scientific and technical expertise, introducing an assessment for the validity of requested funding amounts, and the weight assigned to the various selection criteria. R&D funding relies on basic, grant and programme-targeted funding. There are special rules for their provision. The grant and programme-targeted funding are available on a competitive basis. In 2019 the Science Committee of the Kazakh Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) developed a methodology for evaluating research projects and scientific activities of the scientific research institutes. The main ongoing issues around the government support for the public research system are: - increasing competitive funding for research; - increasing institutional funding for PRIs; - increasing the commercialization of research projects' results (applied science); - improving skills of researchers in public PRIs and HEIs; - enhancing international co-operation in science, technology and innovation; - increasing the number of publications in peer-reviewed journals; - arranging training events and providing other measures of non-financial support; and, - developing the venture capital funding. |
| Korea | As part of the restructuring of the Project-Based System (PBS), the government has asked research institutes to submit their new "roles and responsibilities". Currently, the ratio of project-based funding at the government research institutes (GRIs) is in the range of 30-60%. Depending on the redefined roles and responsibilities of the GRIs, this ratio may drop in a more stable research environment, where the proportion of organisation-based block funding is set to increase. |
| Latvia | State budget allocations to the public research system are on the political agenda. Significant increases are expected in the 2020 State Budget. Up until 2020, only the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) and the Ministry of Economics have implemented State Research Programmes. But this is set to change with the adoption of the law "Amendments to the Law on Scientific Activity" and its entry into force on July 12th 2018 (see Article 35) and the subsequent approval of Cabinet Regulation No. 560 (on September 4th 2018) "Procedure for the implementation of state research programme projects", which enable sectoral ministries to create and finance State Research Programmes in their respective areas of competence. A new Fundamental and Applied Research Project scheme (F&A research scheme) was launched in 2018. Compared to previous years, funding has been increased from 4.4 million EUR annually to 9.5 EUR annually. This scheme provides a platform for bottom-up research proposal implementation in all six fields of science (according to the Fields of Science classification) where the focal goal and evaluation criteria is research excellence. All projects are evaluated by international experts only. The Guidelines for the Development of Science, Technology and Innovation for 2014-2020 set a goal to reduce the number of state-funded research institutions from 40 to 20 (by 2020). In 2018, this goal was reached (21 state-funded institutions in 2018). Therefore, current R&D policy moves away from institutional consolidation towards strengthening research capacity in these institutions. |
| Lithuania | Strategic planning on government support for the Lithuanian public research system centres on the following core topics: (i) strengthening of human resources; (iii) creating of research-based knowledge; and, (iii) promoting research entrepreneurship. These three tasks form the knowledge triangle (creation, circulation and application) that have been outlined as essential during the discussions and consultations with the main universities, research institutions and non-governmental actors (e.g. Knowledge Economy Forum) when drafting the National Progress Programme. They are expected to raise Lithuanian competitiveness and economic growth. Discussions surrounding the national research policy framework also raised need to build international linkages within the Lithuanian research sector (e.g. joining international research infrastructures and other international networks), promoting researcher mobility, gender balance and open access to research information (publications and data). In addition, the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport regards research-based innovations as a priority. The system of assessment and financing of R&D activities of universities and research institutes was changed in 2017. A dual system of assessment consisting of (i) yearly-arranged formal assessments and (ii) expert assessments conducted every five years was introduced. The first expert assessment was accomplished in 2018 with the help of international experts. 60% of R&D funding is allocated to universities and research institutes according to the results of these expert assessments, and 40% according to the results of the last three yearly formal assessments. |
