ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH EXPLOITATION INCLUDING THE REGIONAL DIIMENSION. CONTRIBUTION TO THE INTERIM EVALUATION REPORT OF FP7.

JEAN LOUIS COATRIEUX1

RESEARCH DIRECTOR

AUGUST 2010

 

1. Mission and introduction

This report is a contribution to the FP7 interim evaluation. It is partially based on the analysis of a collection of documents made available end of July/beginning of August 2010 and include data from FP6 and FP7 related reports but also statistics provided by the Unit RTD.A.3 in charge of 'Evaluation and Monitoring of Programmes' (they are listed in Annex)2. Among the many key issues to address for interim reporting, it is restricted to:

i) analysing the relationship between academia and industry in Framework Programme research projects, using the IT sector and Health as examples;

ii) studying the opportunities, challenges and achievements of translating research into market impacts for research actors in Framework Programme research projects;

iii) examining, using relevant examples, regional opportunities, challenges and achievements for FP funded research activities.

Although the targets are well focussed, it must be said that reviewing these issues is not so simple for several reasons.

The first reason is that the main activities to deal with concern “Cooperation” (projects for collaborative, transnational research with a window on ICT and Health) and “Capacities” (supports for SMEs and Regions of Knowledge), an already large spectrum. For full insights, it should have been extended to all programmes of FP7.

                                                 

1 Laboratoire Traitement du Signal et de l’Image, Université de Rennes 1, Inserm, Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes Cedex

2 Acknowledgements to Peter Fisch, Neville Reeve, Justyna Tisserand, Gerburg Larsen

 

The second reason is that ICT and Health are covering many areas evolving very fast and they occupy a major socio-economic place. According to [8], the communications and media sectors comprise some 270,000 enterprises offering more than one million jobs in the EU and generating €340 billion of added value in the EU-27. Referring to a recent “white paper” of Eucomed, the world market for medical devices alone represented in 2005 more than 210 billion euros, Europe being in second place and accounting for the third with about 435 000 jobs in Europe (95% being in SMEs), in other words 60% of the pharmaceutical market3. In both cases, these areas have to face a strong world-wide competition and both research and innovation are key players.

The third reason is that FP7 is just three years old and outcomes, in particular on the exploitation side, are difficult to anticipate. Last but not least, important instruments (ERC, JTIs, Article 169, etc.) have not been examined due to the short time allocated. Nevertheless, a picture, even partial, can be already drawn.

This report is organized as follows. Section 2 attempts to provide an overview of the main components involved in the process “research-innovation-product”. It sketches also some important trends observed. Section 3 provides a few numbers extracted from different Commission reports but also from other documents publicly available. Section 4 is focussed on innovation, intellectual property and risk-sharing financing. Section 5 is proposing a regional analysis through publications, patents and EU support distribution. All along this document, special attention is given to SMEs. The main observations are summarized in conclusion.

2. A look at the basic components

Following and agreeing with [11], the innovation and diffusion process should not be viewed merely as a simple and linear progression like:

Research/development/manufacturing/deployment/adoption

Two examples which complement each other and apply to the medical device field (it is thought however that they have a more general value) show that this process is highly complex (Figure 1). Although simplified here by the omission of multiple loops, it makes appear fundamental elements that we will be addressing later on. The centre depicts the major role in expressing the needs played by research (R), innovation (I) and clinics around the patient (P), the three pillars of the Health Technology Programme (TecSan) in France4. It is seen in particular that the patent process is launched very early, before or simultaneously with the proof of concept. The medical service is roughly estimated also after the proof of concept and refined all along the development into pre-product and product. The users (who can be clinicians or even patients in that case) must be involved at all stages because they determine the success or failure of adoption). Of course, in health technology, the clinical trials and the patient benefit versus the product/service cost are also important variables.

                                                 

3 EUCOMED : White paper on Innovation in the European Technology sector, July 2007

4 http://www.agence-nationale-recherche.fr/programmes-de-recherche/

Figure 1. The basic loop for medical devices: from the idea to a product. Courtesy of A Moreau-Gaudry and L Pazart5.

