RISE - RTOs in the service economy
A Bibliometric Study of the
Portuguese Research System in
Biotechnology
Tiago Tavares Santos Pereira
December 2000
DMS 020/2000
A Bibliometric Study of the Portuguese Research System
in Biotechnology*
Tiago Tavares Santos Pereira§
1 - Introduction
While it has become common to talk about the Knowledge Economy, there is yet relatively
little understanding of the economies of knowledge that are the base of its future
development. Knowledge is produced and is exchanged by a variety of institutions and in a
variety of forms and is therefore difficult to track. Nevertheless, even if knowledge is a
relatively fluid concept, it is clear that there are specific institutions which have a central
role in the activities primarily dedicated to its production, research, and its exchange and
dissemination, often through scientific and technical publications – the research and
technology organisations (RTOs). The existence of such published forms of knowledge
provide a particularly useful window to track the activities of knowledge production and
knowledge exchange, identify the actors and their inter-linkages. This is the objective of
this study.
This study follows on the tradition of the systems of innovation approach and takes as
specific object of analysis the biotechnology cluster in Portugal. It will contribute to the
characterisation of the Portuguese biotechnology innovation system through the
identification of the actors directly participating in research activities which have scientific
publications as an output. As the studies of systems of innovation make clear, it is also
important to go beyond the identification of the actors to also identify the links between
them, where knowledge is exchanged and disseminated. Scientific publications provide an
important tracing of such activities through the identification of institutional coauthorships, which reflect the existence of links between different actors in knowledge
producing activities. Furthermore, the bibliometric analysis of scientific publications also
provides indications of the scientific capabilities of the different actors of the system
through the analysis of the scientific fields in which they most actively publish. Although
the analysis of the research system cannot provide a full picture of the innovation system,
since some actors in the latter are not likely to participate in scientific research and in
scientific publications, it can nevertheless describe the activities of a variety of actors, from
firms to universities.
*
This study has been prepared with the support of EU funding in the TSER Programme to the RISE Project,
“RTO’s in the Service Economy: Knowledge Infrastructures, Innovation Intermediaries and Institutional
Change”. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the Observatório das Ciências e das
Tecnologias, who provided the bibliometric data analysed in this study.
§
Currently at the Instituto da Cooperação Científica e Tecnológica Internacional (ICCTI), R. Castilho, 5-4º,
1250-066 Lisboa, Portugal. Email: [email protected]
1
The next section, Section 2, will provide a brief overview of the development of the
Portuguese research system, with particular reference to biotechnology research, as a
background for the study. This will be followed, in Section 3, by a description of the
methodology adopted in this study and the implications thereof for the analysis of the data
presented. Section 4 will present data on the scientific output in biotechnology related
sciences by Portuguese institutions. The analysis will focus on the regional distribution of
the published output, the sectoral distribution, the participation of Portuguese firms and the
distribution per scientific fields. Following from the innovation systems approach, beyond
the identification of the active institutions it is important to identify the existence of
linkages between these. This analysis will be developed in Section 5. This will address both
the existence of linkages at the national level, between the different institutions, and the
existence of linkages between Portuguese and foreign institutions. The conclusions of the
study will be presented in Section 6.
2 - The Portuguese Research System and Biotechnology
The Portuguese research system has undergone considerable changes in the most recent
years. With the support of the European structural funds, important institutional and,
particularly, infrastructural reforms have taken place. However, a research system that was
largely isolated during the years of the dictatorial regime of Salazar until 1974 (Gago,
1990), has faced difficulties in breaking away from such isolation. The analysis by
Gonçalves (1996) of the development of science policy in Portugal exemplifies this. While
scientists took steps in trying to bridge new links and to enrol the political, economic and
social spheres, after the establishment of democracy, they were generally unable to develop
such links, even if they found some support abroad. As a consequence the research system
has been embedded by an academic culture, with the universities replacing the central
position of the state laboratories (and their orientation towards the user) during the earlier
years.
The entrance to the EC in 1986 radically changed the research system. The inflow of
resources to renew the scientific and technological infrastructures, together with the
participation in European collaborative networks under the Framework Programmes, meant
that, for the first time, science was attracting new actors. Nevertheless, the system kept
some of its previous features. A strong academic culture remained, to which, on the
contrary, the state laboratories also adhered (MCT, 1997), together with recently formed
private non-profit research institutions, often the result of direct initiatives of universities,
but with their own autonomy.
In this context, biotechnology also gained new importance. Changing from the earlier
disciplinary culture strongly influenced by physics researchers and the former National
Board for Nuclear Physics, biotechnology was included as one of the priorities in national
research programmes. In the significant investment in the post-graduate training
programmes that followed the entry into the EU the largest number of scholarships was
attributed in the area of the biological sciences (OCT, 1999a). These fields also benefited
2
from large scale infrastructural investment, providing them with instrumentation and
facilities of international level. Finally, the EU RTD programmes also focused on
biotechnology as a priority which facilitated the development of international networks by
researchers in this area and further inflow of resources (Pereira, 2000).
However, the new programmes, more oriented towards scientific research, had little
industrial participation. The technological activity of Portuguese industry is low and
predominantly in the traditional sectors, which are of low technological intensity (Caraça,
1993). At the same time, government technology policy did not parallel the investment in
the upstream side with targeted policies at the downstream, even if some investment was
made in interface institutions, which led to an unbalanced development of the Portuguese
system of innovation in biotechnology (Fontes and Novais, 1998). In this context, the
present study will focus on the scientific output of international level, in biotechnology
related sciences, by Portuguese institutions, which, as will be shown below, has increased
significantly during the last years.
3 - Methodology
The study developed here of the research institutions in the Portuguese biotechnology
innovation system uses bibliometric indicators based on data produced by the Institute for
Scientific Information (ISI), in its National Citation Report for Portugal, based on the
Science Citation Index Expanded, and were provided by the Observatório das Ciências e
das Tecnologias, which holds all Portuguese data.
The use of bibliometrics provides a picture of the scientific production. Therefore, this
study should only be viewed as portraying the scientific production of the biotechnology
innovation sector. Nevertheless, the analysis of publications is not necessarily restricted to
the traditional vision of the academia, restricted and can also characterise the participation
of a variety of institutions in these activities, including also activities performed by firms
(Hicks, 1995; Hicks and Katz, 1997).
Although some of the limitations of bibliometrics are well known, the use of this method
provides a systematic analysis of the research system, both across time and across countries
or institutions. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that the Science Citation Index (SCI),
the database used for most bibliometric studies, provides generally a better coverage of the
scientific literature of the English speaking countries, and it tends to cover publications of a
more basic nature, even if it is certainly not restricted to such literature. While this is likely
to lead to a lower identification of the output of Portuguese researchers, who are also likely
to have an output in non-classified journals, it has the advantage of identifying those
publications which are of a greater international standing, therefore creating a threshold
which provides better international comparisons.
A more difficult methodological question is posed by the definition of biotechnology itself.
What counts as biotechnology is hard to make, and this term has been used to refer to often
3
quite distinct realities, depending on different factors. The approach taken here was to
adopt a wide definition, capable of including a variety of activities that are, more or less
directly, linked to the ‘processing of biological agents,’ which include microorganisms,
cultured cells and enzymes (Bull et al., 1982). Such broad definition expects to reach
activities oriented towards a variety of industrial sectors (such as pharmaceutical,
agriculture and food, for example) and based on a variety of scientific disciplines (such as
biochemistry, molecular biology or plant sciences), in order to identify the greatest number
of related actors.
While the ISI classification defines one category as Biotechnology & Applied
Microbiology, this corresponds to a narrow definition rather than the broader identification
intended for the characterisation of the institutions which are part of a system of innovation.