| Luxembourg | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: The main debate concerns establishing thematic and horizontal priorities in national research policy. i) Thematic priorities: a broad consensus exists on the need to streamline Luxembourgs public-research portfolio and focus on key areas, hence reducing the number of thematic areas covered. The actors and stakeholders involved hold differing views on how this could be done. This debate takes place at different levels. At the political level (both in the Government and Parliament) the discussions mostly take place in the context of budget negotiations. At the University, the debate centres on the allocation of block grants between the faculties and interdisciplinary centres, as well as among the faculties. At the National Research Fund (FNR) – which has a structuring effect on the public research system – the debate focuses on the number of research priorities, and the nature and volume of the different funding programmes. So far, this debate has not led to direct changes in thematic priorities, but streamlining is expected to take place during the next round of negotiations. ii) Horizontal priorities: the impact of public research, and its potential contribution to economic and social development, is a regular topic of discussion, including the notion of "excellence versus relevance". As a result, the FNR has expanded the portfolio of instruments and initiatives in both its thematic and human resource-development programmes, so that they cover (to a certain extent) both public-private and public-public partnerships. The ongoing revision of the University of Luxembourg’s legal framework has triggered a debate on the University’s long-term development – and, more generally, the national public research system. These debates also bring into question the sustainability of a research system organised along dual lines, i.e. the University and the public research institutes. |
| Malta | The ongoing policy debates focus around the persistent sub-optimal level of investment in R&D and the risk of missing the political target of 2% Gross R&D expenditure / GDP by 2020. Over the past months, an extensive review of the statistical data process was also undertaken. The Core Group, which meets at Permanent Secretary level, is responsible for deciding on priorities for action as well as timeframes, resources and budgets on the basis of recommendations made by the Steering Group. The Steering Group meets at the level of Heads of relevant Public Entities and Organisations or their high-level delegates. Further advocacy, through the Core and Steering groups responsible for R&I, remains ongoing for increased government support and funding to R&D, which is also backed by the recommendations of the June 2019 PSF report. |
| Mexico | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: The public research system is the subject of several important debates. The first question is to increase the number of researchers in the national research system, particularly in priority areas determined by the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) within the framework of the Special Programme for STI 2014-18. The second issue is to create and promote interdisciplinary research groups addressing complex challenges, like climate change. The third priority is to encourage the participation of Mexican researchers in global research activities. A related issue is evaluating the scientific production of researchers, to ensure that research results meet quality and impact requirements, and cover diverse scientific disciplines. |
| Morocco | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: Great efforts were made during the last decade to improve research funding and increase GERD. Even though the GERD/GDP ratio rose from 0.37% in 1999 and 0.63% in 2006, to 0.73% in 2010 (according to the available data), it remains low compared to UNESCO and OECD recommendations (i.e. a ratio of at least 1%). Moreover, more than 70% of GERD is allocated to personnel salaries. Hence, all stakeholders – particularly policy makers – agree on the need to strengthen and diversify research-funding sources, particularly through developing public-public and public-private partnerships to support R&D; encouraging enterprises to invest in R&D activities; promoting international co-operation in STI and draining foreign funds; and encouraging contributions from non-profit organisations. The number of students enrolled in Moroccan higher education institutions nearly doubled over the last decade (from 385 653 in 2006 to 750 130 in 2016, a 95% increase). The number of academics/professors only grew by 40% (from 9 395 in 2006 to 13 170 in 2016), owing to the retirement of numerous academics in recent years. This has had a negative impact on the overall quality of higher education and scientific research in Morocco. A set of measures were therefore adopted to counter the student/professor gap in the coming years, which will see an even higher number of academic retirements. It is recognised worldwide that academic staff (teachers-researchers) cannot advance their careers without undertaking minimal scientific research to move up levels before reaching the highest grade. In the Moroccan context, hundreds (or even thousands) of academic staff have reached the highest grade without significant scientific or technological production (apart from their doctoral thesis), even though they are paid for it. National regulatory laws on the advancement of academic staff should therefore be revised to account for R&D activities. |
