, Volume 84, Issue 2, pp 321–330 | Cite as

Describing national science and technology systems through a multivariate approach: country participation in the 6th Framework Programmes

  • José Luis Ortega
  • Isidro F. Aguillo


The objective of this work is to describe the distribution of different types of participating organizations in the health thematic area of the 6th Framework Programme. A total of 2132 different organizations were classified according to four types and then grouped by country. A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was carried out on the percentage of funding obtained by each type of organization. Results show a countries map plotted around the “private” and “public” principal components. It is observed that there are countries which research is basically performed by government research centres, while others are supported in the university activity. We conclude that the PCA is a suitable method to plot the distribution of research organizations by country and the results could be used as a tool for theoretical studies about the scientific activity in a country.


Scientometrics Multivariate analysis 6th Framework Programme Biomedicine Triple Helix 



We wish to thank the R&D Framework Programmes Department of the Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology (CDTI) of Spain for their support and the supply of 6th EU Framework Programme data.


  1. Albrecht, V., & Vanecek, J. (2008). Assessment of participation of the Czech Republic in the EU framework programmes. Prague: Technology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, E., Astrom, T., Boekholt, P., Brown, N., Good, B., Holmberg, R., et al. (2008). Impact of the framework programme in Sweden. Stockholm: VINNOVA.Google Scholar
  3. Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70(2), 333–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollen, J., Van De Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One, 4(6), e6022.
  5. Breschi, S., & Cusmano, L. (2004). Unveiling the texture of a European research area: Emergence of oligarchic networks under the EU framework programmes. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(8), 747–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chesnay, F. (1993). The French national system of innovation. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative study (p. 560). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2008). Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics, 72(2), 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dehon, C., Mccathie, A., & Verardi, V. (2009). Uncovering excellence in academic rankings: A closer look at the Shanghai ranking. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0076-0.
  9. Edquist, C. (2006). Systems of innovation: Perspectives and challenges. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2008). FP6 final review: Subscription, implementation, participation. Brussels: Research Directorate-General.Google Scholar
  12. Federal Ministry of Education and Research. (2002). Facts & figures research 2002. Bonn: BMBF.Google Scholar
  13. Georghiou, L. (1995). Assessing the framework programmes. Evaluation, 1(2), 171–188.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Geuna, A. (1998). Determinants of university participation in EU-funded R&D cooperative projects. Research Policy, 26, 677–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gravalos, E., Garcia, A., & Barnes, N. (2002). Policy influences on innovation strategies of small and medium enterprises in the agrochemical, seed and plant biotechnology sectors. Science and Public Policy, 29(4), 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gusmao, R. (2000). Developing and using indicators of multilateral S&T cooperation for policy making: The experience from European research programmes. Scientometrics, 47(3), 493–514.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Gusmao, R. (2001). Research networks as a means of European integration. Technology in Society, 23, 383–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hornbostel, S. (2001). Third party funding of German universities. An indicator of research activity? Scientometrics, 50(3), 523–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hotelling, H. (1933). Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 417–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hughes-Wilson, W. (2004). Encouraging industry participation in the EU’s sixth framework programme: Issues, barriers and potential solutions. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 10, 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 187–200.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laredo, P., & Mustar, P. (2004). Public sector research: A growing role in innovation systems. Minerva, 42(1), 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leydesdorff, L., & Scharnhorst, A. (2002). Measuring the knowledge base: A program of innovation studies, report to the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
  24. Luukkonen, T. (1998). The difficulties in assessing the impact of EU framework programmes. Research Policy, 27(6), 599–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luukkonen, T. (2002). Technology and market orientation in company participation in the EU framework programme. Research Policy, 31(3), 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mccain, K. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 433–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative study. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. OECD. (2003). Frascati manual 2002. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pearson, K. (1901). On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, 2(11), 559–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Polanco, X., François, C., & Keim, J. P. (1998). Artificial neural network technology for the classification and cartography of scientific and technical information. Scientometrics, 41(1–2), 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Priego, J. L. O. (2003). A vector space model as a methodological approach to the triple helix dimensionality: A comparative study of biology and biomedicine centres of two European National Research Councils from a Webometric view. Scientometrics, 58(2), 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ramani, S. V. (2002). Who is interested in biotech? R&D strategies, knowledge base and market sales of Indian biopharmaceutical firms. Research Policy, 31(3), 381–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roediger-Schulga, T., & Barber, M. J. (2007). R&D collaboration networks in the European framework programmes: Data processing, network construction and selected results. Maastricht: United Nation University.Google Scholar
  34. Roediger-Schulga, T., & Dachs, B. (2006). Does technology affect network structure? A quantitative analysis of collaborative research projects in two specific EU programmes. Maastricht: United Nation University.Google Scholar
  35. Single European Act. (1987). Official Journal of the European Union, L69.Google Scholar
  36. Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2008). A structural analysis of publication profiles for the classification of European research institutes. Scientometrics, 74(2), 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2009). A structural analysis of benchmark on different bibliometrical indicators for European research institutes based on their research profile. Scientometrics, 79(2), 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Uotila, M., Kutinlahti, P., Kuitunen, S., & Loikkanen, T. (2004). Finnish participation in the EU fifth framework programme and beyond. Helsinki: Finnish Secretariat for EU R&D.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.R&D Analysis, Vice-Presidency for Science and TechnologyCSICMadridSpain
  2. 2.Cybermetrics LabCCHS-CSICMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations