| “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” vs. “Strategie 2010” - An American and an Austrian RTI Strategy Recommendation Compared |
|
|
|
bridges vol. 13, April 2007 / Feature Article
by Barbara Schultze and Roland Schneider "For centuries people assumed that economic growth resulted from the interplay between capital and labor. Today we know that these elements are outweighed by a single critical factor: innovation." [Bill Gates, in The Washington Post, February 25, 2007] Bill Gates' recent insight on innovation is not exactly news to researchers, S&T policy makers, and business people; myriad recommendations have been made in the past by all of them on how best to steer the innovation process. With Globalization and rapidly emerging new markets, the search for the optimal strategic approach to boost innovation by providing the right environment and policy framework has become a top priority for US as well as European policy makers. This article focuses on one Austrian and one US strategy recommendation, and their comparison. It will offer some insights on the perceptions - at times similar and at times rather diverging - on science, technology, and innovation in the US and in Austria. Two sides of the Atlantic, two strategy recommendations "Rising Above the Gathering Storm - Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Future" (RAGS) 
This report was published in 2005 by the National Academies, a US nonprofit organization advising the federal government and the public on critical national issues in science, engineering, and medicine. In the course of an ongoing policy discussion on US competitiveness, the National Academies were asked by a bipartisan group of members of Congress to identify the actions "that federal policymakers could take to enhance the science and technology enterprise so the United States can successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st century" and to suggest an implementation strategy. The National Academies established the Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century consisting of 20 experts - among them presidents of major universities, Nobel Laureates, and CEOs of Fortune 100 companies - who drew up the report incorporating various preexisting studies and contributions of focus groups. A number of RAGS' recommendations have found their way into the American Competitiveness Initiative, President George W. Bush's initiative to ensure the US leadership in S&T announced in his State of the Union Address 2006. The Austrian "Strategie 2010" (ST2010) The Strategy was issued by the Austrian Council for Research and Technology Development, an institution established in 2000 with the main mission of strategically advising the Austrian Government on RTI-related matters. The Council has eight voting members, who are appointed by federal ministries and are mainly senior experts from academia and business. In 2005, ST2010 was published as a set of recommendations that aim to formulate guidelines for the Austrian RTI policy up to 2010 and beyond. Its overall goal is to strengthen the competitiveness and dynamic of Austria's economy in order to secure sustainable growth and expanding employment. The ST2010 is based on various earlier RTI strategy recommendations, but mainly on the National Research and Innovation Plan . This plan, published in 2002, included not only recommendations but also a detailed analysis of the status quo of Austria's national innovation system. Some of its recommendations, such as the reorganization of Austria´s S&T funding agencies and the increase of the R&D quota, have been (nearly) achieved by now. Others, like the coordination at the regional and federal levels, are not yet implemented and can be found again in ST2010. Global Leader vs. small EU member state To understand both strategies, it is helpful to look at the current standing of both countries in terms of R&D: According to data from the OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2005, the US was the largest global spender in R&D in 2003 with $285 billion or 42 percent of the OECD total, whereas the EU and Japan accounted for 31 percent and 17 percent of the OECD total respectively. The IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2006 ranks the US first in the performance of basic and applied research, followed by Hong Kong, and Singapore. In terms of scientific output as measured by articles in scientific journals, the US - together with the EU - is at the very forefront, with each of them having a ~30 percent share of the world total. And for decades, the US has produced more than one-fifth of the world's doctorates in S&E, according to the US National Science Foundation's "Science & Engineering Indicators 2006 ". As more nations have made R&D a high priority, however, this position has not gone unchallenged: The US R&D intensity of 2.6 percent of the GDP in 2003 was below Japan's 3.2 percent, but above the EU average of 2 percent. And whereas S&E degrees represented 27 percent of total new degrees awarded in the EU in 2003, they accounted only for 16 percent of degrees in the US during the same time period. US policy makers have expressed concerns that pressures on and a weakening of S&T would inevitably degrade the US's social and economic conditions and gradually erode the international competitiveness of its workforce for high-quality jobs. A movement overseas has been observed, not only of manufacturing, but also of highly skilled jobs like radiologists in India interpreting X-rays of US patients and architects in Brazil making drawings for US companies. As additional stones in a "disturbing mosaic," RAGS cited current disinvestment in human capital and the restrictions in visa policies, expert controls, etc. that were done as reactions to 9/11. The Chair of the RAGS Committee, Norman R. Augustine, a retired CEO and Chairman of Lockheed Martin Corporation, encapsulated his view of the US situation during a hearing on RAGS before the House Committee on Science on March 17, 2007: "The particularly troublesome aspect of the challenge we face is that there has been and will be no sudden wake-up call - no Sputnik, no 9/11, no Pearl Harbor - rather the situation is much more analogous to the proverbial frog being slowly boiled." Austria's position, on the other hand, is quite different, as a small country with rapidly increasing R&D expenditures and a EU Member State located in the middle of a community of states with similar ideas, structures, and strategy recommendations. Since 1995, overall Austrian R&D expenditures have grown by 131 percent, which constitutes an average annual growth rate of 7.9 percent. 
