frontier research and new institutions for european science

41
Frontier research and new institutions for European science Andrea Bonaccorsi University of Pisa Member of the High Level Expert Group on Maximizing the wider benefit of basic research and the European Research Council European Commission, DG Research CRUI- University of Genua Conference April 19, 2005

Upload: aubrey-cash

Post on 03-Jan-2016

25 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Frontier research and new institutions for European science. Andrea Bonaccorsi University of Pisa Member of the High Level Expert Group on Maximizing the wider benefit of basic research and the European Research Council European Commission, DG Research CRUI- University of Genua Conference - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Frontier research and new institutions for European science

 Andrea Bonaccorsi

 University of Pisa 

Member of the High Level Expert Group onMaximizing the wider benefit of basic research and the

European Research CouncilEuropean Commission, DG Research

CRUI- University of Genua ConferenceApril 19, 2005

Page 2: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Outline

The new scientific landscape: the emergence of new leading sciences

The performance of European science in new leading sciences

The European Research Council (ERC) as a major step in institution building

Page 3: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

The new scientific landscape

A new scientific landscape has taken shape in the last 20 years or so. It results from the combination of several revolutionary advances:

- the molecular biology revolution, particularly after the recombinant DNA discovery and the development of PCR and more generally life sciences and bioengineering;

- the pervasive information technology revolution, resulting from advances in algorithms, computer science, microelectronics, and more recently from the convergence with telecommunication;

- new advances in materials science;- new opportunities in nanotechnology,

particularly after the invention of STM.

Page 4: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

The new scientific landscape

These new fields and disciplines share some intrinsic characteristics:

- are based on reductionist explanation strategies, but deal with complex systems at various levels of resolution;- evolve through a complex interaction between scientific understanding and engineering manipulation, i.e. between sciences of nature and sciences of artificial;- include many general purpose technologies;- cut across disciplinary boundaries and actively promote overlapping.

Page 5: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Search regimes

Rate of growth

- fast growing vs slow growing

Degree of diversity

- convergent dynamics vs divergent dynamics

Level of complementarity- physical infrastructure vs. human capital and institutional complementarity

New leading sciences (materials science, life sciences, computer science, incl. biotech and nanotech): fast growing, divergent dynamics, human capital and institutional complementarityHLEG: definition of frontier research.

Page 6: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Rate of growth

How do new fields of research are generated within disciplines?

Which is the post-entry dynamics of growth? Which is the steady state rate of growth?

We study the entry of new words in scientific publications:

- post-entry dynamics

- arrival process within the scientific discipline and turnover ratio (new words/existing words)

Page 7: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Evidence from Nanopublications

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Cumulate arrivial of publications Cumulate entry of authors Cumulate entry of aff iliations

Source: Bonaccorsi and Thoma (2005)

Page 8: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Genetic Algorithm

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Number of occurrences of the word “Genetic algorithm” in the publications of the top 1000 scientists in computer science

Page 9: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Neural Network

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Number of occurrences of the word “Neural network” in the publications of the top 1000 scientists in computer science

Page 10: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Wireless

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Number of occurrences of the word “Wireless” in the publications of the top 1000 scientists in computer science

Page 11: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Atomic Force Microscopy

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Number of occurrences of the word “Atomic force microscope” in the publications of the top 1000 scientists in high energy physics

Page 12: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Hadron Collider

0

50

100

150

200

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Number of occurrences of the word “Hadron collider” in the publications of the top 1000 scientists in high energy physics

Page 13: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Total number New born

Total number of keywords and number of newly-appearing keywords in publications of top 1000 high energy physicists

Page 14: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Total number New born

Total number of keywords and number of newly-appearing keywords in publications of top 1000 computer scientists

Page 15: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

90,00

100,00

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Computer science High energy physics

Ratio between newly appearing keywords and total number of keywords in high energy physics and computer science

Page 16: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Stylized evidence on rates of growth

First, scientific fields grow at very different rates after entry. As a first broad distinction, there are fields that grow extremely rapidly and fields characterized by slow growth after entry. Post-entry growth rates sharply differ.

Second, disciplines largely differ in the composition of fields characterized by different rates of growth. In some disciplines it seems that new fields are generated continuously, so that the turnover ratio is extremely high, while in other disciplines the turnover is much lower.

Page 17: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Degree of diversity

How many different directions does search take?

