• No results found

Nordic-UK R&D statistics : Nordic-UK relations in research of innovation.

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Nordic-UK R&D statistics : Nordic-UK relations in research of innovation."

Copied!
33
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Nordic-UK

R&D

(2)

Foreword

On June 16, 2016 the UK population voted in favour of leaving the European Union. The full

implications of this vote will not be clear for a long time to come, but we do know that the future of UK relations with the rest of Europe will be different from what it has been the last decades. This concerns all sectors, including research and innovation.

The Heads of Nordic Research Councils (NordHorcs) asked NordForsk to set up a group of representatives from the national research funding organisations to discuss and exchange information and experiences in relation to Brexit. The group quickly concluded that it would be useful to have a basic set of statistics on UK-Nordic relations in research of innovation.

In the spring of 2018, a small group of Nordic national experts on R&D statistics gathered to set out how this could be achieved, and the result is this collection of central statistics. The focus has been to see the Nordics as a region in its relations with the UK in the area of research and innovation. It is our hope that it can provide some good background information for anyone interested in the UK-Nordic relations in this area.

NordForsk wishes to thank Jonas Gurell for heading the expert group, and Stig Slipersæther,

Josephine Them Parnas, Elisabet Andresdottir and Otto Auranen for their contribution to the group.

Oslo, October 2018

Arne Flåøyen Director, NordForsk

(3)
(4)

Introduction

This report consists of a number of statistical graphs illustrating different aspects of the existing UK-Nordic R&D collaboration with a focus on Horizon 2020. The graphs are reproduced for each UK-Nordic country as well as for the Nordic as a whole and the report is therefore divided into one section per country. The conclusions of this report are presented below, figure by figure, along with a closer description of each graph.

Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure X-1 – Selection of OECD main science and technology indicators

Description

The figure gives an overview of the R&D expenditure in each Nordic country as well as for the Nordic as a whole in comparison with the UK, divided on sector of performance. The included indicators are

Business and enterprise expenditure on R&D (BERD) as percentage of GDP, Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) as percentage of GDP, Government expenditure on R&D (GOVERD) as percentage of GDP and Higher education expenditure on R&D (HERD as percentage of GDP).

Data source

OECD stat, main science and technology indicators

Conclusions

The United Kingdom is recognized as one of the global leaders in terms of research. They are not, however, one of the top spending countries in terms of research funding as share of their GDP. The individual Nordic countries as well as the Nordic as a whole is investing a larger amount of funding in relation to their GDP compared to the UK. This is true for the business enterprise sector as well as for the higher education sector. Several of the Nordic countries also show an increasing trend over time when it comes to annual expenditure on R&D within higher education institutions. In international comparisons the Nordic countries also have a large share of their work force involved in the R&D sector as shown by other indicators from OECD stat, main science and technology indicators.

Figure X-2 – Number of bilateral fractioned publications

Description

The figure shows the number of bilaterally co-authored publications between each Nordic country as well as for the Nordic regarded as one entity and the UK. The publications are distributed on research subjects. The bibliometric data is fractionized on countries and research subjects. The numbers are for the time period 2006-2017.

Data source

Bibliometry performed by the Swedish Research Council based on Web of science data

Conclusions

Between 2006 and 2017, more than 20 000 scientific publications arose from bilateral co-authorships between the UK and one of the Nordic countries. To compare different research areas solely based on number of publications is not trivial since each research area has a publication tradition of its own. However, it is clear that the Nordic countries have a broad collaboration with the UK covering a range of different subjects. The extent of the collaboration varies from country to country but in general clinical medicine, biomedicine, molecular science and geosciences are the areas in which the largest share of articles are produced.

(5)

Figure X-3 – Proportion of highly cited publications (top 10%)

Description

The figure shows the proportion of highly cited publications for each country’s total production as well as for bilateral and multilateral production together with the UK. Highly cited means the globally top 10% most cited publications implying that a proportion of highly cited publications above 10% is above the world average. The figure indicates the increased impact, relative to the country total, of co-authored publications from both a Nordic as well as from a UK perspective.

Data source

Bibliometry performed by the Swedish Research Council based on Web of science data

Conclusions

The proportion of highly cited publications is sometimes referred to as the citation impact. The data show that for each Nordic country as well as for the UK the citation impact of a UK-Nordic co-authored bilateral publication has a higher citation impact than the country average. This indicates that these collaborations in general are fruitful and result in a large portion of highly cited

publications. When looking at multilaterally co-authored scientific publications involving the UK as well as Nordic authors the positive effect is even clearer. In many cases the citation impact of multilaterally co-authored publications exceeds 0.2 meaning that the fraction of highly cited papers exceeds twice the world average.