The Lisbon Process and its goal to increase RTI spending to 3 percent of the GDP by 2010 has had considerable influence on Austria's activities in this area. The EU represents another very active player on the Austrian R&D stage, spending more then €50 billion for R&D in the 7th Framework Program (2007-2013).For a more detailed overview of Austria's current standing in RTI, please read the bridges background information "Introduction to the Austrian Research and Technology Report 2006 ." Focus 1: General Federal Research Funding "Sowing the seeds" is RAGS' motto for the recommendation of measures to sustain and strengthen the US commitment to long-term basic research. Even though the US currently spends more on R&D than the other G7 states combined, and US investments in civilian R&D nearly doubled from approximately $30 billion in 1976 to $54 billion in 2004, the committee that drew up the RAGS report sensed that the US dedication to basic research, especially in the fields of the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering, is insufficient. They therefore recommended increasing US federal investments in basic long-term research by 10 percent annually over the next seven years. The committee further suggested that high-risk, high-payoff basic research should be promoted by allocating at least 8 percent of the budgets of federal research agencies for discretionary funding. In order to enhance the R&D share to 3 percent of the GDP until 2010 in accordance with the Barcelona target, ST2010 recommends that total Austrian R&D investments should be increased to around €8.8 billion, which corresponds to an annual increase of 7 percent to 9 percent of the current spending, depending on the development of the GDP and the inflation rate. For the federal state, this would amount to additional expenses between €500 million and €1 billion until 2010; this range depends on how the relative proportions of public and corporate R&D spending develop during this period. In 2006, Austrian total R&D spending was estimated at €6.24 billion or 2.43 percent of the GDP. Not surprisingly, the US and the Austrian strategies are aligned in their demands for an increased federal R&D budget, albeit with different focuses, as seen by taking a closer look at the details: Whereas RAGS explicitly suggests pouring the money into basic research in the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering, the Austrian Council for some years now has recommended a focus on the following fields of basic as well as applied research: life sciences, information and communication technologies, nanosciences and -technologies, mobility/transportation/space/aviation, environment/energy/sustainability, and the humanities - quite a comprehensive "focus" list . . . Energy in R&D: facing future energy challenges One of the biggest challenges faced worldwide is to develop new ways to meet the future energy needs. In the US, RAGS suggested the establishment of an Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) with the task of funding specific energy R&D programs. To be set up as a lean, flexible, and relatively non-hierarchical organization within the DoE, ARPA-E would finance "creative, outside-the-box, transformational generic energy research in those areas in which industry itself cannot or will not undertake such sponsorship." The model for ARPA-E is the legendary DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), which was established in 1958 within the Department of Defense after the launch of Sputnik to explore the military potential of innovative technologies. DARPA's research projects have ultimately laid the foundations for groundbreaking civilian achievements such as the Internet, high-speed microelectronics, satellite technologies, and unmanned vehicles. The Austrian strategy as a general concept requires that the federal state act strategically in its various roles to enhance the dynamics of innovation processes. This context emphasizes the importance of "R&D with a double dividend" - a term used for R&D that contributes to overcoming emerging societal challenges such as climate change, environmental issues, and the aging society. Examples are the recommended focus on sustainability research in the FORNE-Initiative and the promotion of security research, which is also an important issue in the EU's 7th Framework Program. Portfolio management and consolidation of the Austrian funding system Some of the proposals of ST2010 do not have a counterpart in the US strategy, since they refer to institutional specifics of the Austrian funding system. For example, in order to have a clear separation of political-strategic and operative levels, optimization of the task-sharing between federal ministries and funding agencies was recommended. Another central demand of the strategy was the concentration of RTI competences in two federal ministries. Wolfgang Polt, head of the Vienna Office of the Institute of Technology and Regional Policy of Joanneum Research comments on this as follows: "Although the strategy explicitly recommends the allocation of competences in only two ministries and also suggests that the responsibilities be allocated consistently and in a coherent way, neither of these has happened with the last government restructuring, unfortunately . . ." Over the last few years, the Austrian federal funding portfolio has undergone dynamic development: In addition to institution and bottom-up funding, several programs and instruments were added, leading to a highly diversified system, but with the negative effect of fragmenting the funding landscape at the program level. Therefore ST2010 recommends a simplification of the funding portfolio and the development