Furthermore, it is clear that there are other areas which contribute to or draw upon, more or
less directly, biotechnology research and which are not included in such category.
Molecular Biology & Genetics is a particularly good example, having been at the centre of
the biotechnological developments in earlier periods and at the current phase, but other, less
central, areas are also strongly related in this multidisciplinary field, as described by
Leydesdorff and Gauthier (1996). The identification of the relevant categories was made
through consultation with experts, and through the analysis of the publications (journals,
publication titles, keywords) included in the different categories. As a consequence of the
non-existence of a direct identification between publications and categories, but only
between journals and categories,1 some publications will be included which are not
biotechnology related and some biotechnology related publications will not be included.
Nevertheless, the objective of providing a broad overview of the actors in the system will
be better achieved with the broader approach.
ISI classifies some journals as multidisciplinary and to others included in the expanded
version no category is attributed. In these cases the titles and journals of these papers were
screened individually to decide on their inclusion. Table 1 displays the selected categories
and areas (the latter including several categories) and the corresponding number of articles
identified in each category with the participation of a Portuguese institution.
1
The identification between journals and categories is not univocal, as ISI may classify one specific scientific
journal in more than one category.
4
Table 1 - Distribution of Selected Papers per Scientific Field
AREA
CATEGORY
NO CATEGORY
165
AGRICULTURE,BIOLOGY, AND ENVIROMENTAL SCIENCES
AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY
ANIMAL SCIENCES
BIOLOGY
BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
FOOD SCIENCE/NUTRITION
PLANT SCIENCES
VETERINARY MEDICINE/ANIMAL HEALTH
AGRICULTURE,BIOLOGY, AND ENVIROMENTAL SCIENCES Total
ENGINEERING,COMPUTING, & TECHNOLOGY
LIFE SCIENCES
163
21
151
362
195
146
7
1045
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING,COMPUTING, & TECHNOLOGY Total
LIFE SCIENCES Total
Total
23
23
ANIMAL & PLANT SCIENCES
BIOCHEMISTRY & BIOPHYSICS
CELL & DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
CHEMISTRY & ANALYSIS
ENDOCRINOLOGY, NUTRITION & METABOLISM
EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
IMMUNOLOGY
MICROBIOLOGY
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY & GENETICS
MULTIDISCIPLINARY
PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
218
499
92
54
1
14
161
539
236
55
338
2207
5
Taking into account that this study will be based on the analysis of publications in the
above identified scientific fields, mentions to the biotechnology innovation sector in the
following sections of this paper should be understood under the light of these definitions
and methodological constraints.
A second major methodological issue in relation to the analysis intended, beyond the
identification of the publications corresponding to the definition of biotechnology, concerns
the institutional identification. One of the important assets of the SCI is that it provides all
the institutional addresses listed by the authors. However, the addresses listed have
significant variation for the same institutions, sometimes due to simple misspellings, and
others to the identification of internal departments, therefore requiring to be cleaned and
standardised. The central guiding line in this process was to attribute the address to the
main autonomous institution, in order to reach greater comparability of the results.
Furthermore, the strong institutional linkages between some institutions in the Portuguese
biotechnology innovation system, particularly between universities and private non-profit
institutions, also lead to further difficulties in such identifications. Such difficulties are also
faced by the researchers themselves, who often list more than one institution in the same
address. In such cases it was decided to attribute the address to the smallest autonomous
institution2. Where a university and a hospital were listed in the same address, the address
was attributed to the university, on the understanding that it is a university hospital. The
analysis of collaboration patterns in Section 5 shows that the existence of those links is still
evident in the existing data.
In cases of double institutional affiliation of a researcher, the addresses listed identify a
research collaboration. In these cases, it is not possible to clearly identify if such
collaboration is the result of an actual process of institutional collaboration or simply the
bibliometric result of double institutional affiliation. This is another case where the strong
institutional linkages between universities and private non-profit organisations in the
Portuguese research system become evident, as will be discussed in Section 5. In addition
to the identification of the institutions, it was also necessary to identify their sector of
activity and regional location.
The period studied corresponds to a 10-year span, between 1988 and 1998. Due to the
continuous updating of the database the data for the year of 1998 registers a more
significant decline, since data relative to each year continues to be updated usually during
the following year (such difference has been estimated in 10% of the output).3 It is
therefore likely that the actual total for 1998 be greater than that for 1997, and no specific
inference can be made at the moment.
2
If a private non-profit institution and a university were listed in the same address (although this occurred it
was not frequent) the address was attributed to the private non-profit institution. However, if the two
institutions were listed in different addresses they are both identified and a collaboration is registered.
3
On the contrary, 5 papers dated 1999 were already included in the last updating. It was decided to keep these
for the analysis (with the exception of the yearly data).
6
The data used was restricted to articles, notes, reviews and letters which are considered the
publication types that contain new scientific findings.4 Table 2 describes the set of
publications used according to the different types, showing that most publications are
journal articles.
Table 2 - Distribution of Publication Types
Publication Type
Total
2559
122
62
40
2783
Article
Note
Review
Letter
Total
4 - Scientific Output
The number of publications identified with the participation of Portuguese institutions has
gradually increased throughout the period analysed. Figure 1 displays the evolution of the
Portuguese scientific output in the fields selected. In 1998 the 460 publications identified
were more than four times higher than the corresponding number 10 years earlier, in 1988.5
The comparison with the evolution of the total national scientific production for this period,
which increased by less than fourfold, from 713 publications in 1988 to 2621 in 1998,6
reveals that the biotechnology sector has been particularly dynamic.
Figure 1 - Total Portuguese Output in Biotechnology Related Areas
450
Number of Publications
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
4
Some bibliometric studies do not consider letters, but these were included here as the objective of this study
was to obtain a wider identification of the relevant actors and these also include new contributions.
5
Taking into account the estimated updating of the last year, these figures are expected to be even higher.
6
These data, estimated from OCT (1999) are not directly comparable to the ones produced here, due to slight
methodological differences, but the ratio between the two different years is nevertheless comparable.
7
Table 3 presents the distribution of the publications according to scientific fields between
the years of 1988 and 1998. In order to attenuate fluctuations due to the low output figures,
the data are presented for a two-year window. During the whole period Microbiology and
Biochemistry & Biophysics were, in this order, the two fields with the largest number of
publications. The distribution of papers per field did not change significantly during this
period but it is worth to note some changes. While at the beginning there was a higher
concentration in a reduced number of fields, at the end of the period the number of fields
with international scientific output was higher and there were more fields with a relevant
contribution to the total, i.e. more than the occasional paper. Possibly as a consequence, the
highest producing fields have decreased their share of the total output, particularly the field
of Pharmacology & Toxicology. The field of Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology
increased its share to decrease again in the more recent years. The field of Food
Science/Nutrition has registered the highest growth, increasing from virtually nothing to
reach 11% in the last two years analysed. Other fields increasing more significantly their
output were Agricultural Chemistry, Multidisciplinary and Chemistry & Analysis.