Even within the same paradigm and theory, research programmes may differ by:- specific hypotheses- experimental technique- object or locus of observation

A dynamics of increasing diversity may be defined divergent.Divergence may be:- strong (competing, non compatible hypotheses)- weak or complementary (mutually compatible hypotheses but diverging search strategies)

Page 18: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Convergent dynamicsdiversity is stable or tends to decreasemost research programmes follow the same set of specific hypotheses and use the same tools

e.g. high energy physics, nuclear physics, astronomy, traditional chemistry, nuclear technology, aerospace, TLC, conventional engineering

Divergent dynamicsdiversity explodesthe same theory or paradigm (e.g. molecular biology) gives origin to many competing or just diverse programmes

e.g. HIV, Alzheimer, molecular oncology, nanotechnology, computer languages, computational chemistry

Page 19: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

We study the concentration of keywords used in scientific publications

- highly concentrated disciplines: a few keywords absorb a large share of publications- research programmes tend to converge along the same directions

- highly fragmented disciplines: there are many directions of research, no dominant pattern.

Future research: mapping/ clustering of keywords over time

Page 20: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Concentration of keywords in publications of top 1000 scientists in Computer science and High energy physics

  Computer High

science energyphysics

Number of publications of top 1,000 scientists 9,062 41,770

Number of publications with keywords 6,401 34,379

Publications with keywords (%) 71% 82%

Number of different keywords 18,031 50,952

Average number of keywords per author 5.35 5.44

Concentration ratio (C250)* 26.5% 29.3%

* Cumulative market share of top 250 keywords (Number of occurrences of the top 250 keywords/ total number of occurrences in all publications)

Page 21: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Top 250 keywords

Rela

tive f

req

uen

cy (

% o

f to

p k

eyw

ord

)

Highenergyphysics

Computerscience

Relative frequency of top keywords in High energy physics and Computer science

Page 22: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Rank in period 1991-1995

Ra

nk

in p

eri

od

19

96

-20

00

Plot of rank correlation of top 250 keywords in High energy physics (r=.79)

Page 23: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Rank in period 1991-1995

Ra

nk

in p

eri

od

19

96

-20

00

Plot of rank correlation of top 250 keywords in Computer science (r= .49)

Page 24: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Level of complementarity

Traditional type of complementarity in science:- physical facilities (e.g. big science)

New forms of complementarity:

- human capital complementarity (different disciplinary background, need for flexibility in education, career, affiliation, organizational setting)

- institutional complementarity (different institutions involved, e.g. university/laboratory/ hospital in molecular medicine)

Page 25: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

The performance of Europe in new leading sciences

(a) European science is strong in fields characterized by convergent search regimes and weak in fields characterized by divergent search regimes.

(b European science is strong in fields characterized by high levels of infrastructural complementarities while it is much less prepared in fields characterized by human capital and institutional complementarities.

(c) Consequently, European science is strong in fields characterized by slow growth and weak in fields characterized by turbulent growth.

(d) European science is only quantitatively comparable to US science but is weaker in the overall quality and is severely under-represented in the upper tail of scientific quality.  

Page 26: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Specialisation patterns (Revealed Comparative Advantages, 1981-1994)

no European country is specialised in Computer scienceno European country is specialised in Engineering;in biology and biochemistry small European countries (Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland) exhibit strong specialisation while large countries have an index lower than unity;in molecular biology several large countries (United Kingdom, Germany and France) and small countries (Netherlands, Finland, in addition to Switzerland) are specialised;Europe as a whole is specialised in a few biomedical areas (pharmacology, immunology, microbiology) and in the large traditional disciplines of chemistry, physics and astronomy.

Page 27: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

In materials science EU-15 produce 40,108 papers and receive 83,748 citations, while NAFTA produce 31,620 papers but receive 106,841 citations

In the life sciences EU-15 produce 616,212 papers and US 529,608 in the period 1995-1999, but the citation impact (1993-1999) is 1.35 in USA and only 0.90 in EU-15

In computer science the citation impact (1993-1999) is 1.33 for Israel, 1.17 for US, but only in the range between 0.81 (Germany) and 0.95 (Italy) for the four largest countries

Source: Third European Report on S&T Indicators (2003)

Page 28: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

What do these disciplines have in common?

A divergent search regime

a dynamics of proliferating research programmes,often generated within the same paradigm,that increase the diversity of the field in terms of hypotheses, experimental techniques, objects of investigation.

European science is strong in fields characterized by convergent search regimes and weak in fields characterized by divergent search regimes

Page 29: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

What do these disciplines have in common?

A search regime characterized by new forms of complementarities

Not much physical infrastructure complementarity (big science)

But: - human capital complementarity

- institutional complementarity

European science is strong in fields characterized by high levels of infrastructural complementarities while it is much less prepared in fields characterized by human capital and institutional complementarities.

Page 30: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

European science has developed separate institutions at national, intergovernmental and European level, for dealing with search regimes with strong physical infrastructure complementarities

(e.g. high energy physics, astronomy, space research, oceanography, nuclear technology).

It is much more difficult to provide emerging fields the required complementarities in terms of human capital within the common institutional framework.

There are few rapid growth mechanisms.