of an integrated concept for all RTI funding programs with the goal of efficient portfolio management. Furthermore, the development of a monitoring and evaluation culture was requested, especially the evaluation of all programs exceeding five years or €1 million. No equivalent recommendations can be found in RAGS, mainly because the monitoring and evaluation culture is already much more established in the US than in Austria. Focus 2: Education and Human Resources "10 thousand teachers, 10 million minds" One major difference between the strategies is the fact that RAGS has detailed proposals for improving pre-university education, while ST2010 has no recommendations on this topic. Since there is a strong perception in the US that K-12 education is in need of substantial improvement, RAGS proposes recruiting 10,000 K-12 science and mathematics teachers annually, "each of whom can have an impact on 1,000 students over the course of their careers." Additionally the skills of 250,000 current K-12 teachers should be strengthened by various training and education programs, because "improvements in student achievement are solidly linked to teacher excellence, the hallmarks of which are thorough knowledge of content, solid pedagogical skills, motivational abilities, and career-long opportunities for continuing education." University education In the area of university education, RAGS provides a clear and detailed picture of how to boost enrollment in physical sciences, life sciences, engineering, and mathematics. This should be achieved by providing 25,000 new four-year competitive undergraduate scholarships a year. The scholarships would provide up to $20,000 per student to pay tuition and fees. A similar program is also proposed for graduate education. In this program, 500 new three-year competitive graduate fellowships would be awarded each year for students pursuing programs in these areas. Even though Austria also has a deficit in the number of S&E students, introducing similar scholarships wouldn't have the same effect, since students in general pay only comparatively modest tuition fees (about $400 per semester), and a variety of government scholarships are not competitive but tied to the income of the student's family. In graduate education, Austria strives to introduce American-style Ph.D. programs in addition to the traditional European doctoral education. ST2010 stresses the importance of the advancement and continuing development of graduate education by establishing programs modeled after international best-practice examples. It emphasizes the importance of strengthening excellence in the Austrian university system and supports the creation of the Austrian Institute of Science and Technology (ISTA). This institution, currently in the planning stages, will focus solely on graduate education and cutting-edge research. The very idea of such an institution is modeled after successful US institutions and aims to close the gap with American elite universities. Promotion of women and the humanities While both strategies aim to increase the number of students in the natural sciences and engineering, only the Austrian strategy emphasizes the need for special measures to attract more women into these fields and for equivalent efforts to increase the quality and the support for young talent in the cultural and social sciences. One initiative already exists to increase the number of women in science and technology - the fForte initiative, which is supported by several Austrian Federal Ministries. The latter point - fostering the humanities - might be less important for economic than for social and cultural development. For example thanks to advances in biomedical research, the human life expectancy and quality of life are rapidly increasing. But the result of this is an aging population that will lead to new implications for society. In the assessment and management of this development, the cultural and social sciences will play an important role. Also in the areas of security research or stem cell research, the questions posed are not solely of a technical nature, but require research and analysis from experts in the humanities to ensure that scientific research follows certain standards and is supported by society. Günther Bonn, deputy chairman of the Council, welcomes this development and confirms that "it is becoming increasingly accepted to scrutinize technical topics via cultural and social sciences." Lifelong learning An area where both strategies are unanimous is the field of continuing education or "lifelong learning," making sure that the workforce has the opportunity to gain knowledge and to adapt to quickly changing technological landscapes. ST2010 demands a coherent Austrian strategy that includes all the stakeholders - employers' associations, employees' associations, and government agencies - in this process, and the US strategy argues for tax credits for companies that help their employees pursue continuing education. Although the perception of the problem is similar, the proposed solutions are rather different, based on the individual institutional and political backgrounds of the countries. Mobility of researchers Both strategies aim to attract more scientific talent to the country. So RAGS seeks to change the current, rather restrictive rules for visa application for students and researchers, and also suggests a new skills-based, preferential immigration option. ST2010 is rather vague about immigration. This is mainly based on two factors: First (nearly) all EU-citizens are free to enter, work, and live in the country (a transition period, with some restrictions of these rights, applies only to citizens of the 12 new member