As pointed out in [16], the strength of the overall loop is always limited by its weakest link. The role of industry, but not only, that does not appear here, is made more explicit in Figure 2. If we omit the specific features related to medical devices (regulations in health, clinical validation), we observe that, in the case the initiation is coming from academic partners alone, the search for industrial counterparts is done very early. This is far to be the only way and FP7 is a good example of associations where sometimes, from the starting point, the original ideas are being proposed by industry and not by public research.

Another major variable is the resource required for development, innovation and product deployment. The new instrument, the Risk-Sharing Financial Facility (RSFF) [3], as we will see Section 4.3, has a key role to play.

                                                 

5 A Moreau-Gaudry, L Pazart, Développement d’une innovation technologique en santé : le cycle CREPS. Concept–Recherche–Essais–Produit–Soins, IRBM, 31, 1, 2010. This special issue of IRBM was prepared by the French national CIC-IT network (Centre d’Investigation Clinique, Innovation Technologique, website: www.cic-it.fr)

 

Figure 2. A view corresponding to an idea originated from academic research up to an innovative product in medical Microsystems. Courtesy of L Pazart.

Another concern is depicted Figure 3. It shows the trend between tangible (building, production tools, etc.) and intangible assets (quality of the personnel, know-how, etc.).

Figure 3 Evolution of the intangible assets 1975 to 2005 of the S&P index of the value of the 500 biggest companies quoted in New York

The latter includes the patents and it is especially true in high-tech electronics. This means that companies are more and more “fabless” (“fabrication less”). This opens the debate on intellectual property and patent policy which are addressed in several documents of the Commission [14-16] and remain somewhat open to discussion (Section 4.2).

3. FP7 through some numbers

The third monitoring report [3] provides the main numbers that can be extracted by now using data statistics of 2007, 2008 and 2009. It emphasizes the place corresponding to ICT (with €9 billions over seven years for a total European budget of €50 billions [9]) and in this area of the largest part attributed to Collaborative Projects with about 50% of participants in retained proposals and around 70% of budget.

Education Institutes and private for profit organizations have the same budget shares (29% of total), research organizations accounting for 23%. SMEs are strongly present in Capacities (for almost half of the budget) but much less in Cooperation (13.7% of participants and 11.7% of the Community funding over the 3 years of FP7). Surprisingly, there are more concentrated into the programme Cooperation (two thirds) than into the programme Capacities (a quarter of them). Their overall share is stable when compared to the one established in 2009 [4]. Looking at the SMEs participation after the first 4 calls, they appear for 30% but receive 15% (the corresponding numbers for large enterprises are 20% in both cases) [9]. This is a major difference that would need an analysis (from [3], SMEs would represent 99% of all businesses in Europe).

Despite positive views to the FP7, the decrease of industry participation (or in ‘intensity’ in particular for large companies) in collaborative ICT research projects (this rate was 50% in FP3 [11]) continues. The analysis conducted in [9] explains this situation by different factors: their involvement in the JTIs, the shift in research focus (the prime driver for participation) inducing a profile change of the firms involved. However, it also shows an increased interest of innovative high-tech SMEs (in electronics, instruments and devices but not in software and IT services) in comparison with FP6. According to [10], about 30% of the SMEs, often leaders in their domain (niche markets), involved in FP5 and FP6 are also participating to FP7.

Health is another major area for research, innovation and industry. Its economic and social importance (prevention, diagnosis, therapy, etc.) has been recognized since the beginning of FPs. The EU spends today about 9% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and this amount is estimated to be 16% in 2020 [12] with major challenges still in front (cancer, cardiovascular disorders, CVD [13], brain disorders, etc.) and high expectations from genomics, proteomics and the like. Multidisciplinary projects are here of critical importance.

To take a specific area, eHealth, as an example, there are large firms involved and an estimated number of 5000 SMEs. This area offers many market opportunities for innovative solutions (telemedicine, home care and vigilance, distant sensing and control, etc.) that should generate jobs and growth. However, the participation of industry remains lower than expected [12]. Among the reasons that may explain this situation, there are: (i) the national insurance cost inherent to these innovations; (ii) the validation, a long and expensive path to obtain a formal

approval by the organisms in charge; (iii) the patchwork of national regulations; (iv) the absence of standards. All of them are not specific to eHealth.

