ITâS well know that Sweden is the worldâs top per capita investor in R&D. And you might think that the countryâs tradition of high taxation and generous public expenditure has created this sunny state of affairs. But youâd be wrong. Much of the countryâs research infrastructure now depends on support from industry. In fact, in Sweden and neighbouring Denmark and Norway, scientists are having to get creative about where they obtain their funds.
The truth is that while Sweden continues to top the worldâs list of research-intensive nations by spending 4.3 per cent of its GDP on R&D, more than three-quarters of that money comes from sources outside government. This level of private investment leaves many other nations green with envy, but for the countryâs academics, the paucity of the governmentâs payout is worrying â even though it is the worldâs seventh most generous in relation to GDP.
âItâs been, in real terms, a decline in public funding,â says Carl Johan Sundberg, a physician and associate professor at Stockholmâs Karolinska Institute (KI). He contrasts Swedenâs situation over the past decade with the growing levels of public support for research in places such as Canada, the US and Australia.
Advertisement
Even at the KI â an internationally renowned institution nudging its 200th year â such support has been steadily declining, and the public proportion is now less than half of the total, Sundberg says. âWe are thinking very strategically about other sources of money.â
Sundberg has a front-row view of one of those sources, as investment director of the Karolinska Investment Fund. Established in 1999, this fund nurtures pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical technology companies with strong commercial potential. By 2003, the fund had spawned a venture-capital firm, Karolinska Development, which quickly amassed more than âŹ10 million to sponsor research-intensive start-ups such as Oncopeptides, a KI spin-off developing new cancer-fighting drugs.
For Sundberg, these entrepreneurial undertakings reflect the importance of technological innovation as one of the countryâs economic cornerstones. Swedenâs history is packed with scientists and inventors who laid the foundation for enterprises that went on to become household names: appliance pioneer Electrolux, electronics giant Ericsson and drug manufacturers Astra and Pharmacia â which have since merged with multinational interests.
âBasically, people know how to put things into the market,â says Sundberg, noting that though the whole of Scandinavia contains fewer than 25 million people it boasts some 350 biotechnology companies. âThat is more than the UK, and a similar number to Germany.â
Biotech bridges
The majority of these biotech firms are nestled on either side of the Ăresund, the channel separating the southern Swedish region of SkĂĽne from the Danish capital, Copenhagen. Since 2000, the two have been linked by a remarkable 16-kilometre bridge and tunnel (51śŻÂţ, 21 June 2003, p 58). This region, dubbed Medicon Valley, now employs around 30,000 people in various branches of medicine or medical technology. The area is home to five major science parks, along with 26 hospitals, 12 universities and some 60 per cent of Scandinaviaâs biotech and pharmaceutical industry.
On the Danish side of the water, a centrepiece of the CAT Science Park is the Risø National Laboratory, which was founded in 1956 and now employs almost 800 people. For Klaus Nielsen, programme leader at Risøâs plant research department, Medicon Valley has now palpably reached critical mass. âWhere you have jobs, where you have energy, where you have dynamics â new companies, small start-ups â you get good people,â he says.
ÂWe have the possibility of being an extremely strong research nationÂ
But Nielsen has a dual role: he is also head of research at the Danish seed company DLF-Trifolium in Ny Ăstergade. âThereâs a great benefit for both parties besides the economical split of costs and split of risk,â says Nielsen. Such public/private collaborations were ushered in by new legislation introduced in the late 1990s, which lowered many of the bureaucratic and financial barriers that had isolated centres such as Risø from partnering firms such as DLF-Trifolium. At Risø the changes have been sweeping, transforming an institution originally set up to study nuclear energy into a multidisciplinary organisation exploring wind energy, systems analysis and materials, as well as botanical work like Nielsenâs.
Yet the example set by Risø remains largely exceptional within the Danish research community, which laments Denmarkâs relatively sparse investment in R&D compared with Swedenâs. Only 2.4 per cent of the GNP is invested in this way, and more than 70 per cent of that is private money. Moreover, in spite of high levels of education and an enviable standard of living, some 35 per cent of graduates leave the country, and a third of them have failed to return after five years.
Those figures come courtesy of Erik Sørensen, CEO of the multinational food manufacturer Chr. Hansen, who also chaired a committee examining Denmarkâs education and research policy. This summer Denmarkâs prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, got an earful of Sørensenâs concerns while touring the companyâs Copenhagen headquarters. âIf we do not start making the necessary corrections, we are going to lose the battle,â Sørensen told the PM. âDanish and European companies have traditionally been leaders in high-tech and biotechnology, but things are about to change.â
Such calls for corrections are even more strident in Norway, where the latest report from the Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education observes a drop in the countryâs overall R&D investment from 1.65 per cent of GNP in 1999 to 1.60 per cent in 2001. Part of this decline, according to University of Oslo neurobiologist Ole Petter Ottersen, is fuelled by the fact that Norwegians tend not to regard research as a way of fostering economic growth â the prevailing mantra in most other developed nations. âWe have been too lucky over the years,â he says, noting that the countryâs route to prosperity has been eased by abundant natural resources, including timber, aluminium and offshore oil. âThere has not been pressure on us to develop high-technology industries.â
Natural advantage
Ottersen heads up his universityâs Laboratory of Molecular Neuroscience within the Centre for Molecular Biology and Neuroscience, one of 13 centres of excellence created by the Research Council of Norway in 2002. And he sees real scope for growth in R&D. âWe have the possibility of being an extremely strong research nation,â he says, pointing to international surveys that regularly put Norwegians at the top of rankings in education due to the countryâs high literacy rate and levels of enrolment at schools and colleges. This fund of intellect, combined with the financial clout Norway derives from its natural resources, should set the stage for dynamic research endeavours.
The 13 centres are one of Norwayâs attempts to turn the situation around. They were formed after a 1999 government report spelled out just how anaemic public spending on research had become. Conceived as a network, they are also meant to address another of the R&D challenges faced by Norway: the fragmented nature of its research activities, which are scattered all over the country and often operate independently. âWe are an old Viking country, and like the chieftains sitting on every hilltop, we have had the same situation in research,â says Ottersen, bemoaning the lack of communication between individuals and institutions.
The same might be said of many parts of Scandinavia â which is why bodies such as the Nordic Council have started paying closer attention to research. Formed in 1952, the council provides an interparliamentary forum for the regionâs five countries (Sweden, Denmark and Norway, plus Finland and Iceland) to discuss matters of common interest. It is now working with the Nordic Medical Research Council and the Nordic Academy for Advanced Study, which provide similar forums for administrators from each country.
These interactions led to the founding of three multinational Nordic Centres of Excellence this year, including one led by Ottersen investigating medical disorders related to water imbalance. For his part, Ottersen sees this new opportunity as yet another sign of the growing cooperation in the region, and in Europe generally. âThere are so many attempts to make the different countries pull together,â he says (see 51śŻÂţ, 27 March, p 50).
Even in Sweden, where R&D efforts would seem to be at fever pitch, Sundberg is no less enthusiastic about the prospects of pooling Scandinaviaâs resources in this way. âWe look upon the Nordic region as our home base,â he says, adding that people in that region are eager to overturn the stereotype of a high-priced enclave where taxes protect researchers from cheaper global competition. âYou get extremely good quality [science] for a reasonable price.â And surely thatâs an attractive prospect, no matter who is footing the bill?