Figure X-4 Horizon 2020 key figures

Description

The figure shows the number of Horizon 2020 projects for each Nordic country in comparison with the UK as well as how many common projects the countries are or have been involved in during H2020. It also shows the number of participants from each country in H2020 projects and the total number of participants from the Nordic countries and the UK involved in joint projects.

Data source

eCorda data, data from June 2018

Conclusions

The Nordic as well as the UK involvement in Horizon 2020 projects is to a large extent based on mutual cooperation. 29% of the H2020 projects in which the UK is involved also involves one or more Nordic country. 33% of the projects with Nordic involvement involves the UK. These numbers are even larger when looking at individual project participants. Around 3700 UK researchers are involved in or have during H2020 been involved in a collaboration with a Nordic participant and around 3800 Nordic researchers have been involved in a UK collaboration during the same time period. This corresponds to 40% of the UK participants involved in H2020 and 50% of the Nordic participants.

Figure X-5 Number of collaborations in Horizon 2020

Description

The figure shows the number of collaborative links between each country and the rest of the involved countries in Horizon 2020 projects. A collaborative link is defined between each pair of participants in each contract.

Data source

(6)

Conclusions

Germany is the most common H2020 partner both for the UK and for the Nordics. The UK is number two when it comes to the most commonly used project partners for the Nordic countries, intra-Nordic collaborations excluded. From a UK perspective Germany is the most common H2020 collaborator followed by Spain, Italy, the Nordics and France if the Nordics is considered as one entity. The UK collaborations with Spain, Italy, the Nordics and France are very similar when considering the extent of the collaborations even though the population of the Nordic countries is less than half of the Italic and French population and about 60% of the Spanish. If the amount of collaborations relative to the collaborator’s population is considered the Nordic-UK collaboration is closer to that of the Netherlands-UK collaboration.

Figure X-6 Distribution of Horizon 2020 participation on pillars

Description

The figure shows the amount of financial contribution from the EU to each country divided on the Horizon 2020 objectives: Excellent science, Societal challenges and Industrial leadership. The UK numbers are also displayed for comparisons.

Data source

h2020viz.vinnova.se based on eCorda data, March 2018

Conclusion

For long the UK has been identified as one of the strongest defenders of excellence in science within the European Union. This in combination with several world leading research institutions within the country is reflected in the very large share of EU funding granted to the UK within the Excellent science pillar. In general the Nordic participation have a slightly larger part of its funding originating from the Societal challenges or Industrial leadership pillars of the Horizon 2020 program. The national variations between the Nordic countries are however relatively large when this distribution is investigated.

Figure X-7 Participation in excellent science objectives

Description

The figure shows the amount of financial contribution within the Excellent science objective from the EU to each country divided on: European Research Council (ERC), Future & emerging technologies (FET), Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA) and Research infrastructures. The UK numbers are also displayed for comparisons.

Data source

h2020viz.vinnova.se based on eCorda data, March 2018

Conclusions

Within the Excellent science objective none of the Nordic countries can show such a high fraction of its funding as the UK originating from the European Research Council (ERC). The Nordics instead have in general a higher share of their excellent science funding coming from the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA). Both ERC and MSCA-grants are closely related to the mobility of researchers which commonly is identified as one important aspect of educating and developing excellent researchers.

Figure X-8 Participation in industrial leadership objectives

Description

The figure shows the amount of financial contribution within the Industrial leadership objective from the EU to each country divided on: Advanced manufacturing and processes (AMP), Biotechnology

(7)

(Bio), Information and communication technologies (ICT), Advanced materials (Materials),

Nanotechnologies (Nano), Innovation in small and medium sized enterprises (SME) and Space. The UK numbers are also displayed for comparisons.

Data source

h2020viz.vinnova.se based on eCorda data, March 2018

Conclusions

Considering the Nordic as a whole the participation in Horizon 2020’s Industrial leadership objective is quite similar to the UK involvement. There are, however, variations between the Nordic countries. In general Information and communication technologies is the dominating area especially for the UK. The Nordics have a larger share of their commitment within Advanced manufacturing and processes as well as within biotechnologies.