Additional and important numbers to take into account are the human resources involved in research and the scientific production. From the last OSEO report6, in 2005, Europe gathers 1.3 million researchers (in equivalent full time) with 21 % in Germany, 16 % in France and 13,7 % in UK. This number has in total significantly increased between 2000 and 2005 (17%) but with large differences over the European countries. 48% of this potential is coming from the private sector.

Because the core objectives of Framework Programmes if we follow [16] do not directly concern exploitation, the scientific outcomes are the most significant. The scientific production of papers in journals represent in 2006 (EU 27) is at the first rank with 33.3 % (medical research 36.8 and chemistry 29.6%) but this part is decreasing (due to the new players like China, Korea, etc.). However, one positive fact, very likely correlated to the FPs, is that the European co-publications account for more than a half of all publications in each country. But how many are directly issued from FP projects? The future reporting system of FP7 will certainly bring substantial information on the scientific outcomes [3].

What can be said anyway is that if the ‘quality’ of research outcomes is measured by the extent of networking, co-financing and joint projects between the public actors and the business ones, then the success must be recognized as such [11].

4. The grid for exploitation

The FP focus on research, with participation of public institutions, companies either small, medium or large, is just a path for social and economic development which means growth and jobs [7], the ultimate goal of the Lisbon strategy. It is not the only instrument that could contribute to turn knowledge into innovative products and services. Structural Funds are also available to achieve this objective, proposing tools to support incubators for emerging companies, staff training and exchange (among others). In [6], 2007, the synergies between European supports and national-regional policies were addressed. It was stated that innovation should be more effectively promoted at regional levels due to the proximity of public and private partners. Regional clusters were also proposed. Despite its complexity and the differences observed between countries and regions, a more effective and structured partnership between the Commission and national-regional entities was suggested.

Several recommendations to strengthen the exploitation and economic and social valorisation of R&D results were made in [7] (extracted from the executive summary) which are of relevance here:

                                                 

6 « Indicateurs de sciences et technologies 2008 », Observatoire des Sciences et des techniques, available at : www.obs-ost.fr

 

Recommendation 10. Use FP (framework programme) and SF (structural funds) for valorising research results, achieving an easy and open access to knowledge and transferring the knowledge produced under FP into economic or societal use.

SF supports for (1) pre-competitive development phase of successful FP projects, (2) active networks, (3) IPR activities, (4) foreign research institutes and investment, (5) spin-offs and innovative start-ups were explicitly mentioned.

Recommendation 11. Use FP and SF to strengthen the role of SMEs in research and development and their capacities to exploit knowledge.

A difference was made between SMEs and large companies regarding the exploitation terms: short to medium for SMEs, medium to long term for large firms. The involvement of SMEs in FP is clearly fundamental but SF should allow strengthening the SMEs' capacity to carry out R&D and exploit research results and to overcome possible gaps at the innovation stage. Financing instruments at the local level for training (management skills for instance), consultancy, networking services, cluster development, as well as facilities and services for start-ups and spin-offs were again underlined. Innovative tools for loans and guarantee funds have been suggested (see, below, Section 4.3).

Recommendation 12. Use FP and SF to get researchers more involved in development activities and business creation: promoting transfer of personnel from academia to companies and vice versa, IPR exploitation and the setting up of new research and knowledge-based enterprises.

SF was mentioned to improve, at a regional and local level, the mobility of personnel between business and public research while FP should offer business-academia pathways opportunities at the EU level, in the form of joint partnership, staff secondment and events.

These ideas stated in 2007 reports aimed at using the complementary nature of European instruments to achieve growth and employment but they do not tell us a lot on their impact. How to estimate the respective parts of the European initiatives and the national-regional ones? How to measure the part due to true innovations with and without European supports? How to deal with the productivity? For instance, the data in [5] on the outcomes of FP research projects are mainly descriptive of the scientific and technological aspects but do not provide any information about the economic impact.