8
Table 3 - Distribution of the Papers per Field for 2-Year Windows
CATEGORY
1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98
Total
MICROBIOLOGY
55
72
76
89
87
96
123
134
145
128
539
BIOCHEMISTRY & BIOPHYSICS
44
51
69
78
90
108
114
113
116
123
499
BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
23
30
41
65
68
82
92
93
96
87
362
PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
32
49
52
42
47
72
67
81
111
82
338
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY & GENETICS
21
22
22
33
44
46
52
61
71
63
236
ANIMAL & PLANT SCIENCES
15
23
25
32
44
43
46
48
55
66
218
FOOD SCIENCE/NUTRITION
1
5
8
16
20
29
47
56
75
88
195
NO CATEGORY
11
7
5
3
7
41
56
59
57
47
165
AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY
10
12
13
16
27
34
28
37
51
60
163
IMMUNOLOGY
12
21
28
31
29
31
36
37
33
38
161
BIOLOGY
12
17
22
20
21
23
32
37
47
46
151
PLANT SCIENCES
6
14
19
25
27
26
35
38
41
42
146
CELL & DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
9
11
13
14
17
21
19
15
25
27
92
MULTIDISCIPLINARY
1
5
5
5
8
10
12
12
15
22
55
CHEMISTRY & ANALYSIS
1
1
2
3
5
8
8
14
25
28
54
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
1
1
2
4
5
6
7
7
5
5
23
ANIMAL SCIENCES
3
4
3
2
3
2
4
4
3
7
21
EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
2
2
2
0
1
2
1
2
4
6
14
VETERINARY MEDICINE/ANIMAL HEALTH
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
4
7
ENDOCRINOLOGY, NUTRITION & METABOLISM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
213
278
327
374
429
549
633
693
800
790
2783
Total
9
4.1 - Regions
The geographical concentration, in Portugal, of S&T resources and activities in the region
of Lisboa e Vale do Tejo has been a characteristic of the national research system since the
early implantation of a large number of government laboratories in the capital region. This
has been reflected in different indicators, such as the regional distribution of GERD, with
the regions of Lisboa e Vale do Tejo absorbing more than 57% of the total national
expenditures in R&D during the year of 1997 (OCT, 1999b). Table 4 shows the share of the
total number of papers which have the participation of each different region (since several
papers entail collaboration between institutions in the different regions, the sum of the
shares is greater than 100%).
Table 4 - Distribution of Papers per Region
REGION
Publications
Share
LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO
NORTE
CENTRO
ALGARVE
ALENTEJO
AÇORES
MADEIRA
1515
959
393
42
15
14
11
54.4%
34.5%
14.1%
1.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
Total
2783
100.0%
Following the general characteristics of the system, the region of Lisboa e Vale do Tejo
participates in more than half of the total publications in biotechnology produced by
Portuguese institutions. Among these figures, the participation of institutions in the Norte
region stands out as significantly higher than the corresponding share of expenditures,
covering just above one third of the total publications while the share of expenditures is one
fifth of the national total. While a direct parallel between the two figures should not be
made, since the activities which each figure indicates are distinct – publications being
indicative of research activities of a more academic nature while GERD includes a much
broader set of scientific and technical activities –, the figures for this region stand out in
comparison to the regions of Lisboa e Vale do Tejo and of Centro. This suggests both that
the Norte has a strong scientific base and that this may be particularly so in the
biotechnology related areas identified here. Even if there are no other publication figures at
the regional level in Portugal from which to ascertain the strength of biotechnology in the
Norte, the number of active institutions in this area (publishing more than 10 publications
during the period studied) in the Norte (18) is similar to that of Lisboa e Vale do Tejo (22)
and much higher than that of Centro (9).7 Among the remaining regions, Alentejo has a
7
A list of the institutions according to regions can be found in the Annex in Table A1.
10
weak performance in comparison to the expenditure data and taking into account the
relevance of biotechnology to the main activities of the region, in the agricultural sector.
4.2 - Sectors
Table 5 displays the distribution of papers according to type of institution and sector of
performance. The total is higher than the sum of the output from the different sectors due to
the collaboration between sectors. Table 5 also reveals the share of the participation of each
sector in the total number of publications per year.
Table 5 - Distribution of Publications per Sector
SECTOR
TOTAL SHARE
UNIVERSITY
PRIVATE NON-PROFIT ORGANISATION
STATE
HOSPITAL
FIRM
OTHER
2304
446
328
143
25
11
82.8%
16.0%
11.8%
5.1%
0.9%
0.4%
Total
2783
100.0%
The strong role of the university sector is evident, with the participation of higher education
institutions in more than 80% of the publications in biotechnology produced with the
participation of Portuguese institutions. The private non-profit sector is the second most
active, followed by the state institutions, hospitals and finally firms, which participated in
25 publications, less than 1% of the total Portuguese output. Even if firms are not expected
to be a very active participant in the scientific literature, these figures are considerably low
when compared to a similar study on the Swedish biotechnology innovation system
(Nilsson et al., 2000), where firms participated in 7% of the total Swedish output during a
similar period, or with the British research system, where firms have participated in 8% of
the total output (Hicks and Katz, 1997). The low participation of Portuguese firms also
reflects wider characteristics of the Portuguese research system, which has a low
participation of the private sector, as reflected in expenditure data, when compared to the
European average. Nevertheless, the participation of firms in published scientific research
has been more active in recent years. During this period the strength of the university sector
has not decreased but rather slightly increased, contrary to the state institutions, which
appear to have slightly decreased their share of the total Portuguese output, even if their
total output has increased. The scientific output of the private non-profit institutions has
oscillated more significantly throughout the period studied (Table A2 presents the yearly
figures of the sector shares).
The main institutional actors in the biotechnology research system (producing at least 20
papers during the period considered) are listed in Table 6, according to their total number of
papers. The single most productive institution is the Instituto Superior Técnico (IST), an
11
engineering school from the Universidade Técnica de Lisboa (UTL), closely followed by
the Instituto de Tecnologia Química e Biológica (ITQB),8 mainly a research institute from
the Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL).
Table 6 – Leading Portuguese Institutions in Biotechnology Research
INSTITUTION
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP TECNICO
Publications
284
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
278
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
229
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
212
INST GULBENKIAN CIENCIA
203
UNIV CAT PORT ESCOLA SUP BIOTEC
182
UNIV COIMBRA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
172
UNIV LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS
170
UNIV PORTO FAC MED
148
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP AGRON
124
UNIV PORTO
116
INST NACL ENGN TECNOL IND
105
INST NACL SAUDE
98
UNIV PORTO FAC FARM
94
UNIV MINHO
93
UNIV LISBOA FAC MED
90
CTR NEUROCIENCIAS COIMBRA
83
UNIV LISBOA FAC FARM
73
UNIV COIMBRA FAC FARM
72
UNIV PORTO FAC CIENCIAS
67
UNIV COIMBRA
65
UNIV PORTO FAC ENGN
58
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS MED
48
HOSP STA MARIA
47
UNIV AVEIRO
44
INST BIOL MOL CEL
43
INST NACL INV AGRARIA
43
INST BIOL EXPT TECNOL
41
UNIV ALGARVE
40
UNIV COIMBRA FAC MED
40
UNIV TRAS MONTES & ALTO DOURO
31
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST HIG MED TROP
28
UNIV NOVA LISBOA
26
INST GENET MED JACINTO MAGALHAES
21
However, if the unification of the addresses is made in relation to the university rather than
to the individual schools (to account also for some publications which could not be
8
However, it must be noted that ITQB is a relatively new institution, and its scientific output only appeared in
the SCI in 1990, i.e. two years after the beginning of the period analysed.
12
attributed to a particular school and were attributed only to the university), the picture
slightly changes. The Universidade do Porto (UP) takes the lead with 591 publications,
including the participation from 5 schools plus those unattributed to a particular school,
followed now by the UNL with 484 publications, also with 5 schools represented. The UTL
is third with 416 papers (4 schools) and the University of Coimbra (UC) follows with 283
papers (3 schools). The Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência (IGC) is the first non-university
institution, and with the significant scientific output of more than 200 publications during
this period. The government laboratory with the highest scientific output in these fields is
the Instituto Nacional de Engenharia e Tecnologia Industrial (INETI), publishing a total of
105 papers. The analysis of the yearly data shows that some institutions, namely private
non-profit institutions, have become particularly active in the most recent years (see data in
Table A3). For example, the Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular (IBMC) has
published more than half of its total output for the period in the year of 1998. In this year,
the Escola Superior de Biotecnologia of the Universidade Católica Portuguesa published
the highest number of papers, showing that the system is under changes.
