1 / 27

Importance of International Scientific Cooperation

Importance of International Scientific Cooperation. Ivo Šlaus World Academy of Art and Science ‘Ruđer Bošković’ Institute. Why science? ☼ Salient features of our contemporary world: fast changing, interdependent and global ← science generated

dgutierrez
Télécharger la présentation

Importance of International Scientific Cooperation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Importance of International Scientific Cooperation Ivo Šlaus World Academy of Art and Science ‘Ruđer Bošković’ Institute

  2. Why science? ☼ Salient features of our contemporary world: fast changing, interdependent and global ← science generated Contemporary world is the best ever, but not sustainable and it is self-destructive. ☼ Succesfully facing most current challenges ← requires science, creativity and out-of-the-box thinking and action ☼ UN Agenda 2030: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ← requires all scientific disciplines, inter- multi- and trans-disciplinary research (Narin, Šlaus)

  3. ☼ All major cultures developed science (G.Sarton, 1952) ☼ and scientific research is deeply rooted in each particular culture (Šlaus, 1984) Scientific research enriches each culture and ‘Science is universal, international, objective and cumulative.’ M. Moravscik, 1978 C. Moedas: Open Science, Open Innovation, Open to the World (RISE 2016)

  4. ☼ A. Toffler: ‘Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth, Violence’ military→economy→knowledge (1990) ☼ Knowledge is inexhaustible ☼ “Knowledge is the most democratic source of power” ☼“ST breakthrus act as equilizers creating a chance for resetting to zero economical and political advantages accumulated in some centers.” (Šlaus, ‘Science in a Peripheral Country’, ESF,1987) ☼ “However significant ST is, it is of little use without concomitant socioeconomic inputs and appropriate political drive.” (UNESCO, No.46, 1979)

  5. R&D Potential • Human power, 2) ST Infrastructure, 3) Organization of R&D, 4) Creative capacity, 5) Efficiency (R&D vs. ST) + Effectiveness (accomplishing pursued socio-economic objectives) • Measuring R&D (Šlaus, 1980, De Solla Price 1980): • Input: • 1) ρ (SE) = Number scients&eng. in R&D/c: ± 20% • 2) GNER&D/GDP: (about 15% of govnt budget ‘lost’) • Output: • 1) ρ(W) = No authors publ WoS/c: ±10% Garfield, 1978 • 2) Highly cited papers/Top Institutes/Universities, ±5% • Development capability index = (GDP)0.55x(ρ(W))0.45 M.M. Qurashi (Pakistan Acad Sci, 1974, ‘78), D. De Solla Price and Slaus (SY 1980 & SY 1978)

  6. Lotka’s law: P(n) ~ 1/n² (Matthew rule)(DeSolla Price’78) Effectiveness: S-curve brodening as input indicators decreases (Šlaus, 1980) Threshold (Šlaus, 1980 and 1987. de Solla Price 1967): input: ρ(SE) = 300/million inhabitants GNERD = 0.9 GDP (at least ¼ basic research) output: ρ(W) = 100/milion inhabitants R&D models (Šlaus,2001,UNESCO:‘Cooperation in SEE’) V. Bush ‘Science – the endless horizon’ (1945): Science-push modelMarket-pull model “Bundles of streams synergistically synthetizing basic research and innovations.” (Šlaus, 2001)

  7. Lamy Report 2017

  8. % distribution of GNER&D (RISE 2016)

  9. world share of highly cited scientific publications

  10. Nuclear institutes in ex-Yugoslavia: Vinča Institute (1948): reactors (Savić, Dedijer, Walen); J. Stefan–Lj (1949): betatron (Peterlin, Blinc, Turk); Rudjer Bošković-Zg (’50): accelerator (Supek) (‘Tito’s nuclear legacy’ BAS 2000) International Cooperation ↔ Inter-, multi- trans-disciplinary ↔ Broad, Flexible ◊ 1960-1975: ex-Yu comparable to Austria, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Hungary, Poland ◊ 1975-1990: ex-Yu comparable to Bulgaria, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Romania, behind Austria..... Poland

  11. No WoS publica IRB Croatia(nat+engi) Croatia(all) 1976-1990 2.671 6.214 43% 7.487 28% 1991-2004 3.947 11.822 33% 16.309 24% 2005-2016 5.845 20.210 29% 40.749 14%

  12. Case study RBI: Frontline Research + Niches 1. few particle studies(Intl. Confs: London1959, Brela ’67 ..Santos 2006,..Caen 2018; European FP Community): neutron-neut.force(‘61),CSB: md > mu (’90) Intl. Collab: UCLA, Rice U, LANL, NRL, Georgetown U, Duke U, Kyoto U, IKO Amsterdam, Louvain-la-neuve, NCCU + Vinča 0.2 Mev CW -14 Mev neut - counter - 3D anal - intl.theory 1956-’63 = 7 years 2. radiopharmaceuticals: 15 MeV cyclotron Started:1953 – Tito opens: 1962, but extern.beam? 67Ga; 81mKr + mathematical model for lung ventilation 1975-80: largest producers in Europe+Hammersmith Hosp. Neutron radiotherapy (IEEE‘83 most read paper) 22 years

  13. 3. computer constructive visual art – New tendencies (Vladimir Bonačić (1968-74), also Ivan Picelj, Vojin Bakić) 4. Interdisciplinary frontline research center (1985-91): IRB + Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts → 4.1. proposal for locating ITER in Yugoslavia (DONES 2017) 4.2. including ex-patriots (diaspora potential ~ 30%) 4.3. establishing Yugoslav Assoc.for the Advancement of Sci 4.4 ‘supported’ (workforce) UNESCO ‘Reconstruction of Scientific Cooperation in SEE’ (1999-2001) 4.5. proposal to establish SEE Institute for Technology (2003) 4.6. ‘supported’ establishing South-East European Division of WAAS (WAAS fellowship increased from about 15 to over 100) Human-resources development started in 1946! And always was essential!