As described in [11], an increase productive potential can be linked to many scenarios: more output from the same resources (no employment benefit, positive change in GDP) or the same output with fewer resources (lost in employment and no change in GDP), etc. As a result, complex relations exist between productivity, GDP and employment and are highly varying over sectors, regions and categories of labour.

4.1 Innovations

As pointed out in Section 2, the process going from basic research to adoption (market) is fairly complex. It is influenced by many factors and can be achieved through multiple paths, the simplest being a direct transfer from academic partners to firms (established or created from scratch, i.e spin-off) and at the opposite point,

through strategic alliance between firms. It involves, to succeed, customers, suppliers, etc. and relies on a clear identification of social needs.

Innovations anyway are central. The categorization of innovations reported in [11] separates strategic innovators (about 22% of all innovative firms), intermittent ones (30%), technology modifiers (26%) or adopters (21%), the remaining part being not innovative at all. The Community Innovation Survey (CIS) that allows the monitoring of Europe’s progress in the area of innovation proposed to classify innovations using 3 characteristics based on (i) technological new knowledge, (2) new or significantly improved to the corresponding firm, and (3) implemented successfully, either in new products, services or processes.

I would rather classify innovations into two categories: (i) incremental innovations which mean that either the product process (including the organizational aspects) or the product itself is subject to improvements or novelties; (ii) rupture innovations which cover a full change of concepts and open totally new technologies, products, services, etc. Both categories are important and, from my views, must be protected, the latter being even more demanding.

If we follow the recommendation 6 in [16] then there is no so much to expect on innovation from FP individual projects due to the fact that it is not its primary target. However, the same report invites to learn from other initiatives aimed at R&D commercialization among which the Small Business Research Innovation (SBIR) programme in the United States, and its variants implemented in Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, which provide funding for very risky research by small companies in stages including proof of concept, product/process prototyping, the major phases before commercialization. If innovation is already difficult to get out, the steps going to demonstration and commercialization are even more.

4.2 Intellectual property and Patents

The means of protection reported from a survey over 1998-2004 [16] are shown to be “technological complexity”, “secrecy”, “complementary services” and “lead time advantage” while “patents” and “other IPR” are ranked last. However, this is highly dependent on the domain of activities and on the ratio R&D/turnover, the more often IPR (including patent) and technological complexity are being reported. Small and medium-sized enterprises indicate more positive results in terms of innovation in FP projects (recommendation 7 in [16]).

Nevertheless, patents for protecting intellectual property are a strategic and competitive tool as stated in a recent paper7. The next recommendation in the same report [16] encourages commercialisation thinking at the proposal stage and proposes a follow-up stage – or a follow-up project – for commercialization.

What is today the situation? The last OSEO report, already cited, provides some data up to 2006. The European countries represent 37% of the patents submitted to the European Office in 2006. In comparison with 2001, the decrease is about

                                                 

7 A Ripart, Le brevet : une stratégie pour l’entreprise, IRBM, 31, 1, 2010. A Ripart is Senior Vice-President & Chief Scientific Officer, Ela medical /Soringroup CRM

12%. The leading countries Germany, France and UK represent 15.5, 5.5 and 4.1% respectively. EU as a whole obtained 14.7% of the approved patents in US with Germany first (6.2%), France and UK (2%), a similar decrease being observed (8%). The European production of patented knowledge in ICT is stable over 2001-2003 with 14000 patents (without any significant increase from EU15 to EU27), the US being less than 12000 [11]. Japanese patents increase in this area and is equivalent to EU for world-wide patents and close to the US.

The qualitative survey conducted in ICT shows that “FP projects, as such, do not (that much) give rise to "patentable" knowledge, rather, patenting occurs at a later stage”. This is in contradiction with the process highlighted Figures 1 and 2. We can disagree with the statement made in [11] where it is said that the benefits they bring, the investment and employment they suppose, do not increase in Europe: the fact that a relatively low level of patenting is observed do not bring any proof from my viewpoint (see Section 5 also).