| Netherlands | The system of financing of the education and research system is an important policy debate. A large study on the costs of research and education in relation to the budget is in the process of being launched in late 2019. The debate about rewarding and recognizing scientific achievements has been launched with a large role for universities. Academics can excel in many areas, but thus far they have primarily been assessed based on research achievements. From now on, the Dutch public knowledge institutions and research funders want to consider academics’ knowledge and expertise more broadly in determining career policy and grant requirements. The aim is to ensure that the recognition and rewards system is better suited to the core tasks of the knowledge institutions in the areas of education, research, impact and patient care, and that the appreciation academics receive is better aligned with society’s needs. Research achievements have long determined academics’ career paths, but this dominance is becoming increasingly at odds with reality. Education and impact are also crucial to the success of a modern knowledge institution, as is patient care for our university medical centres. There is also more emphasis on clear university profiles. There are opportunities to make the Netherlands a knowledge hub and a centre that competes with those elsewhere in the world. A clear profile helps to attract talented researchers from abroad. In addition, it can enable the forging of better connections with other international and national research institutions, companies and civil society organizations. It is also a way of putting the Netherlands more firmly on the map as a country that develops and uses world-class knowledge. University sectoral plans (‘sectorplannen’) and setting focal areas at universities of applied sciences are useful tools for this purpose. To this end, the instrument of sectoral plans has been funded and initiated both in beta and technical studies, as well as in the social sciences and humanities. |
| New Zealand | There are debates surrounding the balance between government support for basic and applied research, and the measures that should be used to determine what kind of research should be funded. There are arguments that it is more difficult to make a funding case for basic or ‘blue skies’ research due to it being harder to make out end-user benefits; despite this kind of research being critical for driving innovation through expanding the scientific knowledge base. However, New Zealand has a strong focus on research excellence as a criteria for funding, as well as a focus on funding research and innovation at the leading edge of what the world knows or can do - the other side of the argument is that excellent research, whether it is basic or applied, is supported from this angle, especially if it is cutting edge or world-leading. |
| Norway | Norwegian research institutes holds a unique position as both a provider and distributor of research to users. At the same time, policies for research institutes has over time been too complicated and poorly coordinated. Therefore, the Government has initiated a review of existing policies that also considers new measures for ensuring a more comprehensive research institute policy framework. For some time, there has been criticism that the government block funding of the technological research institutes has been too low, and lower than for comparable institutes in other countries. Increased block funding of the technological institutes was prioritised in the revised long-term plan research and higher education in 2018, and has been followed up in the national budget for both 2019 and 2020. Cooperation with the EU in research and innovation is a core element in Norwegian research policy. The EU framework programme is our most important arena for international cooperation in research and innovation. Recently, the Norwegian government has declared its intention to participate in the next EU framework programme, Horizon Europe, which will entail a major investment and further increase the importance of this funding stream for public research institutions. Access to public sector information for research purposes has been a topic of some debate, with concerns raised by the research community that access to important register data is too time-consuming, costly and unpredictable, and that high quality health information is under-exploited due to unnecessary barriers for legitimate purposes such as research. The topic is an important part of the government’s national strategy on access to and sharing of research data from 2018. Since then there has been enacted a new law relating to official statistics and Statistics Norway, that continues the possibility of giving access to information collected by Statistics Norway to research purposes, and the government is considering ways to make the legitimate access of researchers more efficient. The portal Microdata.no makes it possible for a wider group of users in research, higher education and government to perform microdata analyses on register data, with automatic barriers that hinder the release of individual pieces of information. The government has also decided to a establish a Health Analysis Platform, that will enhance safe access to analyse health information for both research purposes, government planning and administration, and industry development, and strengthen the patients’ privacy and control of their own information. |
