TX Finland 2993 Scientific Research

SuTi_Englanti_Kansi_OK.
FH10 Sun Nov 02 12:09:09 2003 Page 1
PUBLICATIONS OF THE ACADEMY OF FINLAND 10/03

10/03
SCIENTIFIC
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN FINLAND
RESEARCH
in Finland
A Review of Its Quality and
Impact in the Early 2000s
Composite
Scientific Research in Finland
A Review of Its Quality and Impact in the Early 2000s
Editors: Timo Oksanen, Annamaija Lehvo & Anu Nuutinen
Reports by the Academy’s Research Councils
Biosciences and Environmental Research

Research in Culture and Society
Health Research
Research in the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Academy of Finland in brief
The Academy’s mission is to finance high-quality scientific research, act as a science
and science policy expert and strengthen the position of science and research. The
Academy’s operations cover all scientific disciplines.
The main focus of the Academy’s development activities is on improving opportunities

for professional careers in research, providing resources and facilities for high-profile
research environments and making the best possible use of international opportunities
in all fields of research, research funding, and science policy.
The Academy has a number of funding instruments for various purposes.
The Academy’s annual research funding amounts to about 185 million euros, which
represents some 13 per cent of the Finnish government’s total R&D spending.
Each year Academy-funded projects account for some 3,000 researcher-years at

universities and research institutes.
The wide range of high-level basic research funded by the Academy generates new
knowledge. The Academy of Finland operates within the administrative sector of the
Ministry of Education and is funded through the state budget.
For more information on the Academy of Finland, go to www.aka.fi/eng.
Translation: David Kivinen
Layout: PixPoint ky
Cover illustration: Hanna Varis (1988): ”The World”
ISBN 951-715-466-6 (print)

ISBN 951-715-467-4 (pdf)
ISSN 0358-9153
Printed by Painotalo Miktor, Helsinki, Finland 2003
2
Scientific Research in Finland
A Review of Its Quality and Impact in the Early 2000s
Editors: Timo Oksanen, Annamaija Lehvo & Anu Nuutinen
3
Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
GENERAL SECTION
1 Research infrastructure and environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2 Research funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1 R&D expenditure and sources of funding in Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Funding organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.1 Academy of Finland research funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.2 Technology funding from the National Technology Agency . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.3 Other funding bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3 Higher education sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3.1 Universities and university hospitals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3.2 Polytechnics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.4 Government research institutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3 The human resources of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.1 Research personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.1.1 International comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.1.2 Placement in different sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.1.3 Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.1.4 Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.2 The researcher’s profession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2.1 Science policy lines and objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2.2 The professional research career: stages and avenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2.3 People with a researcher training in positions of expertise . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.3 The researcher’s profession: under pressure of change? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4 Measures of science policy aimed at supporting research . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.1 Universities and their operating environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.1.1 Boundary conditions for the national development of universities . . . . 61
4.1.2 Operational and structural changes in universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.1.3 Interaction with the rest of society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.2 Programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.2.1 Research and technology programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.2.2 Cluster programmes and centre of expertise programme . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.2.3 Centre of excellence in research programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.3 Internationalisation of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.3.1 National competitive funding from the point of view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
of internationalisation
4.3.2 Nordic cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.3.3 European cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4
4.3.4 Global cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.3.5 Finnish researchers’ international cooperation: how it has developed . . 87
4.4 Research evaluations and the use of their results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5 Scientific and social impact of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

5.1 Scientific publishing in Finland: an international comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.1.1 Evaluation of scientific outcomes and impacts in the light . . . . . . . . . . . 99
of publication numbers and citations
5.1.2 Publishing in Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.1.3 International comparison of publishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.2 The social impacts of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5.2.1 The social impacts, outcomes and impact mechanisms of research . . . 114
5.2.2 How have the social impacts of research been described or assessed? . 115
5.2.3 Technological and economic impacts of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.2.4 Mechanisms promoting the economic impacts of research and . . . . . . 118
their problems
5.2.5 The political, regional, organisational and cultural impacts . . . . . . . . 122
of research
5.2.6 Social innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
5.2.7 The social impacts of research: obstacles and bottlenecks . . . . . . . . . . . 128
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Appendix 1. Description of the National Science Indicators database . . . . . . . . . . . 138
SPECIAL THEMES
Gender in the Finnish research system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Hannele Kurki
The impact of social research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Jorma Sipilä
The social impact of research and knowledge application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