Improvements as pointed out in [14] should also address the afferent regulations for ownership of co-produced knowledge and the still fragmented European patent

Figure 4. Map of world-wide patents in cardiac technology. They are grouped according to the occurrence of words (software Thomson Innovation of Thomson Reuters). The « snow » shows the most active areas. Courtesy of A Ripart. Such statistical methods have a wide interest, including the analysis of emerging fields8.

                                                 

8 Bansard J.Y et al, Medical informatics and bioinformatics: a bibliometric study, IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Medicine, 2007, 11, 3, pp 237-243

systems in the all countries. But there is a need to make in-depth and quantitative reviews of the patent (and licensing) production. Many tools are available to do that, an illustration being given Figure 4. They allow analysing evolutions over time9, links between disciplines and sub-topics, geographic distributions of forces, etc.

In a wider perspective, the on-going discussions on core indicators for research and innovations [15] will facilitate the impact analysis. They include among others: early stage expansion venture capital as percentage of GDP, R&D expenditures financed by business (domestic and abroad) as % of GDP, share of licence and patent revenue from abroad as % of GERD, composite indicator on public-private cooperation, number of EPO patent applications filed by SMEs or individual inventors per million population, etc.

4.3 Risk-Sharing Financial Facility

As said in Section 2, the finance issue is “le nerf de la guerre” all along the steps of the basic loop shown in Figure 1. Risk-Sharing Financial Facility (RSFF) is a relatively new tool (other instruments exist of course for knowledge transfer and exploitation at national levels10) which relies on a joint venture between the Commission (monitoring) and the European Investment Bank (EIB) (management) [3]. It offers capital allocations and loans to increase European research, development and innovation and is expected to reach, through financial leverage effect, loan amounts up to € 10 billion over 2007-2013. These financial supports can be attributed to any research-intensive entities including research infrastructures.

RSFF is a real success with, since its initiation and at the end of 2009, 65 projects approved with a loan volume of almost € 6,5 billion (45 being signed for about € 4,5 billion). The sectors mainly concerned are engineering/industry (40%), life sciences (23%), energy (18%), ICT (11%), research infrastructures (5%) and risk-sharing with banks (3%). The data reported in [3] shows an impressive increase of demand in 2009 that is explained by the economic crisis. For the sole year 2009, the amount of loans allocated was twice the total amount attributed over the period 2007-2008. These loans are mainly devoted to large and midsize companies or to implement demonstration projects. First RSFF loans for research infrastructures (ESFRI), considered as a priority, have been allocated.

The question will be here, like above, on how to measure the impact of this tool in terms of growth and jobs. In addition, referring to [10], risk-sharing instruments for innovation should be adapted to smaller organisations, i.e SMEs, by proposing small-scale funding.

5. A look at regions

This analysis is not straightforward due to the lack of data. A recent report of the Commission [18] provides for the first time a preliminary but interesting survey.

                                                 

9 Kerbaol M, Bansard JY, Coatrieux JL. An analysis of IEEE publications. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine. 2006;25(2):6-9.

10 In France, for instance, the OSEO agency: http://www.oseo.fr/

Before exploiting this report, it is useful to draw a picture on the region contributions in terms of publications, patents and specialization (although carried out in 2006, the conclusions of the report used here are very likely still valid11). 25 regions12 have been mainly analysed over 260 (we have today 305 NUTS-level 2 Regions in the Member States and the Associated Countries).

Without entering in all details, some major features can be highlighted for publications, patents alone or together.

- publications in journals: 40% of the 2006 publications are concentrated in these 25 regions (the first being Ile-de-France, 4.7%, London, 4%) and this number is stable over 2001-2006. If the ranking is made in terms of “scientific density” (the ratio number of publications/population size), Cambridge, Vienne, Oxford, Stockholm and Edimbourg are in the major.

- These rates are varying significantly with the disciplines and regional specializations are observed (mathematics, physics, biology, engineering science, etc for Ile-de-France, Medicine for London, Eco-biology for Denmark)

- Strong regions collaborate preferentially with other strong and preferably with their national regions: for instance in UK, London, Oxford, Cambridge and then Ile-de-France, or for Ile-de-France, first Rhône-Alpes and PACA and then London and Roma.

