Draft Report of the Expert Group on International STI Cooperation to ...

however, is not so far justified by <strong>the</strong> data. On <strong>the</strong> contrary, <strong>the</strong> evidence shows that <strong>the</strong>
international mobility <strong>of</strong> scientific talent is increasing. China’s share <strong>of</strong> PhD degrees awarded
by US institutions to foreigners continues to grow, being almost one third <strong>of</strong> all 'foreign' PhDs
in <strong>the</strong> US in 2007.
The imperfect evidence available for Europe shows that <strong>the</strong> PhD student populations <strong>of</strong> EU
countries have fewer foreigners compared to <strong>the</strong> US, and <strong>the</strong> origins <strong>of</strong> foreign PhD students
are different, with a less strong Asian presence and geographic, cultural and political links
being more important. Does <strong>the</strong> increasing rise <strong>of</strong> non-traditional science countries manifest
itself in changing patterns <strong>of</strong> international scientific collaboration? A first important
observation is an overall increase in international scientific collaborations. Never<strong>the</strong>less,
<strong>the</strong>re is a marked inertia in <strong>the</strong> choices <strong>of</strong> partners. International co-operation networks are
sticky and only gradually change. They are heavily correlated with human capital flows,
geographic proximity and sensitive to policy-support.
Intra-EU collaboration has substantially increased over time, suggesting progress has been
made in building <strong>the</strong> integrated European Research Area (ERA). But this has happened at <strong>the</strong>
cost <strong>of</strong> diversion from extra-EU collaboration. The emerging scientific powerhouses,
particularly China, are still relatively under-represented as partners for <strong>the</strong> West. China’s
collaboration is mostly with o<strong>the</strong>r Asian economies. Its collaboration with <strong>the</strong> US has
increased over time on par with <strong>the</strong> growth <strong>of</strong> its own scientific power. The EU’s
collaboration with China remains at a far lower level than it could be, considering <strong>the</strong> growth
<strong>of</strong> China’s scientific power.
Impact from Internationalisation <strong>of</strong> Science
In <strong>the</strong> open US science model, foreign born are a critical source <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> US S&E workforce.
Not only do <strong>the</strong>y contribute disproportionately to U.S. top science, <strong>the</strong>re is also evidence that
foreigners are increasingly responsible for US patents and US technology and engineering
start-ups. They are also important sources to establish international networks for recruitment,
collaboration, and ideas development. Foreign talent is thus vital for US science and
innovation capacity. This is why <strong>the</strong> US fears <strong>the</strong> power <strong>of</strong> its S&T machine will diminish if
<strong>the</strong> pool <strong>of</strong> mobile foreign talent entering <strong>the</strong> US dries up. There is no clear evidence so far to
justify this fear. For <strong>the</strong> moment, <strong>the</strong> rise <strong>of</strong> Asia’s own capacity to produce S&E degrees
does not seem to disconnect <strong>the</strong> US from <strong>the</strong> pool <strong>of</strong> potential Asian candidates to recruit
from, on <strong>the</strong> contrary.
A virtuous circle thus seems to emerge: <strong>the</strong> US's top position in science is based on its
openness to <strong>the</strong> best foreign talents, who stay long enough to make a contribution to quality
science, and this top position keeps on attracting <strong>the</strong> best foreign talent. The increasing
globalization <strong>of</strong> science allows <strong>the</strong> US open model to benefit from a larger and better
developed global pool to recruit from and interact with.
The EU science has not managed to establish such a virtuous open model. But <strong>the</strong> impact
extends beyond science into <strong>the</strong> R&D and innovation patterns <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> corporate sector. The
79