as seen from the vantage point of centres of excellence
Timo Kolu
REPORTS BY THE ACADEMY’S RESEARCH COUNCILS
Biosciences and Environmental Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Research in Culture and Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Health Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Research in the Natural Sciences and Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
5
6
Contents
Foreword
The Academy of Finland carries out a review of the state and quality of scientific research
in Finland once during the three-year term of its Research Councils. The assignment is
based on Government decisions concerning the development of education and research
as well as agreements on target outcomes signed between the Ministry of Education and
the Academy of Finland. The previous reviews were published in 1997 and 2000.
The 2003 review is divided into a general section; special themes that complement
the general section; and reports by the Academy’s four Research Councils.
The main theme that cuts across the whole review is the impact of scientific research,
which is approached from different angles. Other issues that receive in-depth coverage
include the challenges related to human resources in research.
The primary aim of the review is to serve the needs of national and international bodies
and organisations responsible for science and technology policy as well as research
funding. It also provides useful information for researchers and research organisations
around the world.
Work to compile the review has been carried out under the supervision of a steering
group appointed by the Board of the Academy of Finland. The group was chaired
by Anneli Pauli, Vice President, Research (Academy of Finland). Its other members
were the chairs of the Academy Research Councils: Professor Riitta Keiski (Research
Council for Natural Sciences and Engineering), Professor Arto Mustajoki (Research
Council for Culture and Society), Professor Terttu Vartiainen (Research Council for
Biosciences and Environment) and Professor Eero Vuorio (Research Council for Health);
and Markku Karlsson, Senior Vice President, Technology (Board of the Academy of
Finland) and Director Sakari Karjalainen (Ministry of Education; Director Juhani
Hakkarainen until 30 April 2002). Programme Manager Tarmo Lemola and Professor
Reijo Miettinen have served as permanent expert members to the steering group. The
steering group has defined the objectives for the review, endorsed the plan for compiling
the review, taken part in revising drafts and given advice to the Research Councils
on how to prepare their reports. Science Adviser Annamaija Lehvo, Project Officer
Anu Nuutinen and Science Adviser Timo Oksanen (team leader) from the Academy
of Finland have compiled and written the general section of the report and edited
the review. Information Specialist Maija Miettinen has provided expert assistance
for the bibliometric analyses. In addition, Project Officer Siru Oksa and university
trainee Sari Purhonen have assisted in the preparation of the general section of the
review. The review has been translated from Finnish into English by David Kivinen.
Tuulikki Toivonen has assisted in proofreading.
7
8
Contents
1 Research infrastructure and environment

Researchers go about their job in an environment of great complexity. The Finnish
research system comprises decision-makers and various advisory bodies (Parliament,
the Government and its ministries, the Science and Technology Policy Council of
Finland), funding bodies (such as the Academy of Finland, the National Technology
Agency Tekes, the Finnish National Fund for Research and Development Sitra), and
research organisations (universities, polytechnics, university hospitals, research
institutes, business companies with R&D operations). Some of the work that research
organisations and individual researchers do is steered by decision-makers and funding
bodies, which in this narrow sense constitute the operating environment of research.
That environment is further expanded when the research system is defined as part of
the innovation system. In addition to decision-makers, funding bodies and researchers,
the innovation system comprises business and industry as well as all the economic
structures, political organisations and institutions that directly or indirectly exert an
influence on research, which in turn reciprocates.
Since the bulk of all scientific research is done in public organisations, the research
environment comprises not only the research system and the innovation system, but
also the public sector and society at large. Within this operating environment there are
both factors that facilitate and protect research, and factors that restrict and control
research. In Finland the freedom of science is constitutionally guaranteed. There is also
legislation aimed at securing the financial autonomy of universities (L 731/1999, 16 §
and 123§; L 1052/1986, 1270/2001). Among the factors that restrict or control research
are the priority definitions of science policy. Together, the factors that facilitate, protect,
restrict and control research constitute the broader, societal operating environment of
research. It is within this environment that economic globalisation, EU integration and
Finland’s own internal development needs all come together. The effective management
of the operating environments of research and the changes taking place within those
environments require a concerted effort to support and develop the infrastructure,
resources and other crucial preconditions for doing research.
Research as part of society