With respect to patents, the 25 top regions13 represent about 50% of the submissions made at the european level and almost 19% of the world-wide european patents deposited. Germany is the absolute leader and 14 german regions belong to this top list. In terms of ‘density’, Eindhoven is in the first position followed by 10 german regions. However, from 2001 to 2006, a decrease of 6% is noticed for these 25 regions taking Europe as the reference and 17% with respect to the world-wide reference. A specialization is also observed in 2006 in this technological production with, for instance, electrical & electronics engineering for Eindhoven, Helsinki and Stockholm, materials-chemistry for Palatinat, Düsseldorf and Darmstadt, pharma-biotech for Denmark. This survey makes appear that the first European regions for production in a given domain are also specialized in this domain. If we look now jointly at the scientific and technology activities, the 30 first ranked regions concentrate 47% of the R&D of the EU (12 are from Germany, 4 from Italy, 3 from France and UK). The first region remains Ile-de-France with 5% followed by Munich (3%), Stuttgart (2.6%) and London (2.5).

                                                 

11 « Indicateurs de sciences et technologies 2008 », Observatoire des Sciences et des techniques, available at : www.obs-ost.fr. Data extracted from Eurstats.

12 They are identified by cities in Eurostat and include London, Cambridge, Oxford et Edimbourg, Lombardia, Roma, Émilie-Romagne, Toscane, Munich, Berlin, Köln, Karlsruhe, Madrid, Catalona, Andalousia), Île-de-France, Rhône-Alpes, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Denmark, Wien, Stockholm, Helsinki and Athens. 13 They are by importance order : Île-de-France (5.5%), Stuttgart (4.6%), Munich (4.36%), Eindhoven (3.1%), Köln (2.5%), Darmstadt, Düsseldorf, Karlsruhe, Rhône-Alpes, Lombardia, Denmark, Fribourg, Tübingen, Helsinki, Palatinat, Nuremberg, Arnsberg, Stockholm, Berlin, Emilie-Romagne, London, Souabe, Piemonte, Wurzbourg, Venetia

Coming back to the report [18], the same concentration is observed for SMEs participating to FP7 Cooperation programme: around 30% of the participating SMEs are located in 15 of the 305 regions and account for 38% of the total EU contribution to Member States and Associated Countries. However, half of the 305 NUTS-level 2 Regions in the Member States and the Associated Countries are above the 15% target. By crossing the top 25 regions mentioned before and the 15 here identified, new comers are listed like Brussels, Attiki, Lazio, Pais Vasco while major regions like Ile-de-France, London, München do not pass the 15% target of funding. 64 of the 305 NUTS- level-2 regions have no SME participation. In Health and ICT the percentages of the EU Budget going to SMEs are respectively equal to 10.8 and 14.4%. For Capacities (Research for the Benefit of SMEs), the overall distribution is quite similar: 29% of all the SMEs participants are coming from 15 regions and are receiving 22% of the total EU contribution. 43 regions among the 305 NUTS-level-2 regions include 50% of all the SME participations. 77 regions out of 305 NUTS-level-2 regions have none SME participation. Among the regions currently dominating both in Health and ICT FP7 (private for profit, [19]), there are Wien, Brussels, Zurich, München, Berlin, Barcelona, Uusimaa, Paris, Milano, Stockholm, Inner London. However, other are appearing strongly in ICT like Roma, Budapest, Madrid, Bonn, etc. In fact, this overlap between Health and ICT can be explained by several facts: they are much to share (eHealth for instance), their natural multidisciplinary dimensions, the pervasiveness of ICT, etc. Other areas have a lot to bring to Health or ICT and should be analysed in the same way like physics, nano and microtechniques. The data exemplified in the maps of [18] are of great interest but require a more in-depth analysis. They would also be even more relevant if matched together (Figure 5) and with the scientific and technology production above. Do they follow the same trends regarding specialization in specific areas? Is the cooperation between strong regions observed at national level first and then at European levels? Etc. The SMEs participation is of course not only affected by their regional density but also by the incentives coming from regional policies. Region (NUTS Level 2) Country Num of

Figure 5. Capacities Programme – FP7. Regional Distribution of EU contribution in Signed Contracts (left) and Regional Distribution of EU contribution to SMEs in Signed Contracts (right) as of the 31 March 2010.