countries). Secondly, rules for immigration of third country citizens is a recurring issue of debate in Austria and perhaps, therefore, ST2010 only argues for a vague "skill-based immigration." But while RAGS sees this more or less in one direction, i.e., getting the best talent to the US, the Austrian strategy also emphasizes the whole concept of mobility - attracting "the best and the brightest" to the country but also encouraging Austrian students and scientists to study and do research abroad. For example, ST2010 asks for an increase in the number of university graduates with international experience from 30 percent today to 50 percent in the near future, but also wants a more efficient grant system for studying abroad. Focus 3: The Private Sector: Incentives for Innovation RAGS aims to ensure that the US remains "the premier place in the world to innovate." As other countries improve their innovative capacity and quality of location, the report asserts the need to reevaluate the US environment for innovation and the adjustments required to maintain their leadership. Compared to the US, Austria has a very different starting point as well as a different economic structure, which are reflected in the innovation system. Specific features of the Austrian system include the dominance of SME and a relatively high share - about 20 percent - of foreign R&D financing. Tax incentives Both strategies contain recommendations regarding tax incentives. On the US side, it was suggested that the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit be strengthened by increasing it and making it permanent. These measures would allow companies to have certainty in their tax planning and should result in making US tax incentives for R&D investments competitive with other countries. In addition, RAGS recommends conducting an exhaustive analysis comparing the incentives for innovation in the US and other nations, especially with regard to tax policies. With a comparably low corporate tax rate of 25 percent (average corporate tax rates in the EU countries have dropped generally from 38 percent in 1993 to 25.8 percent in 2006) and various tax incentives for R&D, Austria already has a quite favorable tax structure to foster R&D and attract foreign investments. For ideas to optimize the system of indirect funding, its portfolio, and handling, the Council suggested initiating a working group process. Establishing attractive funding structures for venture capital and private equity, where Austria shows a backlog in international comparisons, was further recommended. Enhancing IP Protection In the US, one of the key proposals for boosting innovation is enhancing the patent system, inter alia by endowing the Patent and Trademark Office with adequate resources to make IP protection more timely, predictable, and effective. Another suggestion is to switch from a "first-to-invent" to a "first-to-file" patent system, which would align the US patent system with those of Europe and Japan. With regards to IP protection, ST2010 focuses to a greater extent on raising the awareness of researchers and companies to actually file for IP protection and to market their research results rather than on changes of the law. Driving innovation via broadband RAGS further recommends providing ubiquitous broadband Internet access for homes, schools, and businesses, and compares the dynamic impact of broadband Internet on innovation, the economy, and job creation in the 21st century with access to the telephone, interstate highways, and air travel in the 20th century. Although not contained in ST2010, Austria also took action to foster broadband penetration, e.g., via the broadband initiative 2003. The cooperative sector Apart from the recommendations to strengthen tax incentives, the strategies have little in common regarding the private sector, mostly due to the diverse US and Austrian backgrounds. Academic spin-offs, knowledge transfer, and cooperative projects between the science and business communities have a much longer tradition and are significantly more widespread in the US than they are to date in Austria. In Austria the cooperative sector as a link between the university and the corporate sector has been specifically promoted in recent years both on the structural and the spending level. The Council recommends pursuing the growth strategy contained in the National Research and Innovation Plan and envisages an 80 percent increase in R&D spending in the cooperative sector by 2010. Optimizing the knowledge transfer from science to economy (e.g., via training, academic spin-offs and start-ups) has become one of the priorities of RTI policy in Austria. ST2010 recommends that the program BRIDGE, which inter alia fosters research cooperation projects between partners from the science and business communities, should be further promoted and endowed with additional budget means. For more long-term, strategic partnerships exceeding single projects, competence centers were established over the last few years. They comprise, at the present time, more than 450 enterprises and over 1,500 researchers, which - from an Austrian point of view - is quite a remarkable size. ST2010 recommends a further integration and additional budgets for the competence center programs (see COMET program). SME funding and "Headquarter strategy" Due to the SME-based and branch-diverse structure of the Austrian economy, concentration on a few high technology sectors is not considered to be as effective as measures and funding programs with a broad basis. ST2010 therefore suggests a budget increase of 9 percent for the FFG, Austria's central institution for funding of application-oriented RTI, especially for the thematically open