At an institutional level, it is also relevant to note the importance of the regional cluster of
institutions located at Oeiras (ITQB, IGC, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica
(IBET), Estação Agronómica Nacional (EAN-INIA)) which have participated, either in
collaboration or individually, in a total of 510 publications, showing it to be one of the
central locations in the Portuguese biotechnology research system.
4.3 - Participation of firms
While scientific papers are not of central importance to firms, and can be expected to be
even less so in the Portuguese case, taking into account their low level of R&D
expenditures, it is important to analyse their possible participation as actors in
biotechnology research system. Hicks (1995), in a study of corporate research strategies in
Europe and Japan, analysed the motivations for firms to participate in scientific
publications and therefore to make public knowledge of which they expect to gain private
benefits. She found out that while in certain instances such paradox may be an outcome of
indirect activities, such as double institutional affiliation of a researcher in a public research
institution and a private firm, very frequently it is a decision which is taken by the firm
itself or where the initiative of researcher within the firm is accepted. In such instances
Hicks found that scientific publications are a mode for firms to signal the existence of
specific scientific capabilities, often of a tacit nature, inside the firms. While such signalling
can be directed to the corporate world, creating windows to possible technological alliances
or indicating active presence in specific sectors, the reputation gained through these
activities is often most important for firms as an entry ticket to the scientific research
networks that have been seen traditionally as the world of academics. Even if in the
Portuguese case, such mix of the public and the private is not expected to be very
significant, it is nevertheless important to identify those firms that have been active in
research activities and publishing outputs from those activities.
13
In the fields studied 25 publications were found with the participation of 13 Portuguese
firms, representing less than 1% of the total national output. These 13 Portuguese firms
were most active in the fields of Food/Nutrition (with 9 publications in this field),
Pharmacology & Toxicology (7), Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology (6).
Table 7 lists the firms which participated in the publications together with the fields in
which they were active. CIPAN (pharmaceuticals) and RAR (food) were the most visible
firms through their participation in 5 papers each in the fields analysed.
4.4 - Scientific fields
In addition to the analysis of the total output of each institution it is also useful for the
characterisation of the system to identify the different fields of competence of the main
institutional actors. While IST is the institution with the highest scientific production in this
area, its competences appear to be well defined. Most of its output is concentrated in the
field of Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology, where it is clearly the most active
Portuguese institution with 130 publications (the institution with the second highest output
in this area is the INETI with 51 publications, i.e. less than half of IST’s output), supported
by strong capabilities in the fields of Biochemistry & Biophysics, Microbiology and, to a
lesser extent (but also the most active institution in this area) in Chemical Engineering. The
output from ITQB reveals a different picture. Its main strength is in Biochemistry &
Biophysics and Microbiology, areas in which it is the most active institution with 122
publications, and followed by areas such as Plant Sciences or Molecular Biology/Genetics.
While the profile of IST reflects the fact this is primarily an engineering school, and
therefore comparatively more active in the more applied fields, ITQB’s profile is stronger in
the more basic areas. The analysis of other institutional profiles provide similar
characterisations, with ICBAS being particularly strong in the biomedical sciences, Escola
Superior de Biotecnologia (ESB) very strong in Food Science/Nutrition and the Faculdade
de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa (FC-UL) particularly active in Plant Sciences.
Table A4, presents the most active institutions in the different fields selected, reflecting the
distribution of capabilities through the different institutions and, often, providing a window
to characterise these institutions on a basic-applied spectrum of research.
14
Table 7 - Firms Participating in Scientific Publications
INSTITUTION
SCIENTIFIC FIELDS
PUBLICATIONS
2
BIAL
BIOCHEMISTRY & BIOPHYSICS
PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
CIPAN CO IND PROD ANTIBIOT SA
BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
MICROBIOLOGY
COCKBURN SMITHES & CIA LDA
AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY
BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
FOOD SCIENCE/NUTRITION
CASO CTR ABATE SUINOS OESTE
FOOD SCIENCE/NUTRITION
1
FARMATRA ACTIVID FARMACEUT
LDA
PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
1
FISIPE FIBRAS SINTET PORTUGAL SA PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
1
PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
1
HOVIONE SA
RAR REFINARIAS ACUCAR REUNIDAS
FOOD SCIENCE/NUTRITION
SA
5
MICROBIOLOGY
3
5
1
RHONE POULENC RORER
PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
SIDUL SA
FOOD SCIENCE/NUTRITION
SOPORCEL
ANIMAL & PLANT SCIENCES
TECNIMEDE SA
PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
1
UNICER UNIAO CERVEJEIRA SA
FOOD SCIENCE/NUTRITION
1
1
PLANT SCIENCES
1
15
5 - The Structure of Linkages
Beyond the identification of the institutions most active in the research system, it is of
particular importance to understand the existing linkages between the different actors. This
has been at the heart of the national systems of innovation approach, with the work of
Lundvall (1992) stressing the importance of the user-producer interactions in the innovation
process and the analysis of Nelson (1993) providing further examples across countries of
the importance of different institutional roles and institutional linkages. It is also the
importance of such linkages that contributes to the systemic view of the innovation process.
While here we are concerned with only a part of the innovation system, the interactions
between the actors identified above are also of great importance. The growing number of
interactions at various levels, between different institutions, institutional sectors, research
areas or countries, have been characterised as a central feature of the changing research
system, in what has led some to consider the existence of a new mode of knowledge
production (Gibbons et al., 1994). Hicks et al. (1996) have provided the most robust
evidence of such change in the British research system through the use of bibliometric
methods, which provide a very useful tool to identify the existence of interactions at
different levels.
In this study the small Portuguese output creates certain limitations to this analysis but can
still provide a useful description of the existence of linkages between the different
institutions. By analysing the institutional addresses jointly listed it is possible to identify
the existence of linkages between the different institutions. Although, as discussed above
(and more extensively by Katz and Martin (1997)), different institutions can be listed for
reasons other than research collaboration this is more frequently the reason behind it. On
the other hand, institutions may collaborate without publishing their results together, and
their collaboration will not be identified through the analysis of publications. Nevertheless,
the existence of co-authorship provides strong evidence of the existence of collaborative
activities between different researchers and institutions, and provides a comparable method
for this purpose. The analysis of such linkages in this section will be divided in two main
parts. The first part will analyses the collaborations and linkages within the national
research system and this will be followed by a focus on the linkages external to the system.
5.1 - National Collaborations
Among the 2783 papers produced by Portuguese institutions selected for this study, 1866
only listed one national institution,9 and therefore most papers did not entail national
collaboration. The remaining 917 papers which were performed in national collaboration
listed between two and nine different national institutions. However, among these a large
variety of the inter-institutional linkages identified were the result of strong institutional
affinities between the institutions, such as between different schools of the same university
9
They may have had more than one address listed, but this would only correspond to different internal
departments.
16
or between a university and an affiliated non-profit organisation. Indeed, the highest
number of linkages between any two institutions were such cases, as can be found in Table
8, which lists the number of collaborative papers between the main institutions. Table 8
distinguishes these collaborations, with strong institutional linkages, from others, where
such institutional links are not so strong. While this is not to say that those cases of strong
institutional linkages do not entail research collaboration, these data provide some
indication of what might be more the result of double institutional affiliation rather than
actual collaborative production of knowledge between distinct research groups.