Figure X-9 Participation in societal challenges objectives

Description

The figure shows the amount of financial contribution within the Societal challenges objective from the EU to each country divided on: Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials (Climate), Secure, clean and efficient energy (Energy), Europe in a changing world, Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research and the bioeconomy (Food), Health, demographic change and wellbeing (Health), Secure societies – Protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens (Security) and Smart, green and integrated transport (Transport). The UK numbers are also displayed for comparisons.

Data source

h2020viz.vinnova.se based on eCorda data, March 2018

Conclusions

Considering societal challenges, the UK is strongly positioned within Health, demographic change and wellbeing which is also reflected in the amount of UK-Nordic co-authored publications within this field. In general the Nordic countries also have a strong focus on Secure, clean and efficient energy as well as on Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research and the bioeconomy. The countries’ respective strengths are also well reflected in e.g. the UK Science and innovation network which has identified life science, digital/ICT, low carbon

technologies and arctic research as prioritized strategy areas for collaboration with the Nordic countries.

Summary

The United Kingdom as well as the Nordic countries are important actors in the European and as well as in the global research landscape. The UK-Nordic collaboration is broad and extensive and it constitutes a clear example of a win-win situation in terms of research impact. The research profiles of the Nordics and the UK are similar yet also complementary which has resulted in a large amount of collaborative projects and many thousands of individual researchers working actively together to achieve common goals. This clear ambition and will to collaborate internationally is important to recognize and facilitate in order to ensure that common goals can be reached within applied as well as in fundamental science.

(8)

1. Nordics

Figure 1-1. Selection of OECD main science and technology indicators, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 1-2. Number of bilateral fractioned publications co-authored with the UK, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 1-3. Proportion of highly cited publications, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 Nordics United Kingdom Nordics United Kingdom Nordics United Kingdom Nordics United Kingdom GERD as a percentage of GDP BERD as a percentage of GDP HERD as a percentage of GDP GOVERD as a percentage of GDP 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 General science journals

Humanities Computer and information sciences Materials science Mathematics and statistics Psychology Business studies and economics Agriculture, fisheries, forestry Chemistry Social sciences Engineering Biology Health sciences Physics Geosciences Biomedicine and molecular biosciences Clinical medicine

Number of fractioned articles

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Nordics UK

Bilateral publications with the Nordics and the UK

Multilateral publications with the Nordics and the UK Total

(9)

Figure 1-4. Horizon 2020 key figures, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 1-5. Number of collaborations in Horizon 2020, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 1-6. Distribution of Horizon 2020 participation on pillars, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Number of H2020 projects Number of H2020 participants

United Kingdom Nordics Common 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

United Kingdom Nordics

Excellent Science Societal Challenges Industrial Leadership

(10)

Figure 1-7. Participation in excellent science objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 1-8. Participation in industrial leadership objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 1-9. Participation in societal challenges objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% United Kingdom Nordics 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

ICT AMP Nano Materials Space Bio SME

United Kingdom Nordics 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Health Energy Transport Climate Food Security Europe in a changing

world

United Kingdom Nordics

(11)
(12)

2. Denmark

Figure 2-1. Selection of OECD main science and technology indicators, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 2-2. Number of bilateral fractioned publications co-authored with the UK, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 2-3. Proportion of highly cited publications, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 Denmark United Kingdom Denmark United Kingdom Denmark United Kingdom Denmark United Kingdom GERD as a percentage of GDP BERD as a percentage of GDP HERD as a percentage of GDP GOVERD as a percentage of GDP 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

General science journals Computer and information sciences Humanities Materials science Mathematics and statistics Psychology Business studies and economics Chemistry Agriculture, fisheries, forestry Engineering Social sciences Biology Health sciences Geosciences Physics Biomedicine and molecular biosciences Clinical medicine

Number of fractioned publications

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Denmark UK

Bilateral publications with DK and the UK

Multilateral publications including DK and UK Total

(13)

Figure 2-4. Horizon 2020 key figures, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 2-5. Number of collaborations in Horizon 2020, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 2-6. Distribution of Horizon 2020 participation on pillars, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Number of H2020 projects Number of H2020 participants

United Kingdom Denmark Common 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

United Kingdom Nordics Denmark

Excellent Science Societal Challenges Industrial Leadership

(14)

Figure 2-7. Participation in excellent science objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 2-8. Participation in industrial leadership objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 2-9. Participation in societal challenges objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% United Kingdom Denmark 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