Page 31: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Rate of growth of broad disciplines

over the period 1995-1999 the fastest growing area has been computer science with a growth rate of almost 10% earth sciences, engineering and mathematics also show high growth rates, varying between 4.2 and 4.6% biology and agriculture have the lowest growth rates with 1.4 and 1.6% respectively the broad field of life sciences as a whole experienced a growth rate of 2.33% the growth rate for the broad field of engineering was 4.5%, of which 35% was materials science, that grew at 1.9% per year.European science is strong in fields characterized by slow growth and weak in fields characterized by turbulent growth

Page 32: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Upper tail in quality of research. Piece of evidence # 1

Data on the most cited scientists worldwide have been recently made available by ISI on the basis of the analysis of 19 million papers in the period 1981-1999, authored by 5 million scientists. They refer to around 5,000 scientists worldwide in all fields, selected as those 250 that receive the largest number of total citations in any subject

area (0.1% of the total). In all 21 fields US scientists largely dominate, with a proportion of highly cited scientists ranging from 40% in pharmacology and agricultural sciences to over 90% in economics/business and social sciences and an average around 60-70% of the total. Among the 21 areas, only in other three areas non-US countries represent more than 40% of the total: physics, chemistry and plant and animal science (see Basu, 2004).

Page 33: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Countrywise distribution of Highly Cited Scientists

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mathematics

Physics

Geosciences

Space Sciences

Materials Science

Engineering

Computer Science

Chemistry

Pharmacology

Biology & BioChemistry

Plant & Animal Science

Molecular Biology & Genetics

Microbiology

Immunology

Clinical medicine

Psychology/ Psychiatry

Neuroscience

Ecology/Environment

Agricultural Sciences

Social Sciences

Economics/Business

US

UK

Germany

Japan

Canada

France

Australia

Switzerland

Netherlands

Italy

Sweden

Israel

Belgium

Denmark

New Zealand

Spain

Austria

PR China

India

Finland

Norway

S. Africa

Russia

Taiwan

US scientists dominate in each of the 21 subject areas of science

USA

(Source:Basu, 2004)

Page 34: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Piece of evidence # 2

We examined (with non-ISI sources) the publications of top 1,000 scientists by citations received along all their scientific career in

- Computer science- High energy physics

and all publications in nanotechnology for the period 1990-2001 (ISI source).We identified the most productive institutions in terms of total number of publications in the period and ranked the first 100.

Page 35: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

Share in the list of top 100 affiliations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Computer science High energyphysics

Nanotechnology

Scientific field

%

NAFTA

Europe

East Asia

Page 36: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

MIT University of California University of CaliforniaUniversity of California MIT Stanford University

Indian Institute of Technology Stanford University MIT

National Taiwan University Harvard University Harvard UniversityHarvard University University of Massachusetts University of Illinois

Cambridge University Cornell University Carnegie-Mellon University

Yale University Carnegie-Mellon University Cornell UniversityUniversity of Michigan University of Illinois University of Michigan

Seoul National University Purdue University University of WisconsinCalifornia Institute of University of Michigan University of TexasTechnology

Bachelor Master PhD

Piece of evidence # 3

Institutions awarding degrees of the top 1,000 scientists in Computer science. Top 10 list

Page 37: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

The performance of European science• Europe (possibly with the exception of UK and

Scandinavian countries) has problems in matching a rapid quantitative growth with adequate quality and the ability to dominate the upper tail of scientific reputation

• These problems largely come from the mismatch between new leading sciences and the prevailing institutional setting in most European countries

• The European institutional setting:• exhibits weaker selection properties• has less flexibility• has few mechanisms for rapid massive

growth• encourages lower mobility

• Under conditions of rapid and divergent growth, opportunity costs for scientists strongly increase.

Page 38: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

TPERS/INSTAG

543210

T_PER

S

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Plot of rate of growth (average number of personnel per each year of life,

T_PERS/INSTAG) against size (number of personnel, T_PERS). CNR 1957-1997

Source: Bonaccorsi and Daraio (2003)

Page 39: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

TRES/INSTAG

3.02.52.01.51.0.50.0

T_R

ES

50

40

30

20

10

0

Plot of rate of growth (average number of researchers per each year of life,

T_RES/INSTAG) against size (number of researchers, T_RES). CNR 1957-1997

Source: Bonaccorsi and Daraio (2003)

Page 40: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

European Research Council

1. Based on a grant mechanism (portability): effect on scientific competition and researchers mobility across Europe

2. Purely merit-based: effect (at the margin) on national, collusive scientific systems

3. Encourages talented junior researchers to develop their research more rapidly

4. May attract foreign researchers

Page 41: Frontier research and new institutions for European science

European Research Council

• More deeply, the ERC is an institution-building experiment.

• It strenghten the selective properties of the European scientific system.

• It is based on the recognition that European problems in science do not lie in policy, but in institutions.