In the early 2000s funding from public sources accounted for more than one-quarter
of total R&D expenditure in Finland. Basic research in particular relies heavily on
support and funding from the public sector. It follows that public administration and
the future course of its development will also have a direct as well as indirect bearing
upon the future resources available to basic research. There is growing pressure in
Finland to curb levels of national taxation, both as a result of economic globalisation
and Finland’s membership of the EU. The goals adopted in the 1980s and 1990s
for the development of public administration were mainly geared to improving
efficiency and productivity (management by results, new public management). The
new Government Programme also underlines the importance of further increasing
the availability, quality, productivity and efficiency of public administration and its
services.
9
At the same time as the research system is expected to accommodate to its public
sector operating environment and to show greater efficiency, there are new or growing
demands upon the social impacts of research. Overall there is a sense that society has
become more immune to external intervention, yet government is expected to be able
to provide a cure to a range of persistent problems such as structural unemployment,
regional inequalities as well as the growing threats of marginalisation and poverty.
Research is expected to provide a clearer picture of what exactly is happening in the
ongoing processes of change; it is expected to provide new solutions to the increasingly
diverse and complex problems and challenges in our society. Development projects
have only just got off the ground so it is too early to say whether the management by
results goals of productivity, efficiency, standardisation and harmonisation can be fitted
together with the requirements of interactivity, communicativity, flexibility and long-
term consistency that are necessary in the management of research.
During the 1990s more and more research at universities was funded from outside
sources. At government research institutes, too, funding from non-budget sources has
increased while core budget funding has decreased throughout the 1990s. More and
more often now, universities and government research institutes are faced with private
competition. In some situations the basic principles of transparency and democratic
regulation that govern all operations in the public sector, complicate and hamper the
transfer of knowledge and technology and the development of commercial applications.
The number of knowledge and technology transfer and intermediary organisations has
increased. At the same time there have been growing calls to give universities greater
autonomy from the state as independent legal and economic entities.
In order that universities can provide the best possible service to society, it is crucially
important that their responsibilities in education as well as in other service provision
are fitted together with their research duties. If the elements of flexibility, transparency
and predictability in universities’ current management and funding mechanisms
can be further improved and developed, then the core features of the state system
may well prove to be a useful counterbalance. In this way it should be possible to
protect basic research and its resources against short-sighted applications and impacts
requirements. Government research institutes working under ministries have long since
had to accommodate to such requirements, and that is one reason why their operating
environment did not in the 1990s change to the same extent and as quickly as that of
universities.
Research as part of the national and international research system

In 2001 universities accounted for 15 per cent of Finnish R&D expenditure, while the
figure for government research institutes was around 10 per cent. Legal provisions
concerning universities as well as key policy documents (L 1052/1986 with subsequent
amendments, the Government Programme, the Science and Technology Policy
Council’s review of 2003) are committed to securing and developing budget allocations
for universities in the near future. Closer cooperation between universities and
government research institutes will pave the way to higher quality research and to
increased operational efficiency, and by the same token help them meet future resource
challenges.
10
Seen from the vantage-point of the research system, an important reference group for
Finnish research is the international science community. Individual researchers are of
course the main driving force behind the internationalisation of science and research,
but the general framework for internationalisation is provided by science funding
bodies and decision-makers. In the 1990s and early 2000s, researchers, funding bodies
and decision-makers have all invested in the internationalisation of the Finnish
research system. Finland is a member of several international science organisations.
The international operating environment opens up new opportunities, throws up new
challenges, presents incentives and needs for the further development of research:
for raising the quality standards of research, for reducing unnecessary overlap in the
production of new knowledge, for pooling resources and for other strategic allocation of
resources. The challenge for Finland is to consolidate a position in which it can compete
for talented researchers, projects and resources. A significant part of international
funding instruments (e.g. EU programmes) provide support mainly for applications-
oriented research.
Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research has increased. The direction and the
focus of this work is determined not only by science’s own internal diverse development
logic, but also by new emerging challenges in society and by the tools of science policy
(e.g. research and technology programmes). This has led among other things to the
growth of new multidisciplinary fields of research, to the crisis and reform of the basic
concepts, values and norms of research and often also to expanding social impacts
of research. In this interpretation, the state of the Finnish research system and the
operating environment of individual researchers have changed essentially during
the 1980s and 1990s, even though the situation varies widely across different fields of
research.
Research as part of the innovation system