ICT AMP Nano Materials Space Bio SME

United Kingdom Denmark 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Health Energy Transport Climate Food Security Europe in a changing

world

United Kingdom Denmark

(15)
(16)

3. Finland

Figure 3-1. Selection of OECD main science and technology indicators, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 3-2. Number of bilateral fractioned publications co-authored with the UK, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 3-3. Proportion of highly cited publications, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 Finland United Kingdom Finland United Kingdom Finland United Kingdom Finland United Kingdom GERD as a percentage of GDP BERD as a percentage of GDP HERD as a percentage of GDP GOVERD as a percentage of GDP 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

General science journals Humanities Materials science Computer and information sciences Mathematics and statistics Psychology Agriculture, fisheries, forestry Chemistry Business studies and economics Social sciences Engineering Geosciences Biology Physics Health sciences Biomedicine and molecular biosciences Clinical medicine

Number of fractioned publications

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Finland UK

Bilateral publications with FI and the UK

Multilateral publications including FI and UK Total

(17)

Figure 3-4. Horizon 2020 key figures, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 3-5. Number of collaborations in Horizon 2020, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 3-6. Distribution of Horizon 2020 participation on pillars, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Number of H2020 projects Number of H2020 participants

United Kingdom Finland Common 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

United Kingdom Nordics Finland

Excellent Science Societal Challenges Industrial Leadership

(18)

Figure 3-7. Participation in excellent science objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 3-8. Participation in industrial leadership objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 3-9. Participation in societal challenges objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% United Kingdom Finland 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

ICT AMP Nano Materials Space Bio SME

United Kingdom Finland 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Health Energy Transport Climate Food Security Europe in a changing

world

United Kingdom Finland

(19)
(20)

4. Iceland

Figure 4-1. Selection of OECD main science and technology indicators, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 4-2. Number of bilateral fractioned publications co-authored with the UK, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 4-3. Proportion of highly cited publications, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 Iceland United Kingdom Iceland United Kingdom Iceland United Kingdom Iceland United Kingdom GERD as a percentage of GDP BERD as a percentage of GDP HERD as a percentage of GDP GOVERD as a percentage of GDP 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Agriculture, fisheries, forestry Physics Health sciences Engineering Chemistry Business studies and economics Social sciences Biomedicine and molecular biosciences Psychology Biology Clinical medicine Geosciences

Number of fractioned publications

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Iceland UK

Bilateral publications with IS and the UK

Multilateral publications including IS and UK Total

(21)

Figure 4-4. Horizon 2020 key figures, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 4-5. Number of collaborations in Horizon 2020, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 4-6. Distribution of Horizon 2020 participation on pillars, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Number of H2020 projects Number of H2020 participants

United Kingdom Iceland Common 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

United Kingdom Nordics Iceland

Excellent Science Societal Challenges Industrial Leadership

(22)

Figure 4-7. Participation in excellent science objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 4-8. Participation in industrial leadership objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 4-9. Participation in societal challenges objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% United Kingdom Iceland 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

ICT AMP Nano Materials Space Bio SME

United Kingdom Iceland 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Health Energy Transport Climate Food Security Europe in a changing

world

United Kingdom Iceland

(23)
(24)

5. Norway

Figure 5-1. Selection of OECD main science and technology indicators, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 5-2. Number of bilateral fractioned publications co-authored with the UK, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 5-3. Proportion of highly cited publications, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 Norway United Kingdom Norway United Kingdom Norway United Kingdom Norway United Kingdom GERD as a percentage of GDP BERD as a percentage of GDP HERD as a percentage of GDP GOVERD as a percentage of GDP 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Materials science Humanities Computer and information sciences Mathematics and statistics Business studies and economics Chemistry Physics Psychology Engineering Agriculture, fisheries, forestry Social sciences Biology Health sciences Biomedicine and molecular biosciences Geosciences Clinical medicine

Number of fractioned publications

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Norway UK

Bilateral publications with NO and the UK

Multilateral publications including NO and UK Total

(25)

Figure 5-4. Horizon 2020 key figures, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 5-5. Number of collaborations in Horizon 2020, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 5-6. Distribution of Horizon 2020 participation on pillars, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Number of H2020 projects Number of H2020 participants

United Kingdom Norway Common 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

United Kingdom Nordics Norway

Excellent Science Societal Challenges Industrial Leadership

(26)

Figure 5-7. Participation in excellent science objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 5-8. Participation in industrial leadership objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 5-9. Participation in societal challenges objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% United Kingdom Norway 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