bottom-up application-oriented funding in the FFG's basis programs. Since the settlement of research-intensive units of foreign corporations also plays a role in the structural development of the Austrian innovation landscape, ST2010 suggests that the Headquarter Strategy Program of the FFG should be financially expanded and steered towards encouraging the setup and expansion of research units of multinational enterprises with independent R&D responsibilities. It is understandable that they are part of ST2010, but not explicitly mentioned in RAGS. Since the much-cited "entrepreneurial spirit" is more strongly pronounced in the US than in Austria, it is reasonable for Austria to put more emphasis on promoting start-ups. Whereas the US is trying to retain research units in its country, Austria is striving to attract them. Focus 4: The International and Regional Context When comparing RAGS and ST2010 in terms of dedication to international cooperation, significant differences become apparent. ST2010 dedicates an extra section to this topic. It urges Austria's active participation in the European Research Area and the 7th Framework Program. This should happen not only by encouraging the mobility of scientists, but also by coordinating national research policies and national research funding agencies. This commitment to European research also explicitly mentions cooperation with the "low cost" and rapidly emerging Central and Eastern European Countries and the potential of "innovation partnerships," just as Austrian companies have harnessed the economic potential of this region. Looking beyond Europe, the strategy also demands further cooperations to support these regional and European initiatives. As regions of interest for this cooperation, ST2010 mentions North America above all, but also China and India. RAGS, on the other hand, presents no detailed recommendation on how the US should interact with the world on STI issues. The regional component Not only the international or transnational dimension of science policy should be regarded as essential, but also the regional one. Strengthening regional innovation networks, i.e., clusters of all kinds, is a vital instrument for transforming the challenges of a globalized world into local and regional opportunities. To ensure that regional and federal funding and government institutions coordinate planning, management, and evaluation of this policy field, the ST2010 supports setting up a platform for coordinating STI activities. RAGS makes no recommendations regarding the regional component. It mainly concentrates on recommendations for the federal level. Dan Berglund, president of the State Science & Technology Institute says that "it is typically not in the American tradition to have much coordination between the states and federal government," pointing out, however, that "the states are significant players in this arena and there should be more coordination." Given the fact that the American innovation system is still the most productive in the world, this offers interesting insights. Despite the lack of federal/state level collaboration, it also shows that a system where not everything is coordinated - or regulated, as Americans often describe the situation in Europe - can still be impressively successful. State of implementation Formulating strategies is one thing, implementing the related policies is a different matter. Both strategies are reflections of ongoing RTI policy discussions in the US and Austria and were built to some extent on earlier recommendations. In many of the recommended fields of action, initiatives have been started; overall, it is difficult to assess whether such initiatives should be seen as a direct result of the strategy recommendations or as developments rooted in preexisting discussions and initiatives. In some fields, proposals are disputed or were not taken up. The following discussion considers some examples of implementation initiatives and the challenges the suggestions have met in reality, showing a mixed picture: RAGS' request for the prioritization of basic research became a core concern of the ACI. A centerpiece of the ACI was doubling the investment at three core federal agencies - the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's Office of Science (DoE SC), and the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology Laboratories (NIST) over the next ten years. In President Bush's budget proposal for 2008, a total of $11.42 billion is allocated for the three agencies, an increase of 7.2 percent over the 2007 budget request. Many of RAGS' recommendations in this field were incorporated (in modified form) in the proposed bill H.R.363 "Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act" which the Science Committee introduced in the House this January. On the Austrian side, the requested budget increases for R&D are being implemented: For 2006, federal R&D expenses were projected at around €1.92 billion, an increase of 10.8 percent over 2005. With regard to the energy challenges, a bill establishing ARPA-E (H.R.364 ) was introduced in the House this January after an earlier proposal (H.R.4435) failed last year. The idea of ARPA-E remains controversial: "The administration has included in its budget increases in funding for the research programs within DoE, ARPA-E conceptually is an effort to get funding to these areas. Our general sense is, why don't we get the funding to the existing offices instead of creating yet a new entity," says Richard M. Russell, associate director and deputy director of technology of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the US President. Other counterarguments raised include the concern that ARPA-E would put