| Peru | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: As the governing body of STI, CONCYTEC established the Registry of Researchers in Science and Technology (REGINA) in 2015 to qualify researchers who meet set requirements. In compliance with University Law No. 30220 (Article 86), the Ministry of Education has allocated part of the budget for 2017 and 2018 to paying a special bonus to public university instructors who fit the REGINA researcher category (a qualification granted by CONCYTEC). There is no law in Peru that identifies and rewards paths for research careers. University Law No. 30220 only recognises the status of teacher-researcher, i.e. a university instructor who qualifies under the REGINA researcher criteria. The need to categorise researchers according to merit has therefore been identified. A law on research careers is being debated to assess the trajectory of STI researchers, mainly by highlighting the merits of their scientific and/or technological activities. The proposed law establishes categories for senior researchers, adjunct investigators, and young and postdoctoral researchers, all of which entail an economic bonus. CONCYTEC is working on modifying the REGINA regulation to categorise researchers’ careers along the same lines as investigators careers. |
| Poland | In 2018, the “Constitution for Science”, also known as the “Law 2.0”, entered into force as a comprehensive reform of the Polish higher education and science system. In principle, the reform aims to (i) give higher education institutes (HEIs) more autonomy; (ii) increase the impact of research performed in Polish institutions on world science; and, (iii) improve the quality of education, including doctoral training. Its adoption was preceded by a long process of dialogue with stakeholders. A process of pre-consultation started in early 2016 and finished in September 2017 with a first draft proposal. The pre-consultation included nine conferences, termed the “National Congress of Science", and concluded with the presentation of the proposal. Approximately 7 000 scientists, students and experts took part in this phase. The process was followed by regular public consultations which lasted four months. The new law on higher education and science as well as the act on implementation of the law were adopted in July 2018 and entered into force on 1 October 2018. The full names of these two acts are: the Act of 20 July 2018 Law on Science and Higher Education and the Act of 3 July 2018 on the Implementation of the Law on Higher Education and Science. The reform addresses, among other things, the following issues: - Enhancing the autonomy of HEIs, including financial autonomy; - Raising the visibility of public research outcomes; - Improving the quality and relevance of study programmes provided by HEIs; - Improving the efficiency of doctoral training; - Diversifying the public research system's internal structure; and, - Reviewing the system of academic degrees and conferred titles. The implementation of the reform opened a room for discussion on these objectives and, at a broader level, the governance and structure of HEIs. In 2019, the initiative named "The National Congress of Science - Forum” was set up as a follow-up to the pre-consultation conferences. These fora serve as stakeholders' platform for exchanging opinions on and experiences from implementation of the Law 2.0 at an institutional level. |
| Portugal | The Portuguese Government’s financial support to the public research system has been following a consolidation path after severe disruptions felt during the financial crisis years. GBARD, and consequently, GERD, have yet to recover to pre-2012 levels, although recent years have seen an increase in public and private investment. The structural consequences of the financial crisis years in the public research system, which created difficulties in scientific infrastructures, equipment and, most relevantly, personnel, were partially compensated by the structurally competitive funding mechanism of the research institutions. By design, since the 1990’s, the percentage of competitive funding against block funding in the Portuguese public research institutions is higher than in most European Union Member Countries. In the context of the financial crisis, the experience of Portuguese R&D institutions in capturing competitive funding enabled them to partially compensate for the reduction of government funding and for funding policies that hindered the development of the research system as a whole (which tended to concentrate funding only in the institutions deemed as excellent). Given the competitive nature of funding in the Portuguese public research system, new government-led policy initiatives often generate debate among the main actors of the system, namely the universities and research institutions, on how that new initiative should be financially supported. A relevant, recent example of this was the new scientific employment legal framework, which reinforced the researcher’s careers and their working conditions. This new legal framework, improving the employment conditions of non-permanent researchers, led to an increase in the cost of research personnel. There was also a strong debate between government and universities, involving Parliament, on who should support the increased costs: the Government, by increasing the block funding attributed to the research institutions, or the institutions themselves, by factoring in the new cost structure into the competitive funding they are able to capture. Besides the Government funding support, other measures have tried to improve the functioning of the public research system. In 2018, a new legal diploma (DL 60/2018) simplified the administrative procedures related to contracts and acquisitions, an exception to the general regulations created specifically for the research institutions. This diploma was framed in a broader, state-wide simplification initiative (SIMPLEX+), which includes areas dedicated to the research system: the Programme “More Science, less bureaucracy” (https://www.maiscienciamenosburocracia.c...) aggregates those measures, which include, for example, simplified procedures for foreign researchers, or a Science ID which identifies a researcher through all the services of public administration. |