17
Table 8 - National Collaborative Links
Links between the following Institutions
Number of
collaborative
papers
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
67
UNIV PORTO
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
54
CTR NEUROCIENCIAS COIMBRA
UNIV COIMBRA FAC FARM
33
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP AGRON
32
CTR NEUROCIENCIAS COIMBRA
UNIV COIMBRA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
31
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP TECNICO
29
INST BIOL EXPT TECNOL
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
29
INST NACL ENGN TECNOL IND
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP TECNICO
27
UNIV COIMBRA
UNIV COIMBRA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
26
INST BIOL MOL CEL
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
23
UNIV LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP TECNICO
23
INST NACL SAUDE
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
23
UNIV PORTO
UNIV PORTO FAC CIENCIAS
21
UNIV PORTO FAC FARM
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
21
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS MED
20
UNIV COIMBRA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
UNIV COIMBRA FAC FARM
19
UNIV NOVA LISBOA
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
19
INST NACL INV AGRARIA
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
17
UNIV LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
15
INST GULBENKIAN CIENCIA
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
15
CTR NEUROCIENCIAS COIMBRA
UNIV COIMBRA
15
CTR NEUROCIENCIAS COIMBRA
UNIV COIMBRA FAC MED
15
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP TECNICO
14
UNIV COIMBRA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
UNIV COIMBRA FAC MED
13
UNIV COIMBRA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP TECNICO
11
UNIV CAT PORT ESCOLA SUP BIOTEC
UNIV PORTO FAC ENGN
9
UNIV PORTO FAC MED
UNIV PORTO FAC MED DENT
9
INST GULBENKIAN CIENCIA
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP AGRON
9
HOSP STA MARIA
INST NACL SAUDE
9
INST NACL ENGN TECNOL IND
UNIV LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS
8
INST GULBENKIAN CIENCIA
UNIV LISBOA FAC MED
8
UNIV MINHO
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP TECNICO
8
HOSP STO ANTONIO
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
8
UNIV LISBOA FAC FARM
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS MED
8
INST GULBENKIAN CIENCIA
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
8
UNIV PORTO FAC ENGN
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
7
INST NACL INV AGRARIA
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP AGRON
7
INST MAR
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
7
UNIV ALGARVE
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP AGRON
7
INST BIOL MOL CEL
UNIV PORTO FAC CIENCIAS
7
INST NACL ENGN BIOMED
UNIV PORTO FAC ENGN
7
UNIV MINHO
UNIV PORTO FAC ENGN
7
HOSP STO ANTONIO
INST NACL SAUDE
7
18
The analysis of Table 9 also suggests that there is a strong regional affinity fostering
collaborative links. The importance of the regional dimension is known to be important for
the development of collaboration, and this is not less so in the case of scientific
collaboration (Katz, 1994). The analysis of the regional distribution of the linkages in the
cases analysed here shows that most linkages are intra-region rather than inter-regional. Of
course, the discussion of the data in Table 8 regarding the possible influence of the
institutional linkages in the collaboration data also suggests that such influence may extend
for the regional data. Nevertheless, among the 2783 publications analysed only 159 entail
collaboration between institutions in two different Portuguese regions, which is less than
10% of the cases, and, as will be shown in the next section, much below the number of
international collaborative papers. Such lack of national interactions has also been
suggested by others, namely the Portuguese Minister of Science and Technology (Barata et
al., 1999; Pereira, 2000), and suggests that the regional dimension of the system may be
actually stronger than the national one.
Table 9 - Regional Collaborative Links
Links between Institutions from the following Regions
Number of
collaborative papers
LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO
LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO
653
NORTE
NORTE
352
CENTRO
CENTRO
196
LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO
NORTE
120
CENTRO
LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO
60
CENTRO
NORTE
59
ALGARVE
LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO
18
ALENTEJO
LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO
12
ALENTEJO
CENTRO
3
ALENTEJO
ALENTEJO
3
AÇORES
LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO
2
CENTRO
MADEIRA
2
LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO
MADEIRA
2
MADEIRA
MADEIRA
1
AÇORES
NORTE
1
AÇORES
MADEIRA
1
ALGARVE
NORTE
1
ALENTEJO
NORTE
1
Finally, the analysis of the sectoral linkages, presented in Table 10, shows the importance
of the university sector in fostering the dynamics of the system, being the most important
collaborator of the other sectors. It also reflects the intense linkages, in Portugal, between
the private non-profit sector and the university sector, with the number of collaborations
between these two sectors representing more than two-thirds of the total output of the
private non-profit sector. Contrary to the government institutions, which have a relatively
19
lower level of collaboration, the hospital sector also has a strong interaction with all the
other sectors in these fields, with the collaborations with the other sectors (with the
exception of firms) all accounting for more than 10% of the output of the hospital sector.
Table 10 - Collaborative Links between Sectors
Links between Institutions from the following Sectors
Number of
collaborative
papers
UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY
PRIVATE NON-PROFIT ORGANISATION
UNIVERSITY
718
318
STATE
UNIVERSITY
172
HOSPITAL
UNIVERSITY
88
HOSPITAL
HOSPITAL
66
HOSPITAL
STATE
47
HOSPITAL
PRIVATE NON-PROFIT ORGANISATION
21
PRIVATE NON-PROFIT ORGANISATION
STATE
15
STATE
STATE
13
FIRM
UNIVERSITY
11
PRIVATE NON-PROFIT ORGANISATION
PRIVATE NON-PROFIT ORGANISATION
5
HOSPITAL
OTHER
3
OTHER
STATE
2
FIRM
PRIVATE NON-PROFIT ORGANISATION
1
FIRM
HOSPITAL
1
FIRM
OTHER
1
OTHER
OTHER
1
FIRM
STATE
1
OTHER
UNIVERSITY
1
OTHER
PRIVATE NON-PROFIT ORGANISATION
1
Among the 25 publications with the participation of firms, 8 were produced individually by
the firms, without the collaboration of any external institution, thus reflecting more
explicitly10 the existence of internal research activities which are signalled through
publication. The remaining publications entailed international collaborations (in 5
publications) and national collaborations in 14 publications, mostly with universities. In the
11 cases where there was evidence of university-industry relationships the participation of
universities was varied, and although the IST participated in 4 publications these were the
result of the collaboration with one particular firm, and not the result of a greater success in
involving industrial partners. These data suggest that research collaborations between
university and industry in Portugal, even in an a science-based sector such as
10
Nevertheless, it is possible that the publication may result of research performed by an individual researcher
prior to moving into the firm, although in these particular publications these seem the result of activities
internal to the firms.
20
biotechnology, are still occasional events and do not reflect an existing network of
relationships between the two sectors.
Finally, Figure 2 displays graphically the distribution of the linkages between the main
institutions of the system.11 It makes clear, on one hand, the polarised organisation of the
system, with the three poles corresponding to the three most active regions, and, on the
other hand, the close linkages between universities and the private non-profit institutions to
which they are associated or the close interactions between different schools within a
university.
Figure 2 – Distribution of Institutional Linkages at the National Level
5.2 - International Collaborations
While the national collaborations are particularly important to assess the level of
interactions of the actors of a national research system, international collaborations are also
important to characterise the existence of linkages developed by the different actors. In fact,
international collaborations can be of particular importance for small research systems.
11
This was elaborated through multi-dimensional scaling, with the use of the software Bibexcel and Alscal.
21
Bibliometric studies have found that small countries tend to be much more collaborative at
an international level than larger countries. This stems particularly from the lack of national
resources or critical mass to address specific problems individually (Luukkonen et al,
1992). More widely, the international collaborative activities are also frequently developed
as a way for researchers to reach external resources not available internally and to develop
avenues for learning at an institutional level (Pereira, 2000). The data obtained here
suggests that international collaboration is the most important mode of knowledge
production for Portuguese researchers in these areas. Although the 1229 papers published
in international collaboration do not reach 50% of the total output (but they represent more
than that in the last two years of the period studied, 1997 and 1998) they are nevertheless
more than the 997 papers produced by individual institutions or the 917 papers produced
through national collaboration. Table 11 below summarises the distribution of papers
according to the types of collaborative relationships registered.