Although the overall share of corporate funding for universities in Finland still remains
relatively modest, the share of external funding as a whole increased markedly during
the 1990s. The shifts and changes in university funding provide only a rather narrow
perspective on the relative significance of different operating environments (public
sector, research system, innovation system) in the day-to-day work of universities.
For example, on the basis of the Science and Technology Policy Council’s reviews the
links of the research system with the public sector and with the innovation system
have nonetheless been strengthened in the 1990s. Two main factors lie behind this
change. Research is considered a major driving force of technological, economic and
more generally social (e.g. regional) development. In addition, the ongoing processes
of globalisation, which highlight the role of international competition, business and
commerce based on high technology and the production and application of new
knowledge, further underscore the role of research in an entirely new way.
Innovation system thinking looks upon basic research as an integral part of the broader
socio-economic system and networks of dependency relations and in so doing directs
and determines the needs and expectations attached to research. Innovation system
thinking has increased interaction and cooperation among political actors. Through
funding bodies, it has also promoted collaboration among universities, research
11
institutes and business companies. Furthermore, cooperation among funding bodies
has also increased, and innovation system thinking has been a major underlying
influence in the development of so-called cluster programmes.
With the rise of innovation system thinking, the Science and Technology Policy Council
of Finland has assumed a prominent role in the coordination of science and technology
policy and at once in steering the operating environment of basic research in the
direction of the innovation system. In the 1990s innovation system thinking began
to place ever greater emphasis not only on national institutions, but also on regional
innovation systems and on the other hand on the national innovation system’s
international contacts. The new millennium has seen social innovations brought to the
fore, which among other things concern public services and practices in the workplace
that have a direct bearing on people’s welfare.
The operating environments of research (public sector, research system and innovation
system) share both certain features in common and have distinctive features of their
own. During the 1990s there has been growing convergence of these environments
with the adoption of a more holistic approach to policy steering. In particular, the
changes have been aimed at strengthening the technological and economic impacts of
research. They narrow down the differences between different operating environments
and may also blur important distinctive features of those environments. The research
system is more and more often seen as an integral part of the innovation system. From
this point of view some critical comments have been made both against the links of
research with public administration and against the ambitions shown by universities
for greater autonomy. If the different operating environments of research, their different
underlying values and tendencies of change are not recognised, and if there is no effort
to try to maintain those environments, then there is a real risk that the social and
cultural impact of universities as well as of the research carried out at universities will
be reduced.
12
Contents
2 Research funding
This chapter begins with an overview of trends in Finnish R&D expenditure and funding
sources in different sectors of performance from the late 1990s through to the beginning
of the 2000s.1 In addition, the structure of R&D expenditure and funding in Finland is
compared with international trends in development. The text covers the development
of R&D funding from two Finnish funding bodies, namely the Academy of Finland
and the National Technology Agency Tekes. Furthermore, there is an overview of R&D
expenditure and sources of funding at universities, university hospitals (combined with
university research) and polytechnics; here special attention is given to the ratio of
core budget funding to external funding. Finally, the chapter discusses the funding of
research at government research institutes.
2.1 R&D expenditure and sources of funding in Finland

In 2002, R&D expenditure in Finland as a proportion of GDP, or the country’s R&D
intensity was estimated at 3.5 per cent.2 The figure has grown throughout the 1990s
(1991: 2.0%) and in the early 2000s. (Tutkimus- ja kehittämistoiminta... 2002, 2003b.)
Finland’s R&D intensity is one of the highest in the world (Figure 2.1). Since the mid-
1990s, R&D expenditure has increased at an average annual rate of 13.5 per cent,
which in an international comparison is an extremely high rate. In the EU, the average
annual real growth of R&D expenditure during this same period has been no more than
3.4 per cent. (Third... 2003.) In 2002 the Barcelona European Council set the target that
by the year 2010, all EU countries should be spending three per cent of their GDP on
research and development and that two-thirds of all R&D investment should come from
the private sector (More... 2002). In 2000 the EU’s R&D intensity stood at 1.9 per cent,
and the business enterprise sector accounted for 56 per cent of total R&D expenditure
(Main… 2003). Finland has already met both these targets.
R&D investment by business enterprises has contributed significantly to the development