| Romania | The RD&I system in Romania consists of 263 public R&D organisations (56 public universities, 46 national R&D institutes, 65 research institutes and centres of the Romanian Academy, and another 96 public research institutes and centres), and about 600 private companies declaring R&D. The network for technology transfer and innovation (ReNITT) has around 50 specific organizations (technology transfer centres, technology information centres, technology and business incubators). The number of R&D personnel in the public sector was approx. 31,500 in 2018. The percentage of researchers per 1000 civil employed persons was 2.02 (2017, https://data.oecd.org/rd/researchers.htm...). General remarks are (i) the public system is too fragmented with respect to the available funding, and (ii) low administrative capacity. The financing agencies Executive Unit for Financing Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation (UEFISCDI), Romanian Space Agency (ROSA) and Institute for Atomic Physics (IFA) are managing the implementation of the National RD&I Plan. The assessment of the implementation of RD&I programmes is carried out by independent entities. Ongoing discussions highlight that actual national policies have to tackle some challenges: (i) not enough agreement among short-term results, budget cycles, and long-term strategies, which should transcend the electoral cycle; (ii) the existence of too many strategies suffering from overlaps and discrepancies between design and implementation; (iii) significant degree of fragmentation of the public system, lack of coordination and communication; and (iv) insufficient and unpredictable financing, which means that not all the planned financing instruments come into force. |
| Russian Federation | The ongoing debates around the public research system primarily refer to the implementation of the national project "Science" and its new tools – establishment of world-class research and educational centers in the regions, update of research equipment, and launch of complex S&T programmes within the S&T priorities of the Russian Federation. The adoption of the new law "On scientific, scientific and technological, and innovation activities in the Russian Federation" is another important issue being discussed within the government, the parliament and the expert community. Compared to the previous period of the 2010s, when the role of universities in research and innovation was particularly emphasized, now the Russian Academy of Sciences is trying to reestablish itself as a leading expert centre taking an active part in formulating and evaluating science policy, as well as in assessing basic research results nationwide. |
| Slovak Republic | R&D is a fundamental precondition for the competitiveness and sustainable development of society and necessary for the long-term growth of living standards in Slovakia. Slovak R&D has a long-term tradition, and in some areas, performance is at world standard levels. The R&D potential in Slovakia is concentrated in the public sector (two thirds of R&D expenditure is performed by the public sector). As in other Central European economies, the National Academies of Sciences (and the departmental research institutes to a more limited extent) play an important role. Universities account for just 48% of R&D performed in the public sector. A significant barrier to the innovation progress of the Slovak economy is the relatively high proportion of basic research. There is insufficient support for applied research and a lack of institutions aimed at the transfer of scientific knowledge into practice. An exception is the R&D performed by departmental research institutes and centers, where applied research and subsequent development and knowledge transfer into practice dominate. |
| Slovenia | In last two years, government support for the public research system was debated primarily within the framework of the preparation of the new law on research and innovation, a process that aimed to involve relevant stakeholders. The main debate centred on R&D public spending, which dropped significantly between 2011 and 2015. While it slightly increased during 2015-2018, it is still far from the national goal of 1% of GDP. Other important issues debated included: (i) increasing the autonomy of public research institutes; (ii) institutional funding; and, (iii) strengthening knowledge transfer to the economy, particularly by opening the possibility for establishing spin-offs and spin-outs for public research institutes. The involvement of other sectoral ministries into the process of defining and allocating budgets for research topics was also discussed. In parallel, there were also debates about research infrastructures. Both options, building new ones and securing the access to international ones were discussed. A special issue is also the appropriateness of the governance system for consolidating policy funds for developing research and innovation potentials. |