Table 11 - Distribution of Papers according to Collaborative Relationships
997 Non-collaborative Papers
2783 Papers
869 Papers with International Collaboration Only
1229 Papers with International
Collaboration
360 Papers with Joint National
and International Collaboration
917 Papers with National
Collaboration
557 Papers with National Collaboration Only
The distribution of international collaborative links presented in Table 12 shows that the
Portuguese researchers have collaborated most with the United States, followed by
England, Spain, France, Germany and the Netherlands. This structure of collaboration
follows very closely the national patterns although, in all fields together, the United
Kingdom appears as the first partner country and France comes third. In this case of
22
biotechnology, the US lead may be the result of the greater strength of American
institutions in this area that thus become more sought after for collaboration.12
Table 12 - Number of Portuguese Collaborations per
Country (Main)
US
UK
SPAIN
GERMANY
FRANCE
NETHERLANDS
BELGIUM
ITALY
SWEDEN
SWITZERLAND
DENMARK
BRAZIL
CANADA
JAPAN
GREECE
FINLAND
THAILAND
IRELAND
ISRAEL
RUSSIA
NORWAY
AUSTRIA
349
316
173
168
167
117
76
73
68
39
38
38
27
20
19
16
15
14
14
13
13
11
The different international linkages developed with the participation of Portuguese research
institutions, and their main collaborators, are displayed in Figure 3. The participation of
each country is proportionately represented. It is clear from this figure that the European
countries create a cluster of collaboration, which is relatively independent from nonEuropean countries. Among the cultural ties between Portugal and Brazil are reflected in
the position of Brazil as the second non-European country with whom Portuguese
researchers collaborate the most.
12
However, the data for collaborations with the US are highly influenced by one particularly prolific
collaboration that places one individual American author among the researchers with the highest output in the
publications with the participation of Portuguese institutions.
23
Figure 3 – Mapping International Collaborations with Portugal
Preliminary analysis of the foreign institutional addresses also appear to confirm that the
international collaborations are an important source of learning for Portuguese research
institutions, providing other resources not easily found at home. The identification of
foreign firms collaborating with Portuguese institutions reveals that Portuguese research
institutions in biotechnology have a larger number of interactions with foreign firms than
with national ones, having collaborated with foreign firms in approximately 70
publications. Two points are important to stress in relation to these figures. Firstly, this
shows that the European research policy approach, based on European-wide collaborations
and on the creation of links between the different sets of actors, seems to be seeding its
fruits and fostering linkages that are possibly overcoming existing barriers. Secondly, in
relation to the Portuguese context, the data show that there are foreign firms which find
capabilities in Portuguese research institutions worthy of their collaboration and which are,
possibly, taking benefits from such collaborations. If the Portuguese research institutions
have not been able to interact adequately with industry until a recent past, they seem to be
learning to do so with the help of firms from research systems with greater experience of
such linkages. The extent to which such experiences will contribute to the development of
the inter-sectoral collaborations at a national level seems now to be also dependent on the
capabilities of Portuguese firms to absorb the knowledge that Portuguese research
institutions are producing and making available to their foreign counterparts. Nevertheless,
the benefits from such experiences are also being introduced within the national innovation
system through the knowledge acquired by the different researchers who participate in such
24
collaborative research, with some of them possibly moving later into industry (Salter and
Martin, 2001).
6 - Conclusions
The Portuguese biotechnology research system has been characterised in the last decade by
strong growth and internationalisation. The total output of the system has increased at a fast
rate, which has led to a diversification in the scientific fields researched and to a
participation of a wide set of institutional actors. Beyond the internationalisation processes
that derive from the greater presence in international journals, and the visibility
consequently accrued, the research actors in biotechnology have a large number of
international collaborations, accounting for almost 50% of the total output during the period
studied.
However, one of the most interesting findings of this study is that the research networks
developed at the national level have a strong regional dimension, and are possibly centred
on existing institutional linkages that go beyond the research work. The unique setting of
the Portuguese research system, with the high number of non-profit institutions performing
research activities, institutions which are often spin-offs from universities, leads to strong
interaction between these two sectors. Such linkages are often due more to personal
mobility between two institutions (and double affiliation) than to actual research
collaboration between distinct research groups. Furthermore, the low level of inter-regional
collaboration supports the view that the Portuguese research system is not very strongly
interconnected and has a weak tradition of collaboration. Of course, this is somehow
paradoxical with the wide networks developed internationally based on a, now long,
tradition of training abroad and of international collaboration.
The two dimensions, of strong growth and internationalisation and weak national
interaction, may nevertheless not be totally unrelated. The long period of continuous
growth that the research system has faced has possibly meant that the research institutions
have not had yet the need, and the pressures, to look within the system, place themselves in
relation to the other institutions and construct new national networks to be able to reach a
wider set of actors. On the contrary it seems that the research institutions have undertaken
individual strategies of growth, oriented towards the exterior, where the processes of
learning are expected to be greater than at an internal level, but are also likely to generate,
in the short-term, lower local diffusion outside of the institution.
Such external orientation is also reflected in the experience of collaboration between the
enterprise and the academic sectors. There is still very little evidence of university-industry
interactions in biotechnology research in Portugal, and a weak presence of firms in research
activities, even if the methodology used in this study may only highlight more intense
linkages. Nevertheless, the orientation towards the exterior has also meant that Portuguese
scientists are finding abroad the experience of collaboration with firms more active in the
25
research system which is likely to provide them with learning processes that will contribute
to their participation as relevant actors in the Portuguese biotechnology innovation system
(Pereira, 2000).
The analysis developed here of the Portuguese biotechnology research system confirms,
from the upstream end, the analysis developed by Fontes and Novais of the development of
a biotechnology industry in Portugal, the downstream end. These authors concluded that
while “government policies with respect to biotechnology development appear to have been
relatively successful in the strengthening of the scientific competencies at the level of
public research […t]hey have not, however, been as successful in promoting the transfer of
these competencies to the productive sector and in achieving an active involvement of
industry” (Fontes and Novais, 1998: 506). Even if the existence of the active involvement
of industry would not necessarily be reflected in the data presented here, the lack of
participation of Portuguese industry is paralleled in polarised national networks to give
support to the thesis that the process of diffusion of knowledge has not paralleled the strong
developments in its production.
As a final note, this study shows the usefulness of bibliometric tools to map the distribution
of knowledge production and the existence of knowledge flows between the different actors
in the system. While focusing on the research system, it provides an important window to
characterise the innovation system, particularly in science-related areas such as
biotechnology. Subsequent studies can track the evolution of the system and the dynamics
of the interactions between the different actors.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barata, C.; L. Ferreira and T. Firmino (1999) ‘Uma Freguesia, Um Posto de Internet:
Ministro da Ciência anuncia hoje programas operacionais para a ciência, tecnologia e
sociedade de informação’. Público, 9 Julho 1999: Lisboa.
Bull, A.T.; Holt, G.; Lilly, M.D. (1982) 'Biotechnology: International Trends and
Perspectives'. Paris: OECD.
Fontes, M. and Novais, A.Q. (1998) 'The Conditions for the Development of a
Biotechnology Industry in Portugal: The Impact of Country Specific Factors'.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(4): 497-509.
Gibbons, M.; C. Limoges; H. Nowotny; S. Schwartzman; P. Scott and M. Trow (1994) The
New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in
Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
Hicks, D. (1995) 'Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the
Public/Private Character of Knowledge'. Industrial and Corporate Change, 4(2): 40124.