ICT AMP Nano Materials Space Bio SME

United Kingdom Norway 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Health Energy Transport Climate Food Security Europe in a changing

world

United Kingdom Norway

(27)
(28)

6. Sweden

Figure 6-1. Selection of OECD main science and technology indicators, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 6-2. Number of bilateral fractioned publications co-authored with the UK, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 6-3. Proportion of highly cited publications, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 Sweden United Kingdom Sweden United Kingdom Sweden United Kingdom Sweden United Kingdom GERD as a percentage of GDP BERD as a percentage of GDP HERD as a percentage of GDP GOVERD as a percentage of GDP 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Humanities

Computer and information sciences Materials science Mathematics and statistics Psychology Business studies and economics Agriculture, fisheries, forestry Biology Social sciences Chemistry Geosciences Health sciences Engineering Physics Biomedicine and molecular biosciences Clinical medicine

Number of fractioned publications

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Sweden UK

Bilateral publications with SE and the UK

Multilateral publications including SE and UK Total

(29)

Figure 6-4. Horizon 2020 key figures, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 6-5. Number of collaborations in Horizon 2020, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 6-6. Distribution of Horizon 2020 participation on pillars, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Number of H2020 projects Number of H2020 participants

United Kingdom Sweden Common 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

United Kingdom Nordics Sweden

Excellent Science Societal Challenges Industrial Leadership

(30)

Figure 6-7. Participation in excellent science objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 6-8. Participation in industrial leadership objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 6-9. Participation in societal challenges objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% United Kingdom Sweden 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

ICT AMP Nano Materials Space Bio SME

United Kingdom Sweden 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Health Energy Transport Climate Food Security Europe in a changing

world

United Kingdom Sweden

(31)
(32)

7. United Kingdom

Figure 7-1. Selection of OECD main science and technology indicators 2015, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 7-2, 7-3 and 7-4 are omitted and the reader is recommended to see each Nordic country’s individual section.

Figure 7-5. Number of collaborations in Horizon 2020, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 7-6. Distribution of Horizon 2020 participation on pillars, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions 0 0,51 1,52 2,53 3,5 D en mar k Fi n lan d Ic el an d N o rwa y Sw ed en Un ite d Kin gd o m De n mark Fi n lan d Ic el an d N o rwa y Sw ed en Un ite d Kin gd o m De n mark Fi n lan d Ic el an d N o rwa y Sw ed en Un ite d Kin gd o m De n mark Fi n lan d Ic el an d N o rwa y Sw ed en Un ite d Kin gd o m GERD as a percentage of GDP BERD as a percentage of GDP HERD as a percentage of GDP GOVERD as a percentage of GDP 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Iceland Norway Finland Denmark Sweden Kolumn2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Excellent Science Societal Challenges Industrial Leadership

United Kingdom Denmark Sweden Finland Norway Iceland

(33)

Figure 7-7. Participation in excellent science objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 7-8. Participation in industrial leadership objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

Figure 7-9. Participation in societal challenges objectives, for further description see Explanation of figures and conclusions

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Denmark Finland Iceland Norway Sweden United Kingdom 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

ICT AMP Nano Materials Space Bio SME

Denmark Finland Iceland Norway Sweden United Kingdom 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Health Energy Transport Climate Food Security Europe in a changing world Denmark Finland Iceland Norway Sweden United Kingdom

References

Related documents

empirical context as well as locating the lacuna that this study is attempting to fill. This is split into three smaller sections. The first is the theoretical foundation

Data and opinions gathered from PEs coming from a wide range of schools, situations, training and localisations have counterbalanced the official texts and laws analysis

I have therefore detected three major securitizing actors in each country (presented below in the material chapter). Who or what is to be protected? This

The design of the thesis is qualitative text analysis and framing theory is used as a tool to analyse how rape as a problem, the causes of rape, and the possible solutions to rape,

The effects of social cleavage structures on party support patterns in Japan, South Korea and the United Kingdom was measured in two different ways.. Firstly, a simple

The simple answer to ownership equity falling is that the bank is expanding, and investing more money than it is making to build up the organization (the number of offices

He is currently a senior associate at Vinge law firm and Adjunct Professor of law at the Stockholm School of Economics as well as a Visiting Fellow at St Edmund’s

With an academic background from Cambridge University, EUI and Harvard Law School, Professor Lagerlöf is also a bar- rister and he has worked as legal secretary to both the