  14. Articles in physics in medical science (NSF-ScInd) 1997 201119972011 World 84,021 108,551 144,819 182,772 Austri 483 598 1,437 1,515 BG 226 127 67 58 Slovenia 116 216 91 176 UK 4,661 4.321 13,410 12,282 HR 77 104.5 115 192 Serbia 175 194 Montenegro 3.5 Macedonia 7.7 14.9 5.7 9.5 (fractional credit for authorship)

  15. OECD Oslo Manual [JRC S&P report 2013, S. Hardeman et al) Research = creative systematic work to increase the stock of knowledge, including culture and application. Research Excellence Score 1) Top10% most highly cited publications/total No. Publ: HICIT 2) High quality patent/million inhabitants: PCTPAT 3) Number of world class universities and institutes/c: TOPINST 4) Number of high prestige grants/public GNERD ERC

  16. The most excellent countries: Switzerland, theNetherlands,Denmark, Sweden, and Israel. The lowest: Latvia, Croatia, Turkey, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania Malta. (Lithuania, Turkey & Malta have fair HICIT) Publications that by citations rank in top 1%:‘Highly Cited Papers’ 2014-2017: USA 2644 Slovenia 4 Hungary 3 UK 542 Serbia 4 Croatia 1 China 249 (‘17) Slovakia 1 Romania 2 Germ 297 Greece 15 Bulgaria 1

  17. Composite score of research excellence Country Overall score HICIT TOPIN PCTPAT ERC Germany 62.8 69 44 69 73 Hungary 31.9 39 20 17 82 Slovenia 27.5 48 10 25 48 Croatia 12.2 17 10 13 10 Latvia 11.5 14 10 12 10 Turkey 13.8 32 10 11 10 Greece 35.3 57 27 13 79

  18. Ave relative citation of publications. ARC > 1 means cited more frequently than the world average, RISE 2016

  19. Transition (2001) 27 countries in transition in CE, SEE and CIS Assessed thru ECON, DEM and RoL (smaller → better) Country DEM RoL ECON Poland 1.44 1.88 1.67 Hungary 1.94 2.5 1.92 Slovenia 1.94 1.75 2.08 Croatia 3.25 4.13 3.58 Serbia+MN 4.63 5.88 5.33 Macedonia 3.75 4.63 4.58

  20. EBRD report ‘Sustaining Growth’ 2017 Country80/20CompetGood gov Ecol appResilTotal Germany 8.43 8.66 7.39 8.41 8.06 Slovenia 3.6 6.93 5.74 6.67 7.44 6.90 Poland 6.38 6.15 6.27 6.65 6.64 Hungary 6.42 5.31 6.37 6.65 6.49 Croatia 5.0 5.75 5.14 6.03 6.61 6.07 Bulgaria 8.0 5.96 4.69 5.82 6.54 5.87 Montenegro 4.89 5.12 5.15 5.93 5.38 Serbia 10.0 4.94 4.39 5.77 5.55 5.37

  21. CONCLUSION The SEE has been the center, crossroad and a periphery ▲ Strength of R&D potential: weak and decreasing ▲ Demography: decreasing 20% in 20y; MIGRATION ▲ Economy: Low employment, Decreasing skills ▲ EU enlargement: 6 (or even 8) countries ▲ All indicators of countries in transition rapidly change ▲ Global political & economic situation vulnerable → act within 5-10 years scale (e.g. ITER proposal in 1988)

  22. Plan of Action ☼ Establish and Develop Centers of Excellence for Frontline Research(first proposal in 1980ies) ☼ CoE has to be International Focused on Sustainable Development Science-Technology linked with Education (H. Schopper, BoT WAAS) Realization of SDGs requires all science (inter-, multi-, trans-) and ◊ majority (65%) of scientists+ technicians should be local ◊ though inter-, etc physicists should dominate (50%)

  23. ELI in Bukurest, Szeged, Prague (each about 400 M€, later 200 M€ (Danube) + 100 M€ (ICT) • Similar action needed in Southern SEE: Slovenia, Croatia, B&H, Montenegro, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia • GDP of Croatia 40G€ → 3%GDP =1.2G€ • Private-public: Medicol (Zagreb) only 8F-FDG • NECESSARY: • Identify pillars • Develop human resources • Appropriate political drive: national + EU

  24. Pillars: • 1.1) Vinča, IJS and IRB and Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Sofia (1972) • 1.2) part of universities • 1.3) academies • 1.4) Sustainable development, energy, water and environmental systems (SDEWES) – a series of intl confs (WAAS center) -Afgan(Vinča) + Duić (UoZ): since 2002: 11 conferences in Dubrovnik, Piran, Ohrid, cruiser: about 500 participants/conf, 450 papers, 120 posters/ published in scientific journals (JSDEWES) • 1.5) InterUniversity Center–Dubrovnik (WAAS center): 1971-1991: 598 courses, 266 intl.conf. 38,881 participants • 2011: 45courses, 11 intl.conf. 1,416 participants

  25. 2) Develop human resources emphasizing frontline research ‘to some extent diverse’, since τ≤ 10 years. First phase: CERIC-ERIC (Central European Research Infrastructure Consortium: Trieste, Ljubljana,Krakow, Prague, Budapest, Zagreb, Belgrade, Bucharest) Develop inventive education at all levels, stimulate local instruments developments. It requires about 6-8 years to reach an intl. top level. 3) Allocate financial resources: 3.1) national: GNER&D : quickly reach 3% of GDP. 3.2) EU funding to be channeled to SEE. 3.3) special grants from foundations, strong R&D centers etc

More Related