5. Conclusions

FP7 is 3-years old and cautions must be taken in concluding about its development and implementation. As said at the beginning, only part of the picture can be drawn. This conclusion sketches some of its elements.

On the relationship between academia and industry in Framework Programme research projects, using the IT sector and health as examples;

First, it must be said that the implementation of FP7 is really impressive when looking at the management activities being developed and the resulting participation. The numbers, extracted in April 2010, make appear 170 calls, 55000 proposals (for 9000 retained) and 235000 applicants (50000 in retained projects). The Cooperation Programme alone gathers more than a third of eligible proposals and more than a half of all applicants. 2009 depicts higher figures under Cooperation than 2008 while the Capacities Programme remains stable over the 3 last years.

In all documents consulted, the most shared comments are positive regarding the high quality of participants, the overall achievements of the projects, the involvement of public and industrial actors, the contribution to the creation of long-term strategic partnership and the European research integration.

If we accept the statement that the core objective of Framework Programmes is long-term research [16], then, neither the innovation nor commercial products can be considered as an indicator of success, even if some impact can be presently assessed. The same reason may explain the difficulties to involve SMEs and to reach the 15% funding: they are more interested in their majority in short or medium range outcomes. The fact that SMEs represent 30% of participants in approved projects but receive only 15% of the budget [9] would deserve an in-depth analysis. With the same statement in mind, the publications should be a way to measure the impact of FP7, not the relative part but its absolute value because it will be lowering due to new comers14. Among the positive elements, however, there is the number of European co-publications which account for more than a half of all publications in each country. Another is the investment in R&D and we saw that the number of researchers has been increased significantly over the last years (private for profit companies representing almost the half). This motivates the search for a continuously improved balance between R&D&I and longer-term “rupture-based” research. About the opportunities, challenges and achievements of translating research into market impacts for research actors in Framework Programme research projects; If basic research is a key for the future, there are also immediate challenges to face, challenges which are of more importance today due to the crisis. Thus, basic

                                                 

14 As an example, any ICT PhD student in China has to publish 3 papers in journals and at least 2 in international journals to obtain their degree: this will have a huge impact on the publication rate of Europe.

research AND Innovation must be paired, growth and jobs must be handled for tomorrow AND today. In other words, the full loop described in Figures 1 and 2 should be properly handled. The decline in participation of SMEs (and in particular in the manufacturing sector) is a major component not only because of the share they have in the European economy but also because large companies have in fact a world-wide strategy with R&D centres scattered over the all continents. The fragile situation regarding patents must be studied. It can be understood that “lead time advantage” or other arguments pointed out in Section 4.2 avoids the burden of patenting but it is a very short view. There are of course differences to make between areas like ICT, where software companies are dominant (i.e patenting less relevant) and Health where molecules and devices must be protected very early. The RSFF has been recognized as a very important tool for business to encourage more risk-taking in particular for RDI intensive firms and especially SMEs. There is a common feeling that the amount of knowledge generated by FPs is huge but that only a minor part is exploited. It can not be too much expected of Cordis which is not widely used by the research and innovation communities with regard to the knowledge dissemination. Stressing the roles of impact (societal and economic), innovation and exploitation (often only addressed at the end of a project) in proposals would be an incentive for a better understanding of the challenges to meet but will not be in any way enough. R&D research consortia (or part of the consortia) with successful outcomes may have a demonstration phase proposed in order to make another step toward exploitation. Other ideas can surely be developed all over the Figure 1 loop in order to increase the impact of FP7 and to capitalize from projects to projects. Regarding regional opportunities, challenges and achievements for FP funded research activities. A recurrent principle appearing for regional activities is based on the fact that the management of innovation and exploitation would be better managed and achieved at the regional level than at the European level. This issue, if prolonged further, will not give any pertinence to the measure of impact of the FP7 through the Cooperation Programme. Of course, this is a sensitive political question which is raised at the same time: how to coordinate national and European initiatives for research and innovation? How to balance the responsibilities to be taken at national and European levels? The significant differences observed between regions, a minority of them (25-30) occupying a leading place with a trend (which is not surprising) to work together first at the national level and second at the European level. There is no reason to think that this evolution can be easily changed. The latter, partnership at the European level, following the objective of “Regions of Knowledge”, can be considered as in charge of the UE (using for instance the Structural Funds) but the regions have their own strategies (even in France where the autonomy of regions is limited). Therefore, the complexity is here high. The specialization, another trend which appears both for public research and private organizations, is more accepted by the regional actors because any body can understand that smaller entities can not reach the critical mass to not only do everything but be competitive in all areas. What will be the impact at long-term of this specialization in terms of growth and employment? What it means for foreign investment?

