Transcript Slide 1

“Steering and Funding –
The Governance of
science systems”
Sources
Based ont the reports of the Ad Hoc Working Group Steering
and Funding of Research Institutions
Governance
of Science Systems -- New Challenges 09/2002
Management of Human Resources 03/2003
Priority Setting -- Issues and recent trends 03/2003
Governing the Science System – Challenges and responses
02/2003
Students
Vanessa Figueiredo
Miguel Carvalho
Key findings

Sustaining the flow of S&T Graduates - maintain the log-term health of
the research system.

Industry involvement in scientific education and training - Share of
business funding in higher education research has increased.

There is a growing body of knowledge that research and innovation
contribute in an increasingly important manner to economic growth and
social welfare.

There must be some kind of balancing between basic research and
more oriented research.

It needs to be created a pool of human-resources in the traditional
disciplines so as to maintain the long-term health of the research
system.
Nov. 2003
Management of Human Resources
Fig. 1 - Comparison of growth of researches in OECD countries (1990 - 2000) and number of
science graduates per thousand youth
Nov. 2003
Management of Human Resources
Trends in PhD Graduates
More PhDs
as a % of the
total
population
Nov. 2003
Management of Human Resources
Women in Science and Technology
Fig.2 - Proportion of university degrees awarded to women (2000)
Nov. 2003
Management of Human Resources
Adapting graduate education to changing demands
Industry involvement in PhD training is increasing
Needs:
Improve the labour market entry of graduates
provide industry with the right skills in applied
Responding to this needs - Several OECD Countries
Reformed University degree programmes in particular at PhD Level
Created shorter degree programmes to allow early exit from education
Increased funding for PhD’s and for post-doctorates
Nov. 2003
Management of Human Resources
Ageing of the science base in the public sector
The low expansion of public R&D
Demographic changes
Human resource policies that favour seniority
Australia
Researcher (FTE)  1998 (33,2%), 2000 (36,6%)  Over 50
University Staff  1998 (36%), 2000(47%)  Over 45 (Only 6% Less than 30)
Italy
¼ Researcher (Public Sector)  Over 50
Hungary
35% Researcher (Public Sector) Over 50
Czech Republic
Only about 6% younger than 50
France, UK, US  Avarge age of researchers in public sector slightly
decreased in recente years
Nov. 2003
Governing Science Systems

Research and innovation contribute in an increasingly important manner to
economic growth and social welfare.

Shifting from Linear model to a more non-linear model.


Linear model – The results of “basic” research, mainly performed in the public
sector, would diffuse in a straightforward manner and would find pratical
applications through applied research and commercialization in the industrial sector.

Non-linear model – The actors in Science and innovation systems both at the
national and global levels and in the public as well as the private sector, interact
strongly in a complex array of network loops to set the research agenda all the way
from the basic end to commercialization.
Stakeholders

Linear Model (Government, research comunities)

Non-Linear Model (Governement, research comunities, business, civil society)
Governing Science Systems

The business sector
accounts for a rapidly
growing share of the
total research effort
(GERD).
Portugal
Status Quo
Governing Science Systems


The research enterprise itself is shifting

Mode 1 research System – discipline-based, traditional academic institutionsbased, too little connection to societal needs.

Mode 2 research System – transdisciplinary, based on diverse institutional
arrangements, responsive to societal needs and problem-oriented.
Important areas of societally relevant research, such as health and
environment require “problem” oriented approach to research.


Problem areas arise precisely because research agenda are better defined as
responding to problems that cannot be dealt within the scope of strictly defined
disciplinary lines in science. Examples: (new emerging areas like biotechnology,
nanotechnology among others as they become important growth areas in the
economy)
How to prioritize different areas of research?
Priority setting

One of the principal reasons for setting priorities is the budget constraints faced
by many governments.


Governments have various institutional mechanism to set priorities at the
national level.



Top-down – the central government adopts explicit strategies or plans that specify
areas of research (Austria, Japan, Hungary among others). Many of this countries, as
well as some others (Netherlands, Germany) have some kind of central advisory
body that makes recomendations about priorities.
Bottom-up – The government advisory bodies on research are decentralised and
serve different governent agencies in priority setting.
Governments have procedures or mechanisms by wich identified priorities are
reflected in the research funding decisions.


Budget is not unlimited
Technology Foresight - Widely used tool (process) to help identify priorities.
Examples: Germany FUTUR – Open forum of discussion.
Stakeholder involvement, including business and the civil society at various
levels of piority setting is becoming a widely used process.
Governing Science Systems

Public research funding agencies are opting to increase “project” funding of
research aimed at specific objectives as opposed to core “institutional”
funding.

The different funding necessities between Mode 1 and Mode 2 of research
must be well balanced because the need for disciplinary research has not
disappeared and the new paradigm needs to accommodates both types of
research.

It needs to be created a pool of human resources in the traditional disciplines
so as to maintain the long-term health of the research system.

The appropriate policy instruments to ensure long-term sustainability of the
research system should be the ones that integrate the new paradigm
responses, but also the old paradigm responses.

Key challenges remain in safeguarding basic research, including maintaining
appropriate research infrastructure, and sustaining the flow of high quality
human resources in a broad range of disciplines and that can meet new
challenges of research of the interactive type.