1 Key Figures 2007 on Science Technology and Innovation From the pre-publication of DG RTD Key Figures 2007 Andrea Tilche Ad Hoc Group on Innovation in.

1

Key Figures 2007 on Science Technology and Innovation

From the pre-publication of DG RTD Key Figures 2007

Andrea Tilche

Ad Hoc Group on Innovation in the European Chemicals Industry

2

Why does R&D matter?

• 3% Action Plan (2003);

• Each Member State has set its own target for increased R&D intensity;

• Green Paper on ERA (2007);

3

Key Figures 2007

• Presents data up to 2005, thus predating the recently renewed commitments made by Member States to increase their R&D intensity

• Shows that recent policy initiatives and commitments are more than ever valid, and should be reflected by intensification of pace of reforms

4

The landscape is

changing

5 EU-27 (1) US JP CN KR Others

12.7

25.029.1

3.6

3.5

34.4

38.4

2.9

11.4

15.9

10.1

13.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

%

1993 2005

World shares of expenditure on R&D

6

Exports of High - tech products

EU-27 (1)

JP

CN

US

KR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

%

7

China leads computing exports

EU-27 (1)

JP

CN

US

KR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

%

8

EU R&D-intensity remains at structural lower level

9

Stagnating R&D intensity in the EU

JP

KR

US

EU-27EU-25

CN

RU

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

R&

D in

ten

sity

(G

ER

D a

s %

of

GD

P)

10

Although some MS recorded impressive progress

EU-25EU-27

CZ

DKDE

AT

FI

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

%

Progress not monopoly of ‘catching-up’ countries (e.g.CZ)

Also high R&D intensive countries were able to further increase their high R&D intensity

11

R&D intensity: 4 groups of countries

R&D intensity

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Italy

Cyprus

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Hungary

Malta

Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

UK

EU-27

SI

SK

EU-27

CZ

NL

DK

UK

EL

MT

FI

ES AT

RO IT

DE

LV

PL

IE

LU

PT

BG

FR

HU

EE

CY

LT

SEBE

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0

R&D intensity in 2005

Gro

wth

of

R&

D i

nte

ns

ity

, 2

00

0-2

00

5

Falling behind Losing momentum

Pulling aheadCatching up

12

Distance-to-target for each individual Member State

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0

EU-27 (1)

Romania

Cyprus

Slovakia

Poland

Latvia

Malta

Greece

Lithuania

Portugal

Hungary

Estonia

Italy

Spain

Slovenia

Ireland

Czech Republic

Luxembourg

UK

Netherlands

Belgium

France

Austria

Denmark

Germany

Finland

Sweden

Situation in 2005 Target 2010

13

The gap is mainly in the private sector

14

Is low R&D-intensity a result of lack of

dynamism of EU’s industrial structure ?

15

• 85% gap is due to low business investment

• structural differences between EU-US – medium-tech industries dominate in the EU

16

Sectoral composition of R&D in EU and US (2005)

17

BERD(Business enterprise expenditure on R&D)

and Value Added

18

BERD as % of Value Added

19

BERD of SMEs

However, R&D intensity is 0.34% in the EU and 0.68% (the double) in the US

20

Share of World top 1000 Companies (in terms of market

capitalisation) created since 1980

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

EU US

Substantial differences in growth path of high-tech SME’s …

70% of these US large Cies created after 1980 are active in ICT sectors

21

Public and private R&D are fully

complementary

22

Countries with high involvement of private sector in funding of R&D have also the highest levels of government-funded R&D

DK

UK

FISE

BG

FR

AT

SIPL

EU-27

CZ

BE

LT

EL

MT

HU

ES

LU

PT

IT

CY

EE

NL

SK

DE

IE

LV

RO

IS

IL

NO

TR

CH

HR

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5

GERD financed by business sector (as % of GDP)

GE

RD

fin

an

ce

d b

y g

ov

ern

me

nt

(as

% o

f G

DP

)

23

Research Excellence: EU remains second behind the US, but

scores relatively well in traditional disciplines

24

Research excellence: the EU is world’s first producer of scientific knowledge

1,3

1,3

1,3

1,8

2,0

1,7

3,6

2,8

4,4

3,8

9,4

33,6

39,3

1,2

1,6

1,7

1,8

2,4

2,7

2,8

2,9

4,5

6,4

8,7

32,8

38,1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Israel

Taiwan

Brazil

Sw itzerland

India

Republic of Korea

Russia

Australia

Canada

China (2)

Japan

US

EU-25

2000 2004

25

Citation index

26

However, …

Other parts of the world are getting to be more specialised in chemistry

27

US universities top the rankings of world’s largest universities

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0

US EU-27 Others

%Top 100 world’s largest universities, ranked according to citation impact scores of scientific output

Only 12 EU-27 universities in top-100; against 78 US universities

28

Knowledge flows from Science to

Technology weaker in the EU

29

Technological innovations rely more on US science than on EU science

29,8

22,3

53,4

64,2

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

EPO patents USPTO patents

%

EU-25EU-25 US US

This graph:

Share of EU and US scientific publications cited in biotech patents

Data in other technological fields show similar patterns

30

From Science to high-tech, high-growth

industries: the case of nanotechnology

31

Public funding of nanotech R&D similar or higher than competitors

Figure I.6.1 Public and private funding of nanotechnology R&D, 2006

665

1275

1490500

975 1091

1150 1931

1704

631

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

EU US Japan Others

US

$ (m

illio

ns)

EC / US federal Government Private

32

Nanotech companies are bigger in the US

Average size of Nanotech companies in leading countries (turnover in US$ million)

33

Key Figures 2007 on Science Technology and Innovation