To conclude, many achievements have been made by FP7. Critical points have been identified and some efficient solutions have been proposed and implemented. If the cooperation between public research and private companies is well established, much remains to be done. Innovation and exploitation of knowledge must be encouraged, knowledge better protected, European and national-regional policies better coordinated, regions more pulled up, short- and long-term targets better and simultaneously addressed, etc. All these elements are highly complex and represent a true challenge, more difficult even today with the present unstable economic situation. However, many of these actions are not under the sole responsibility of the EU and beyond the indicators which are in preparation (see section 4.2), the measures of success in terms of economic and societal objectives (ultimately growth and jobs) that will be made must take all the partners into account. The information system of FP7 initiated in November 2009 (with publications, dissemination activities, patents, etc.) is really needed for providing a full picture on the outcomes of EU programmes. It is not by far an easy task.

Annex Listed below is a selection of the key documents from the Commission consulted and effectively used during this study. [1] Interim Evaluation of the 7th Framework Programme, Self-assessment by Commission services, key findings, July 2010 [2] Mid-Term Evaluation of the Risk-Sharing Financial Facility (RSFF), Final draft of the Group of Independent Experts, July 2010 [3] Third monitoring report, July 2010

[4] On the progress made under the Seventh European Framework Programme for Research, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European economic and social Committee and the Committee of Regions, April 2009

[5] Importance and outcomes of research funded under the EU Framework Programmes for RTD

[6] Competitive European Regions through Rsearch and Innovation. A contribution to more growth and more and better jobs, August 2007

[7] Guidelines on Coordinating the Research Framework Programme and the Structural Funds to support Research and Development, Elaborated by the CREST Working Group on “How to achieve better coordinated use of Framework Programme and Structural Funds to support R&D", April 2007

[8] ICT Research The policy perspective. The future of media in a networked world.

[9] Evidence report, Interim evaluation of the ICT research in the 7th Framework Programme, April 2010

[10] Interim evaluation of the ICT research in the 7th Framework Programme. Catalysing European Competitiveness in a Globalising World, June 2010

[11] Tuning the Innovation System: Final Report (D4) of the Study of the Impacts of IST-RTD on Key Strategic Objectives Related to Growth and Jobs, February 2008

[12] ICT Research The policy perspective. A healthy approach Technology for personalised, preventative healthcare

[13] Collaborative cardiovascular research in the European Union’s seventh framework, Activities supported in the period 2007-2009, 2009

[14] European Policy Brief, INGINEUS, Impact of Networks, Globalisation, and their Interaction with EU Strategies, November 2009

[15] Towards an integrated indicator-based framework for monitoring progress in research and innovation, April 2010

[16] The impact of publicly funded research on innovation: An analysis of European Framework Programmes for Research and Development, 2009

[17] Knowledge for growth. Prospects for science, technology and innovation, November 2009

[18] Fifth Progress Report on SMEs participation in the 7th R&D Framework Programme, June 2010 [19] Tables on FP-7 Projects (signed) all countries (with regions), provided by Gerburg Larsen, August 11, 2010