of the Finnish research and innovation system.3 In 2001 business enterprise R&D
expenditure represented 2.4 per cent of GDP, the second highest figure in the OECD
group after Sweden (3.3%). The corresponding figure for Japan was 2.3 per cent, for
the United States 2.1 per cent and for the EU 1.2 per cent. (Main... 2003.) In Japan,
Sweden and Finland business enterprises accounted for more than 70 per cent of R&D
funding in 2001, more than the average for the OECD countries (64%) and well above
the average for the EU countries (56%) (Figure 2.2). In the United States and Germany
(66%) funding by business enterprises was also above the OECD average.
Since the mid-1990s, Europe has begun to fall behind the United States in terms of the
development of R&D funding and expenditure. The reason why the US has continued
1
The latest comprehensive Statistics Finland figures for R&D expenditure and funding were available for 2001.
2
The GDP data used in calculating R&D intensity are based on Ministry of Finance forecasts.
3
In 2000 R&D expenditure as a proportion of Finland’s GDP would have been not 3.4 but 2.4 per cent had it not been
for Nokia’s input. In 2001 Nokia accounted for about one-third of the country’s total R&D expenditure, and for an
estimated 47 per cent of the R&D investment in the business enterprise sector. (Ali-Yrkkö and Hermans 2002.)
13
Figure 2.1. R&D expenditure as a proportion of GDP (%) in selected OECD countries
and the EU in 1990−2002.
Figure 2.2. Funding from different sources as a percentage share of R&D expenditure
in selected OECD countries and in the EU in 2001 (or latest year for which figures
available). The countries are rank-ordered according to the share of business funding.
14
to increase its lead lies in the moderate growth of R&D in the major EU countries.
Furthermore, business enterprise investment in R&D is at a comparatively low level in
Europe, and government support for R&D has grown only slowly. (Third... 2003.)
In Finland, government investment in R&D4 is one of the highest in the OECD countries:
in 2002 budget funding for research and development represented around one per cent
of GDP (see Main... 2003). In the 2003 budget a total of 1.4 billion euros is earmarked
for purposes of supporting research and development, which represents some 4.4 per
cent of total government expenditure excluding central government debt servicing. The
Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Social Affairs
and Health and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry together administer more than
90 per cent of central government R&D funding (Table 2.1). In 2003 more than one-
quarter or 28 per cent of the monies will be allocated to the National Technology Agency
Tekes and 13 per cent to the Academy of Finland. Universities will receive 27 per cent
in core budget funding, government research institutes some 17 per cent and university
hospitals three per cent of budget funds allocated to research and development.
Other research funding, which includes non-earmarked ministry allocations for R&D,
accounts for 12 per cent of government research funding.
Table 2.1. Government R&D funding by administrative branch in 1999, 2001 and 2003.
Administrative branch 1999a 2001a 2003a

€ million % € million % € million %
Ministry of Education 494.4 39 554.8 41 592.0 42
Universities 323.3 25 349.8 26 386.7 27
Academy of Finland 155.5 12 187.1 14 185.1 13
Government research institutes 5.7 0.4 5.9 0.4 6.6 0.5
Otherb 9.9 1 12.0 1 13.7 1
Ministry of Trade and Industry 490.5 38 494.0 37 487.9 34
National Technology Agency Tekes 411.2 32 400.1 30 399.3 28
Government research institutes 65.6 5 68.1 5 67.8 5
Otherb 13.7 1 25.8 2 20.8 1
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health 114.4 9 116.2 9 111.9 8
University hospitals 60.5 5 56.7 4 48.7 3
Otherb 9.4 1 9.3 1 12.7 1
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 75.3 6 81.6 6 90.9 6
Otherb 7.9 1 10.8 1 8.9 1
Other ministries and Prime Minister’s Office 101.0 8 104.6 8 134.1 9
Otherb 74.5 6 80.3 6 107.9 8
Total 1,275.6 100 1,351.2 100 1,416.7 100
a The data for 1999 include the budget proper plus supplementary budgets I and II, data for 2001 the budget proper plus
supplementary budgets I–III. The data for 2003 are based on the budget proposal.
b Includes other core budget funding for R&D by ministries and by ministries to government agencies.
Sources: Kolu 2000 & 2002, Statistics Finland 2003a.
4
Government investment in R&D refers to the Total Government Budget Appropriations or Outlays for R&D
(GBAORD).
15
The favourable trends in core budget funding for universities since the mid-1990s
have begun to slow down in the new millennium. On the other hand, core funding for
government research institutes has shown a more positive trend in the late 1990s and
early 2000s than in the mid-1990s. In particular, core funding for research institutes
under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has increased in the new millennium. In
real terms core funding for university hospitals has shown a tendency to decline from
the late 1990s to the beginning of the 2000s.
Development of R&D expenditure