| South Africa | Interventions to expand the knowledge enterprise in South Africa is an important part of the national STI policy debate. This includes an interrogation on how best to expand research outputs whilst ensuring the transformation of the research institutional landscape. Finding measures to best grow and diversify the institutional landscape, including by boosting the research capacity at institutions such as historically disadvantaged universities indeed dominate the policy debate. Also, ensuring an open, responsive and diverse knowledge system is a topical STI policy challenge in South Africa like elsewhere in the world. How best to respond to the opportunities and challenges associated with Open Science and Open Innovation are dominant policy themes in South Africa, mirroring many of the global debates. Other topics include how public investment should best target a diversity of knowledge fields, as well as how to address complex societal problems through inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches. The role of the humanities and social sciences within the public research system is another focus for STI policy debate in South Africa. Also receiving attention is the imperative that a successful public research system requires systematic efforts to upgrade and expand research infrastructures. The importance of increased internationalisation and the role of science diplomacy in advancing the public research enterprise are other policy themes interrogated. The main success in South African public research system is the exponentially increasing number of scientific publications. The drivers behind this increase include the 2012 National Research and Development Strategy (NRDS) and the Research Outputs Grant. As a result, South Africa performs well in the scale-adjusted number of publications in comparison to BRICS countries and even some of the developed countries. However, these publications are more inclined towards humanities and social sciences. This is not surprising, as a relatively large number of doctoral graduates are in associated fields, such as education, business, law and administration. The publications with large activity indices are mainly those in which South Africa has a geographic advantage (e.g. astronomy, plant sciences and environmental ecology), targeted by the NRDS. Despite South Africa having a comparably large number of publications, the system is mainly constrained in terms of the low number of researchers (1.8 researchers per 1 000 employed in 2017/18) and low level of R&D expenditure (0.83% GERD as percentage of GDP in 2017/18). The National Advisory Council on Innovation (NACI) determined that South Africa need to triple the number of its researchers and double the R&D expenditure in order to catch-up with other upper middle-income countries. There is a trend in which most of R&D funding and researchers are shifting towards the public higher education. As an illustration, the proportion of R&D expenditure by the higher education sector increased from 19.9% in 2008/09 to 33.6% in 2017/18. As result, most of South African R&D expenditure is increasingly directed towards the basic and applied research. The proportion of experimental development decreased from 46.5% in 2008/09 to 20.3% in 2017/18. On the contrary, proportions of basic research and applied research increased from 20.2% and 33.3% in 2008/09 to 26.4% and 53.3% respectively in 2017/18. |
| Spain | The central themes that have dominated the debate around the public research system in the last two years in Spain include: a) The government’s adoption of measures for the employment stabilisation and rejuvenation of research staff in Public Research Organisations (OPIs) and universities. Additionally, progress has been made in promoting the excellence of research work and in improving the working conditions of research staff. Towards these goals, the statute of pre-doctoral research staff in training has been approved, and the “knowledge transfer sexennium” has also been launched as part of the evaluation university professors and OPI staff. b) The level and management of funding for the public research system. The scientific community demands a flexible, stable, multiannual and well-funded funding model that allows medium and long term research planning. In this regard, the Spanish State Research Agency (AEI) has taken the first steps to have a predictable and transparent framework programme. Its management capacity, in particular its IT resources, should improve accordingly. The necessary legal and governance model of the Agency to strengthen its independence is now one of main current debates. c) The bureaucratisation (red tape) that hampers the efficiency and internationalisation of the public research system. Though several control mechanisms have been recently softened, the scientific community still demands a more efficient ex ante evaluation, management and monitoring procedures. d) The instruments necessary to raise the levels of quality and excellence of the public research system as a whole, as well as the need to differentiate and support the best excellent centres and researchers. This involves strengthening the role of accountability and the systematic assessment of the economic and social impact of different instruments; and also the minimum requirements that the public sector staff necessitates in order to be accredited and have access to public research careers. |