the government into competition with private investments in the energy sector and that the establishment of a new organization would dramatically limit the resources for funding basic research at the key federal agencies. In the area of innovation incentives for the private sector, the strengthening of the Research & Experimentation Credit is also part of the ACI: "It's a very powerful concept," Russell stresses. "From our standpoint, since in the US two-thirds of the R&D money that's spent actually comes from business, we think it's very important that the industrial sector continues to fund R&D. [Making the tax credit permanent] is really a matter of making sure that people can actually plan ahead, and since it's a benefit, they are more likely to invest more in R&D than they would do otherwise." Whether this will be realized is yet unclear: The reason why the tax credit has not yet become permanent is the fact that this would require attributing a specific budget for it, whereas this is not necessary for a non-permanent tax credit. On the Austrian side, various initiatives regarding the strengthening and alignment of existing funding programs, monitoring, and evaluation, etc. are underway. On initiatives regarding the RTI cooperation between the federal and the regional level, Guenther Bonn says: "Six months ago, the Council made a resolution to push this cooperation. Each province shall be asked to contribute with their budget to cooperations in RTI. At the moment, we are having talks with the provincial governors; it appears that the provinces are really interested to contribute their share to federal RTI initiatives." Overall it should be kept in mind that the strategies have a timeframe of at least five years or, in the case of RAGS, well beyond that. Although the strategies were presented more than a year ago, it is still too early for a conclusive assessment of their impact. Conclusions On both sides of the Atlantic, S&T and the capacity to innovate are seen as key factors for economic growth and international competitiveness. Neither is there dispute about the key recommendations for what should be done: More investment in R&D - starting from basic research and going on to product development - and increased investment in human resources are crucial. The fundamental differences emerge in the way of perceiving the rise of the STI-capacity of other countries, which in turn reveals differing views of the very nature of science, technology, and innovation. ST2010 follows a more cooperation-oriented approach. It advocates measures to create innovation-partnerships with Central and Eastern European countries and to encourage the mobility of researchers in both directions - encouraging Austrians to learn and study abroad and encouraging others to come to Austria, thus trying to establish the country as a successful network node in a web of interdependent STI-landscapes. RAGS, to the contrary, clearly focuses on ensuring the US leadership position in a competitive global environment. Roger Pielke, Director of the Center for Science and Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, remains skeptical about RAGS: "[It] is very 20th century in its approach. It raises the concern about a loss of US ‘competitiveness' but never really tells us what ‘competitiveness' actually means or how it is to be measured. The reality is that the United States - or any other country - will achieve success in S&T policies that benefit people and the environment through collaboration and engagement with other countries around the world, and not by ‘winning' according to some unclear metrics of success."
***
About the authors: Barbara Schultze joined the OST from January to March 2007 as a visiting expert sent from the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economics and Labor. Roland Schneider studies socioeconomics at the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration. The above article was prepared based on the sources below and on individual interviews conducted with the following persons: - Dan Berglund, President and CEO of the State Science & Technology Institute - Richard M. Russel, Associate Director and Deputy Director of Technology of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the US President. - Wolfgang Polt, Head of the Vienna Office of the Institute of Technology and Regional Policy of Joanneum Research - Guenther Bonn, deputy chairman of the Austrian Council for Research and Development - Roger Pielke, Director of the Center for Science and Policy Research at the University of Colarado at Boulder Sources: Strategie 2010 http://www.rat-fte.at/UserFiles/File/Strategie2010.pdf Rising above the Gathering Storm http://www.nap.edu/books/0309100399/html American Competitiveness Initiative http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/aci/ Austrian Research and Technology Report 2006 http://www.fteval.at/home/en/evaluierungsstudie.php?id=139 National Research and Innovation Plan http://www.rat-fte.at/files/NFIP_20021203.pdf IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2006 http://www.imd.ch/research/centers/wcc/world_competitiveness_yearbook.cfm?bhcp=1 OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2005 http://www.oecd.org/document/43/0,2340,en_2649_33703_35455595_1_1_1_1,00.html European Research Area http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/index_en.html 7th framework http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act http://science.house.gov/legislation/leg_highlights_detail.aspx?NewsID=1284 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds" Science and Math Scholarship Act http://sciencedems.house.gov/legislation/leg_highlights_detail.aspx?NewsID=1233 |