In 2002 the business enterprise sector accounted for 71 per cent of the country’s total
R&D expenditure of 4.6 billion euros (Table 2.2). Business investment in R&D showed
strong growth in the latter half of the 1990s: R&D expenditure increased more than
one and a half times over from 1997 to 2001, when business enterprise expenditure in
research and development stood at 3.3 billion euros. In 2001 manufacturing accounted
for 79 per cent of business enterprise R&D investment. On average business enterprise
R&D expenditure has increased at an annual rate of 12 per cent from the late 1990s to
the early 2000s.
Table 2.2. R&D expenditure, real growth of expenditure (%) and average annual real
growth (%) in 1997−2001 by sector of performance.
Year Business enterprise Public sectora Higher educationb Total

€ billion % € billion % € billion % € billion %
1997 1.9 66 0.4 14 0.6 20 2.9 100
2001 3.3 71 0.5 11 0.8 18 4.6 100
2002c 3.4 71 0.5 11 0.9 19 4.9 100
Real growthd
56 11 31 (24e) 44
in 1997–2001
Average annual real growthd
12 3 7 10
in 1997–2001
a The public sector comprises government administrative branches, other public institutions and private non-profit insti-
tutions.
b The higher education sector comprises universities, university hospitals and polytechnics. The figures for 1997 do not
include polytechnics’ R&D expenditure, which in 2001 represented about five per cent (43.6 million euros) of the higher
education sector’s R&D expenditure.
c Statistics Finland’s estimate based on survey responses and other calculations.
d Expenditure deflated by the GDP market price index (2000 = 100; see Kansantalouden… 2003).
e Real growth excluding polytechnics.
Source: Statistics Finland 1999 & 2003b.
The higher education sector5 accounted for 18 per cent of Finnish R&D expenditure in
2001, the public sector for 11 per cent. R&D expenditure by the higher education sector
increased from 0.6 billion euros in 1997 to 0.8 billion euros in 2001, marking a real
increase of more than 30 per cent. In the higher education sector the average annual
rate of real growth from 1997 to 2001 was seven per cent. Universities and university
hospitals recorded a real increase of 24 per cent in their combined R&D expenditure
5
The higher education sector comprises universities, university hospitals and polytechnics: R&D expenditure for the
latter are not included in the 1997 statistics.
16
during the period under review. The figures for the rest of the public sector have grown
less rapidly: in real terms R&D investment increased by no more than 11 per cent from
0.4 to 0.5 billion euros. The average annual rate of real growth in 1997−2001 was three
per cent.
Table 2.3 provides an overview of R&D expenditure by organisation. Although

expenditure by universities and government administrative branches (which includes
R&D expenditure by government research institutes) showed real growth from 1997 to
2001, their share of total R&D investment in Finland declined as a result of the growing
contribution of business enterprises. In 2001 university hospitals accounted for two per
cent of R&D expenditure. The figures for polytechnics, private non-profit institutions
(such as the Finnish Cancer Registry and Folkhälsan) and other public institutions (such
as the Bank of Finland and social security funds) were less than one per cent.
Table 2.3. R&D expenditure by organisation in 1997 and 2001.
Organisations 1997 2001

€ million % € million %
Business enterprises 1,916.7 66 3,284.0 71
Universities 515.0 18 715.7 15
Admin branches (incl. government research institutes) 375.2 13 451.6 10
University hospitals 65.0 2 74.9 2
Polytechnics – – 43.6 0.9
Private non-profit institutions 13.5 0.5 29.6 0.6
Other public institutions* 19.9 1 19.7 0.4
Total 2,905.4 100 4,619.0 100
* E.g. Bank of Finland, the Finnish National Fund for Research and Development, and social security funds.
Source: Statistics Finland 1999 & 2003b.
Sources of R&D funding

Domestic business companies funded about 70 per cent of Finland’s total R&D
expenditure in 2001 (Figure 2.3). The share of public funding6 was less than 30 per
cent (1.26 billion euros). Table 2.4 describes the sources of R&D funding in Finland
by different sectors of performance in 2001. Public funding was primarily channelled
to the higher education sector (705.3 million euros) and to other organisations in the
public sector (369.4 million euros). The bulk of funding for business sector R&D came
from business companies’ own sources. The share of public funding (181.7 million
euros) was no more than six per cent of total business enterprise R&D expenditure. A
comparison of OECD countries shows that in 2001, government funding for business
sector R&D was markedly lower in Finland (3%7) than in OECD countries (8%) and EU
countries (8% in 2000) (Main... 2003).
6
Public funding comprises monies allocated to research from the State Budget as well as other public sources of
domestic funding (e.g. local governments, the Finnish National Fund for Research and Development, the Finnish
Work Environment Fund, Finnvera, and the Social Insurance Institution).
7
In the OECD comparison public loans are not counted as government funding, which is why in Figure 2.3 and Table
2.4 the percentage indicated for government administrative branches is greater than the figure given in the OECD
comparison.
17
Figure 2.3. Funding from different sources as a percentage share of R&D expenditure
in Finland by sector of performance in 2001.
Table 2.4. R&D expenditure by source of funding in different sectors of performance