| Sweden | The public research system has several lines of funding: - Direct institutional funding, whose allocation is based on historical allocations together with a reallocation of 30% of the funds based on quantity and quality in research, and of the degree of cooperation with industry and society at large. A new indicator system is under development to support the allocation of institutional funding. - Funding for fundamental research from research councils. - Funding for cooperation with industry, which comes from the Swedish innovation agency, Vinnova. Vinnova handles a number of strategic cooperative programmes with industry. These are selected to meet the challenges identified by the innovation council. - Funding for strategic research initiatives, which come from several sources, including the research councils and Vinnova. An additional source is from research foundations, which aim to support strategic research. A large part of this is fundamental research in areas of particular interest for industry. - Research infrastructure investments, which are funded by a council for infrastructure within the Swedish Research Council. Funding for test and demonstrator facilities is also available from Vinnova. The research institutes, ri.se, are responsible for hosting these test and demonstrator facilities. The public sector funds R&D with about 0.9 % of GDP. Together with the investments by industry of 2.38 % of GDP, this gives a total investment in R&D of 3.28 % of GDP in 2018. |
| Switzerland | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: Switzerland’s high-performing research system contributes to the country’s high quality of life and excellent economic situation. Maintaining these standards is a major government objective, which explains why financial contributions to research and education grew faster than contributions to other areas over the 2015-19 period. The discussions on research policy also included new challenges, such as supporting young academics and fostering innovation. Young scientists can be better supported by making academic careers more attractive (e.g. by opening up more permanent positions) and helping them secure scientific independence early on. In Switzerland’s federal education and research system, cantonal universities are mainly responsible for implementing such measures. |
| Thailand | Under the newly-established National Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Policy Council, a draft Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Policy and Strategy (2020-2027) has been formulated taking into account the government reform and domestic and international current situations. The 2020-2027 policy and strategy is designed into four platforms, each defining objectives and key results, stakeholders and sub programs driving forward the implementation process. These four platforms are: (i) human resource and knowledge institution development; (ii) research, development and innovation for grand challenges; (iii) research, development and innovation for competitiveness; and, (iv) research and development for area-based development and inclusiveness. Based on the 2020-2027 policy and strategy, a medium-term plan has been developed for 2020-2022 to accommodate the new 2020/2021 budget allocation scheme implemented as a result of government reform. The government reform introducing a new ministry and a new policy council has led to the administrative and budget reforms in Thailand’s public research system. Organizations in the new public research system belong to one of the following five categories: (i) policy and budget organization; (ii) funding organization; (iii) research and innovation organization; (iv) MSTQ (Metrology, Standards, Testing, and Quality) organization; and, (v) knowledge management organization. This categorization has resulted in the re-assignment of the roles and functions to some major organizations as follows: - The responsibility on policy and strategy is assigned to the Office of National Higher Education Science Research and Innovation Policy Council (NXPO). Previously known as the National Science Technology and Innovation Policy Office (STI Office), NXPO’s scope has been extended to cover higher education. NXPO also functions as the secretariat of the National Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Policy Council. - The research budget allocation is managed by the Thailand Science Research and Innovation (TSRI) – an organization that has been transformed from the Thailand Research Fund (TRF). TSRI is responsible for managing the Science, Research and Innovation Promotion Fund and allocating the national science, research and innovation budget. - The National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT), now part of the MHESI, is assigned the role of a research funding agency and becomes the sole agency under MHESI providing “general funding. The other two agencies with “general funding” mandate are the Agricultural Research Development Agency (ARDA) public organisation under the auspices of Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives and the Health Systems Research Institute (HRSI) of Ministry of Public Health. - Apart from the task of general funding assigned to NRCT, the tasks of area-based funding and industry funding will be assigned to organizations with certain qualification and expertise. Area-based funding requires the expertise in working with local communities and local administrative offices, whereas industry funding needs knowledge and understanding of various business components (e.g. marketing) of a specific industry, together with the ability to coordinate with research organizations. |