Hicks, D.M. and J.S. Katz (1996) 'Where is science going?'. Science Technology & Human
Values, 21(4): 379-406.
26
Hicks, D. and S. Katz (1997) 'A National Research Network Viewed from an Industrial
Perspective'. Revue d'Économie Industrielle, 79: 129-42.
Katz, J.S. (1994) 'Geographical Proximity and Scientific Collaboration'. Scientometrics,
31(1): 31-43.
Katz, J.S. and B.R. Martin (1997) 'What is research collaboration?'. Research Policy, 26(1):
1-18.
Leydesdorff, L. and É. Gauthier (1996) 'The Evaluation of National Performance in
Selected Priority Areas using Scientometric Methods'. Research Policy, 25: 431-50.
Lundvall, B.-A. (Ed.) (1992) National Systems of Innovation, London: Pinter.
Luukkonen, T.; O. Persson and G. Sivertsen (1992) 'Understanding Patterns of International
Scientific Collaboration'. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 17(1): 101-26.
Nelson, R. (Ed.) (1993) National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Nilsson, A.; Pettersson, I.; Sandström, A. (2000) 'A study of the Swedish biotechnology
innovation system using bibliometry'. NUTEK Working Paper, Innovation policy
studies.
OCT (1999a) 'Programmes of Advanced Training of Human Resources in S&T: 19901998'. Lisbon: Observatório das Ciências e das Tecnologias.
OCT (1999b) 'Main Science and Technology Indicators in Portugal: 1988-1997'. Lisbon:
Observatório das Ciências e das Tecnologias.
Pereira, T.T.S. (2000) Changing Places: The Extension of Research Groups through
International Research Collaborations, Unpublished DPhil Thesis. Brighton: SPRU,
University of Sussex.
Salter, A.; B. Martin (2001) ‘The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a
critical review’, Research Policy (forthcoming).
27
APPENDICES
28
Table A1 - Distribution of Publications per Region and Institution
REGION
AÇORES
AÇORES Total
ALENTEJO
ALENTEJO Total
ALGARVE
ALGARVE Total
CENTRO
CENTRO Total
LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO
INSTITUTION
UNIV AÇORES
HOSP PONTA DELGADA
JARDIM BOT FAIAL
UNIV EVORA
INST NACL INV AGRARIA
HOSP DIST EVORA
LAB ANAL CLIN
LAB NACL INV VET
UNIV ALGARVE
INST PORT INV MARIT
UNIV COIMBRA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
CTR NEUROCIENCIAS COIMBRA
UNIV COIMBRA FAC FARM
UNIV COIMBRA
UNIV AVEIRO
UNIV COIMBRA FAC MED
CTR HOSP COIMBRA
HOSP UNIV COIMBRA
UNIV BEIRA INTERIOR
INST INVEST AGUA
INST AMB VIDA
INST MED LEGAL
INST POLIT COIMBRA ESC SUP AGR
HOSP DIST GUARDA SOUSA MARTINS
LUSOTRANSPLANTE
CS MONTEMOR & VELHO
INST ENGN SIST COMPUT
INST SUP ENGN COIMBRA
RAIZ INST INVEST FLORESTA & PAPEL
SOPORCEL
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP TECNICO
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
INST GULBENKIAN CIENCIA
UNIV LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP AGRON
INST NACL ENGN TECNOL IND
UNIV LISBOA FAC MED
UNIV LISBOA FAC FARM
Total
12
1
1
14
7
6
2
1
1
15
40
1
1
42
172
83
72
65
44
40
17
12
10
9
7
6
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
393
284
278
212
203
170
124
105
90
73
29
LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO INST NACL SAUDE
(cont)
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS MED
HOSP STA MARIA
INST BIOL EXPT TECNOL
INST NACL INV AGRARIA
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST HIG MED TROP
UNIV NOVA LISBOA
HOSP EGAS MONIZ
INST INVEST CIENT TROP
INST PORT INV MARIT
INST PORT ONCOL FRANCISCO GENTIL
UNIV TECN LISBOA FAC MED VET
UNIV LISBOA
LAB NACL INV VET
HOSP CURRY CABRAL
INST TECNOL NUCL
HOSP PULIDO VALENTE
HOSP PEDIAT D ESTEFANIA
INST SUP CIENCIAS SAUDE SUL
CO IND PROD ANTIBIOT SA
HOSP STO ANTONIO CAPUCHOS
INST INVEST CIENT BENTO ROCHA CABRAL
INST SUP MAT & GEST
INST SUP PSICOL APLADA
HOSP S JOSE
HOSP STA CRUZ
INST BACTERIOL CAMARA PESTANA
INST MAR
ASSOC NACL FARM
CTR SAUDE DA LAPA
DIR GER PROT CULTURAS
DIR GER SAUDE
HOSP MILITAR BELEM
INST POLIT SANTAREM ESC SUP AGR
INST SUP ENGN LISBOA
LAB NACL ENGN CIVIL
MATERN ALFREDO DA COSTA
TECNIMEDE SA
UNIV TECN LISBOA FAC MOTRIC HUMANA
AQUARIO VASCO DA GAMA
ASSOC PROT DIABET PORT
CLIN FERNANDO TEIXEIRA
CTR ABATE SUINOS OESTE
CTR SAUDE AMADORA
CTR SAUDE CORUCHE
FARMATRA ACTIVID FARMACEUT LDA
FIBRAS SINTET PORTUGAL SA - FISIPE
HOSP DESTERRO
HOSP GARCIA DE ORTA
HOSP MILITAR
67
48
47
41
37
28
26
18
16
16
12
12
10
9
8
8
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
30
LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO HOSP STA MARTA
(cont)
HOVIONE SA
INST CONSERVACAO NAT
INST CORACAO
INST ENGN SIST COMPUT
INST MED LEGAL
INST NACL EMERG MED
INST POLIT SETUBAL ESCOLA SUP TECNOL
OBSERV EUR DROGAS & TOXICODEPTEND
RHONE POULENC RORER
SERV SAUDE AERONAUT CIVIL
SERV SAUDE FORÇA AEREA PORT
SIDUL SA
UNINOVA
UNIV NOVA LISBOA ESC NACL SAUDE PUBL
UNIV TECN LISBOA
LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO Total
MADEIRA
UNIV MADEIRA
JARDIM BOT MADEIRA
LAB AGR MADEIRA
MADEIRA Total
NORTE
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
UNIV CAT PORT ESCOLA SUP BIOTEC
UNIV PORTO FAC MED
UNIV PORTO
UNIV PORTO FAC FARM
UNIV MINHO
UNIV PORTO FAC CIENCIAS
UNIV PORTO FAC ENGN
INST BIOL MOL CEL
INST NACL SAUDE
UNIV TRAS MONTES & ALTO DOURO
INST GENET MED JACINTO MAGALHAES
HOSP S JOAO
HOSP STO ANTONIO
INST NACL ENGN BIOMED
INST PATOL IMUNOL MOL
UNIV PORTO FAC MED DENT
INST MAR
INST SUP ENGN PORTO
INST PORT VOZ
RAR REFINARIAS ACUCAR REUNIDAS SA
INST SUP CIENCIAS SAUDE NORTE
COCKBURN SMITHES & CIA LDA
CTR HOSP VILA NOVA GAIA
HOSP CRIANCAS MARIA PIA
HOSP VILA REAL
BIAL
ASSOC PORT EPILEPSIA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1515
10
1
1
11
229
182
148
116
94
93
67
58
43
32
31
21
19
19
17
16
13
11
6
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
31
NORTE
(cont)
NORTE Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
959
Total global
2783
CTR ASTROFIS
CTR TECNOL CORTICA
HOSP JOAQUIM URBANO
HOSP S PEDRO
HOSP SENHORA OLIVEIRA
HOSP VALE SOUSA
INST MED LEGAL
INST POLIT VIANA CASTELO ESCOLA SUP TECNOL & GESTAO
LUSOTRANSPLANTE
MATERN JULIO DINIS
UNICER UNIAO CERVEJEIRA SA
32
Table A2 - Distribution of Publications per Sector and Year
Sector
UNIVERSITY
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
75.5% 77.3% 78.0% 82.7% 83.0% 84.3% 83.7% 86.3% 85.5% 81.6% 82.2%
PRIVATE NON-PROFIT ORGANISATION
20.2% 19.3% 19.5% 13.1%
STATE
11.7% 16.0% 13.2% 14.3% 14.1% 13.0% 11.0%
9.7%
9.4% 16.0% 15.3% 16.3% 17.6% 19.4%
9.4% 10.9% 11.6% 10.9%
Total
82.8%
16.0%
11.8%
HOSPITAL
