1. © Max von Zedtwitz, max@post.harvard.edu China Frontier Research 1 China Frontier Survey - Results Prof. Dr. Max von Zedtwitz GLORAD (B-55) School of Economics and Management Tsinghua University, Beijing max@post.harvard.edu / www.glorad.org

2. © Max von Zedtwitz, max@post.harvard.edu Intentions of the Survey 2 To identify key researchers and institutes/stakeholders in China working on “research frontiers” As advisors on research areas and research collaborations As initial entries to the EU-China China-Frontier database To assess experience of international (particularly EU-China) research collaborations To establish existing and possible practices for EU-China research collaborations To identify challenges and tools of such international collaborations To establish existing and possible practices for EU-China research collaborations

3. © Max von Zedtwitz, max@post.harvard.edu Survey Administration 3 1.Based on input from workshop #1 in Brussels, a list of questions was drafted. 2.Based on input from SPI, Torch, GLORAD, advisors the survey questions were expanded or focused. Length, response rate expectation, reliability, etc. 3.Survey finalized in April; English-Chinese translations adjusted; total of 6 pages. 4.Survey sent out by email/mail to potential stakeholders. Potential stakeholders based on recommendations by TORCH, GLORAD, international recognition in science press, recommendations by invited experts and advisors. 5.Surveys received by SPI China Office (Richard Deng) mostly in June 2006 (total of 22 received); Chinese ones translated into English. 6.Analysis in Excel and qualitative from Word.

4. © Max von Zedtwitz, max@post.harvard.edu Question Categories 4 1.Information on the respondent / research stakeholder 2.Research scope (geographic dimension) 3.Future trends in funding, commercialization, collaboration 4.Existing collaborations between Europe and China: Existing partners Existing tools Existing channels Immediate trends 5.Key priorities: Difficulties Recommendations 6.Other stakeholders: Institutions Individuals

5. © Max von Zedtwitz, max@post.harvard.edu Q1: Information on Research Stakeholder 5 Respondent organizations: Respondent fields: Organization types: Number of scientists: Number of support staff: CAS (11), Peking U (4), Tsinghua (3), Beijing Jiaotong U (2), NW Polytech U, Nat’l Nano-Ctr, Agro-U Semicond., biology, electronics, software, computing, genomics, policy, business admin, thermal eng., physics, geo sciences, “science” 12 universities, 10 research institutes Max = 2902; Min = 6; Average = 611; Mean = 209 Max = 4875; Min = 1; Average = 685; Mean = 103

6. © Max von Zedtwitz, max@post.harvard.edu Q2: Research collaborations at what geographical level? 6 Regional:11 National:21 With Asia:7 With USA:13 With Europe:14 One (1) stakeholder had only regional collaborations. All stakeholders with Asian collaborations also had European collaborations. Three (3) stakeholders had collaborations with all five regions. Six (6) stakeholders had collaborations with Europe and Asia and the USA. Five (5) stakeholders had collaborations with Europe only and not with Asia or the USA. Those who collaborate with Europeans: Scientists: Max = 2902; Min = 14; Average = 702; Mean = 224 Support:Max = 4875; Min = 1; Average = 809; Mean = 86

7. © Max von Zedtwitz, max@post.harvard.edu Q3: Future Trends 7 StatementsAverageVariance The number of funding agencies will grow:3.50.8 The total value of funds will grow:4.50.3 The value of public funding will grow:4.30.4 The value of private funding will grow:3.80.7 Private funding will increase faster than public funding:3.00.9 Higher proportion of products from Frontier Research will get into the market:3.60.8 Int’l collaborations in Frontier Research will grow:4.50.3

8. © Max von Zedtwitz, max@post.harvard.edu Q4: Experiences with European Collaborations 8 17 stakeholders had NO experiences with European collaborations Of the 5 stakeholders that had, with whom did they partner? 3 Germans 2 Irish 1 UK 1 French (yes, 2 stated no experiences but had collaborations anyway). How were the partners identified? Visiting professors Academic communication Existing/previous collaborations

9. © Max von Zedtwitz, max@post.harvard.edu Q4: Experiences with European Collaborations 9 What was the added value of these collaborations? Academic/scientific communication Acquire information Broaden own perspectives New ideas What are available tools to support collaborations? Natural NSF of China MOST Exchange programs Internal evaluations International cooperation plan Websites Alumni State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs International cooperation sponsored by China Scholarship Council

10. © Max von Zedtwitz, max@post.harvard.edu Q4: Experiences with European Collaborations 10 What channels should be developed? Workshops Meetings Visiting professorships Exchange programs Internet communication Promote more inter-personal contacts Conferences Web platforms

11. © Max von Zedtwitz, max@post.harvard.edu Q4: Experiences with European Collaborations 11 StatementsAverageVariance The number of joint conferences should grow:4.50.3 The number of shared projects should grow:4.60.2 The number of exchange programs should grow:4.50.4

12. © Max von Zedtwitz, max@post.harvard.edu Q5: Key Priorities: Difficulties 12 What are major difficulties in Europe-Chinese collaborations? Find the right partner Funding Poor or limited communication Unclear/complex application procedures No time Confidentiality and nat’l security issues Collaboration attitudes / culture No info on int’l programs

13. © Max von Zedtwitz, max@post.harvard.edu Q5: Key Priorities: Recommendations 13 How to foster Europe-Chinese collaborations? Identify specific areas of common interest Exchange visiting scholars and students Improve Europe-China communication Train science managers Provide funding Focus on commercialization Provide communication platforms Copyright and IPR issues Resource allocation management Apply for EU programs Promote int’l publication Establish a joint research center (on Frontier Research) (Many provided specific scientific areas for further promotion.)

14. © Max von Zedtwitz, max@post.harvard.edu Q6: Other Stakeholders 14 CAS (15) Tsinghua (10) Peking University (7) Nanjing U, Zhejiang U (2) Many others once Noteworthy: Huawei once

15. © Max von Zedtwitz, max@post.harvard.edu Main Results 15 Q1, Background:Perhaps bias on Beijing-based institutions, but good scientific spread Q2, Partners:EU, USA equally attractive, and twice as attractive as Asia Q3, Trends:More funding expected, more int’l collaborations expected Q4, Experiences:No surprises: exchanges, visits, etc. More channels than existing tools Q5, Difficulties:What partner? What money? How communicate? How operate? Q5, Recomm.:Focus, training/education, exploitation perspectives, joint center Q6, Others:CAS / Tsinghua / Peking U as prime frontier research stakeholders