| Turkey | The Turkish government has been providing extensive funding for research, development and innovation (RDI) projects in universities, research institutes and the private sector. Recently, the main concern has shifted towards the impacts of project outputs upon the national economy. The need to carry out economic impact analysis of funded RDI projects has been highlighted in many recent strategies and policies mentioned in the Governance section. Key action areas around improving the public research system include: (i) prioritising technological areas; (ii) ensuring qualified human resources; (iii) cooperation and interaction; (iv) the commercialisation of RDI outputs; (v) increasing socio-economic conditions with the multiplier effect of technologies; (vi) basic science, interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity. Additionally, the higher education system constitutes an important part of the public research system, counting close to eight million students with a vast geographical coverage across the country. This remains a key component for improving the research system in the country. The number of international students exceeded 140 000 as of December 2018, as a result of various exchange programmes, scholarships and other opportunities. This development is an important step towards the internationalization of our higher education system, as a means to improve the public research system. |
| United Kingdom | Through the Industrial Strategy White Paper (2017), the government committed to reaching the target of at least 2.4% of GDP investment in R&D by 2027, and 3% in the longer term. This will require both public and private investment in R&D, and reaching the 2.4% target will require a concerted effort by the government and business. Government increased investment in R&D through the National Productivity Investment Fund with an additional £7bn over 5 years. The balance of research and innovation funding between disciplines and between discovery verses applied science are also topics for debate which will continue. Through the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF), the Government is investing in strategic innovation challenges that will create transformative opportunities for businesses and sectors across the UK. The ISCF brings together the UK’s world-leading research base with highly-innovative businesses to develop the technologies and industries of the future. In doing so, the ISCF aims to help solve the major industrial and societal challenges of our time. Opportunities to extend international partnerships on research and innovation for UK researchers and businesses were explored through an independent report by Professor Sir Adrian Smith and Professor Graeme Reid, published in November 2019. It included recommendations for increasing the agility of research funding to react to new and unexpected international opportunities, alongside means of accessing international talent, and building R&D capacity across the UK. There is ongoing debate around where research is located, with specific policies, such as the Strength In Places Fund, aimed at extending excellence from the “golden triangle” of Oxford, Cambridge and London to the rest of the country. The Strength in Places Fund has the distinctive objective to support places across the UK to build on their specific research and innovation strengths to drive local economic growth. It will fund collaborative bids from consortia of publicly funded research organisations, businesses, and local leadership organisations, to undertake a flexible range of research and innovation interventions that will have a demonstrable impact on local economic growth. The level of research funding in the Devolved Administrations (Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) compared with England is also an area of debate. |
| United States | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: Demonstrating a commitment to scientific exploration, the Presidents FY 2018 budget request is USD 151.2 billion (US dollars) for federal R&D investment – a 2% increase over FY 2017. Furthermore, the President’s FY 2018 budget request would result in the highest percentage allocated to R&D since the FY 2014 budget request. The private sector funds and performs the majority of US R&D, but the Federal Government has an important role in funding R&D in areas where industry does not have a strong incentive to invest, as well as areas of special concern. Federally funded R&D has greatly advanced human knowledge, whose applications permeate our lives – from the phones we carry, to the cars we drive, to the medicines that return us to health. Recognising the critical importance of innovation in promoting America’s interests, including competitiveness, economic growth and national security, the 2018 budget supports investments in basic research, early-stage applied research and technology transfer efforts that will lead to future breakthroughs. |