in 2001.
Sources of funding
Expenditure Government Other Finnish Domestic Foreign Shares
total admin domestic companies fundsd fundinge total
branchesb public
sourcesc
Sectors
€ million % € million % € million % € million % € million % € million % %
of performance
Business enterprise 3,284.0 71 164.6 5 17.1 1 3,069.5 93 9.8 0.3 23.0 1 100
Public sectora 500.9 11 341.8 68 27.6 6 74.4 15 20.6 4 36.5 7 100
Higher education 834.1 18 677.3 81 28.0 3 55.9 7 17.6 2 55.4 7 100
Total 4,619.0 100 1,183.6 26 72.7 2 3,199.8 69 47.9 1 115.0 2 100
a Includes private non-profit institutions.
b Includes the Academy of Finland and the National Technology Agency Tekes.
c E.g. local governments, the Finnish National Fund for Research and Development, the Finnish Work Environment Fund,
Finnvera, and the Social Insurance Institution. The euro figures for the higher education sector also include universities’
own funds.
d The euro figures for the public sector also include private non-profit institutions’ own funding.
e EU funding from framework programmes and structural funds, foreign companies and funding, for example, from foreign
universities, central agencies and international organisations.
Source: Statistics Finland 2003b.
As well as doing their own research and development, domestic business companies
gave 74.4 million euros to support public sector research and development in 2001
(representing 15% of total public sector R&D expenditure) and 55.9 million euros to
support research and development in the higher education sector (representing 7% of
the sector’s R&D expenditure). Half of all foreign funding (55.4 million euros) went to
the higher education sector, with 65 per cent of these monies coming from EU sources.
In all, EU funding accounted for 1.5 per cent of Finnish R&D expenditure in 2001.
18
Contents
2.2 Funding organisations

During the 1990s, government R&D funding in Finland was increasingly channelled
through dedicated funding organisations, the thinking being that competitive
funding has a positive impact on the quality of research. Funding administered by the
National Technology Agency Tekes and the Academy of Finland increased sharply in
the late 1990s as a result of the government’s additional funding programme. Since
that programme in 1997−1999, government budget funding through the National
Technology Agency has decreased in real terms. Budget funding through the Academy
of Finland has also declined in real terms in 2002 and 2003.
2.2.1 Academy of Finland research funding

The Academy of Finland is an expert organisation dedicated to promoting scientific
research by means of long-term research funding based on quality criteria. The
Academy grants research funding most particularly to fields of research that are
internationally competitive and to fields that with the extra injection can be expected
to make an international breakthrough, or that have a key role to play in building
up national knowledge resources. The Academy can also take special measures to
support fields of research that have national importance but that are still in the process
of developing their own research culture or that are lagging behind international
development. In order to guarantee sustained funding over longer periods of time,
the Academy is phasing in a cycle of mainly four-year funding decisions. At the same
time Academy funding for research programmes and centres of excellence in research
programmes will be so spread out that annual fluctuations especially in amounts of
non-earmarked funding can be ironed out. As from the beginning of 2001, all Academy
funding decisions for research projects and research posts have included a 12.5 per cent
overheads share.
In Table 2.5 Academy research funding is divided into five main categories. In
1998−2002, funding for research projects has represented the biggest single category
of Academy funding. In 2002 the Academy’s total research funding amounted to 176.5
million euros: 30 per cent of that went to research projects, eight per cent to cover the
research costs of Academy Professors and Academy Research Fellows and one per cent
to cover the research costs of Senior Scientists. Other funding accounted for two per cent.
Research programmes and the centres of excellence programme together represented
29 per cent. Programme funding is one example of the increased cooperation between
the Academy of Finland, the National Technology Agency and other funding bodies,
both nationally and internationally (see also chapter 4.2.).
In 2002 researcher training accounted for 13 per cent of the value of Academy funding
decisions, research posts (Academy Research Fellows and Academy Professors) for nine
per cent. The annual fluctuations in the figures for research posts are explained by the
corresponding fluctuation in the number of research posts. Funding that comes under
the general heading of international cooperation (researcher exchange to Finland,
researcher exchange to foreign countries, foreign researchers working in Finland and
membership fees to international research organisations) accounted for eight per cent.
In addition, the Academy of Finland supports international cooperation through its
19
Table 2.5. Academy of Finland research funding decisions by type of funding in 1998,
2000 and 2002.
Type of funding 1998 2000 2002