4.3%
6.7%
4.4%
5.4%
4.4%
7.2%
4.6%
4.2%
5.4%
4.6%
5.9%
5.1%
FIRM
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
1.8%
0.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.7%
1.3%
0.9%
OTHER
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.3%
0.5%
0.5%
0.8%
0.4%
33
Table A3 - Distribution of Publications per Institution and Year
INSTITUTION
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP TECNICO
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
INST GULBENKIAN CIENCIA
UNIV CAT PORT ESCOLA SUP BIOTEC
UNIV COIMBRA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
UNIV LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS
UNIV PORTO FAC MED
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP AGRON
UNIV PORTO
INST NACL ENGN TECNOL IND
INST NACL SAUDE
UNIV PORTO FAC FARM
UNIV MINHO
UNIV LISBOA FAC MED
CTR NEUROCIENCIAS COIMBRA
UNIV LISBOA FAC FARM
UNIV COIMBRA FAC FARM
UNIV PORTO FAC CIENCIAS
UNIV COIMBRA
UNIV PORTO FAC ENGN
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS MED
HOSP STA MARIA
UNIV AVEIRO
INST BIOL MOL CEL
INST NACL INV AGRARIA
INST BIOL EXPT TECNOL
UNIV ALGARVE
UNIV COIMBRA FAC MED
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total
7
15
17
10
19
18
11
23
2
8
6
8
4
6
8
7
7
3
3
5
4
10
1
2
6
2
4
5
10
8
17
6
27
1
15
9
15
7
7
4
10
5
4
3
21
13
14
16
16
2
16
6
12
6
15
12
7
5
3
9
3
6
4
1
3
3
1
3
4
1
2
1
4
2
6
2
4
3
1
1
2
4
1
2
1
6
3
3
3
6
24
28
19
13
13
9
16
17
12
11
16
9
12
8
6
6
3
6
4
6
2
8
3
1
1
5
4
3
1
23
29
26
18
11
10
20
15
15
6
11
9
8
8
6
6
6
2
7
4
4
8
3
4
1
4
2
4
6
30
49
28
36
24
29
22
11
15
10
8
13
13
7
6
11
15
12
9
5
8
11
6
4
2
1
3
6
3
7
41
31
25
33
15
25
15
21
11
20
17
6
13
9
11
11
11
10
6
5
11
4
3
4
7
4
2
8
6
2
43
44
27
25
22
32
24
23
17
19
19
10
9
11
13
15
15
7
17
4
13
5
16
7
9
6
11
3
3
3
43
42
16
21
26
32
22
29
15
23
11
15
11
11
20
11
16
20
15
13
13
2
6
9
6
7
5
10
9
4
26
34
22
23
7
39
8
29
18
17
4
13
6
19
20
10
16
13
13
14
11
4
2
7
15
24
7
4
10
5
284
278
229
212
203
182
172
170
148
124
116
105
98
94
93
90
83
73
72
67
65
58
48
47
44
43
43
41
40
40
34
Table A4 - Leading Institutions per Scientific Field
AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY
ANIMAL & PLANT SCIENCES
UNIV PORTO FAC FARM
30
UNIV LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS
68
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP AGRON
21
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP AGRON
45
UNIV LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS
20
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
29
UNIV CAT PORT ESCOLA SUP BIOTEC
18
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
21
UNIV AVEIRO
16
UNIV PORTO FAC FARM
20
ANIMAL SCIENCES
BIOCHEMISTRY & BIOPHYSICS
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
8
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
UNIV PORTO FAC CIENCIAS
5
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP TECNICO
83
INST SUP PSICOL APL
3
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
75
UNIV COIMBRA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
60
UNIV LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS
36
BIOLOGY
122
BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
UNIV LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS
21
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP TECNICO
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
18
INST NACL ENGN TECNOL IND
51
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
17
UNIV MINHO
49
UNIV CAT PORT ESCOLA SUP BIOTEC
11
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
36
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST HIG MED TROP
11
UNIV CAT PORT ESCOLA SUP BIOTEC
35
CELL & DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
130
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
UNIV LISBOA FAC MED
21
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP TECNICO
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
19
INST NACL ENGN TECNOL IND
8
INST GULBENKIAN CIENCIA
14
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
4
UNIV PORTO
13
INST BIOL EXPT TECNOL
4
UNIV COIMBRA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
12
CHEMISTRY & ANALYSIS
17
ENDOCRINOLOGY, NUTRITION & METABOLISM
UNIV AVEIRO
12
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP AGRON
1
UNIV CAT PORT ESCOLA SUP BIOTEC
12
UNIV EVORA
1
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP AGRON
11
UNIV PORTO FAC FARM
8
UNIV PORTO FAC ENGN
6
EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
FOOD SCIENCE/NUTRITION
UNIV LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS
8
UNIV CAT PORT ESCOLA SUP BIOTEC
INST GULBENKIAN CIENCIA
4
INST NACL ENGN TECNOL IND
IMMUNOLOGY
105
16
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP AGRON
15
UNIV PORTO FAC FARM
14
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP TECNICO
10
MICROBIOLOGY
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
62
INST GULBENKIAN CIENCIA
UNIV PORTO
49
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
88
88
HOSP STA MARIA
17
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP TECNICO
82
UNIV LISBOA FAC MED
10
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
50
INST NACL SAUDE
10
UNIV MINHO
42
47
INST NACL ENGN BIOMED
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY & GENETICS
INST NACL SAUDE
MULTIDISCIPLINARY
16
35
UNIV PORTO INST CIENCIAS BIOMED ABEL SALAZAR
34
UNIV PORTO FAC ENGN
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS MED
23
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP TECNICO
6
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
21
UNIV MINHO
5
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
17
UNIV AVEIRO
5
PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
UNIV PORTO FAC MED
10
PLANT SCIENCES
101
UNIV LISBOA FAC CIENCIAS
50
UNIV COIMBRA FAC FARM
42
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP AGRON
42
INST GULBENKIAN CIENCIA
35
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
25
CTR NEUROCIENCIAS COIMBRA
32
UNIV COIMBRA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
13
UNIV PORTO FAC FARM
32
UNIV PORTO FAC CIENCIAS
11
VETERINARY MEDICINE/ANIMAL HEALTH
NO CATEGORY
INST NACL SAUDE
3
UNIV NOVA LISBOA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
14
LAB NACL INV VET
3
UNIV TECN LISBOA INST SUP TECNICO
14
UNIV NOVA LISBOA INST TECNOL QUIM BIOL
9
UNIV COIMBRA FAC CIENCIA TECNOL
8
UNIV COIMBRA
8
36