€ milliona % € milliona % € milliona %
Research projects and other support 56.7 41 68.0 43 70.6 41
Programmes 29.5 21 30.8 20 52.1 29
Research programmes 26.5 19 30.8 20 21.8 12
Centre of excellence programmesb 3.0 2 – – 30.3 17
Researcher training 16.5 12 16.8 11 23.7 13

Research posts 19.6 14 23.7 15 15.8 9
International cooperationc 16.6 12 17.0 11 14.3 8
Total 138.9 100 156.4 100 176.5 100
a The euro figures indicated for each year are annual funding authorities the cost effects of which extend beyond the year
when the original funding decision was made.
b Funding decisions for centres of excellence in research are not made every year.
c Includes membership fees to international research organisations.
Source: Academy of Finland Annual Operating Review 2002.
project and programme funding (see also chapter 4.3.1). The Academy’s international
strategy (2002) underlines the agency’s commitment to further developing its funding
instruments that will support active international cooperation and networking among
researchers.
In 2002 the Academy used the bulk of its research funding (46%) to support research
in the natural sciences8 (Figure 2.4). The natural sciences have accounted for a
growing proportion of the total value of Academy research funding since the late
1990s. In 1999, research in the natural sciences accounted for 37 per cent of total
Academy research funding. At the same time the amount of funding allocated to
Figure 2.4. Breakdown of Academy of Finland research funding decisions by major

fields of science (million euros and %) in 2002.
8
This examination is based on the six major fields of science used by the OECD. The category of natural sciences
comprises the exact natural sciences, biosciences and environmental sciences: therefore research in the natural
sciences (as defined by the OECD) gets support from more than one of the Academy’s Research Councils.
20
Contents
engineering and technology has dropped from 18 per cent in 1999 to nine per cent in
2002. This trend is explained among other things by the development of disciplines
supporting the information industry: the emphasis in funding has shifted from
electronics to computer science, which is classified under the category of natural
sciences. Funding decisions for research programmes also go some way towards
explaining the changes in the relative shares of different fields of science. Funding for
research in medical sciences has been in the region of 16−19 per cent, for research in
the social sciences 13−16 per cent and for research in the humanities 10−12 per cent
in 1998−2002. Research in agricultural sciences has accounted for 2−4 per cent of the
Academy’s research funding decisions.
2.2.2 Technology funding from the National Technology Agency

Technology funding from the National Technology Agency Tekes is aimed at
encouraging business companies, universities and research institutes to step up their
research and development effort and to take manageable risks. Public technology
funding is crucial to the development and application of new knowledge and new
technology. In addition, the availability of public technology funding helps to raise
the ambition level and quality of research projects, support their implementation and
cooperation, and spread out the technological, business and funding risks involved.
The National Technology Agency allocates part of its funding on a demand basis to
all technology and industry branches. Part of the funding goes to technologies that are
most crucial to the national economy and society. (The Tekes Strategy… 2003.)
In 2002 the Agency’s technology funding amounted to 381 million euros. One-third of the
total or 32 per cent (122 million euros) went to ICT projects; 27 per cent to biotechnology
and chemical technology; 19 per cent to product and production technology; and 18
per cent to energy, environmental and construction technology projects. Space activities
accounted for four per cent. The only category that has increased its share since the
turn of the millennium is information and communication technology: the amount of
funding granted to ICT projects increased in nominal terms by 21 million euros from
2000 to 2002. Funding for energy, environmental and construction technology declined
most in nominal terms, by a total of seven million euros during the same period. (Tekes
Annual… 2001, Tekes funding… 2003a, 2003b.)
Technology funding from the National Technology Agency is provided in the form of
research and product development funding for business companies (62% in 2002) and
funding for public research at universities, polytechnics and research institutes (38%).
The shares of these two categories of funding have remained effectively unchanged
in 1998−2002 (Table 2.6). The Agency’s technology funding is an important tool of
networking that helps to bring together business companies and public research
organisations: business cooperation has a key role to play in public research projects
funded by the National Technology Agency. In addition, businesses that are awarded
Tekes funding commission research from universities, polytechnics and research
institutes.
Tekes funding for business companies (237 million euros in 2002) includes industrial
R&D grants, industrial R&D loans and capital loans for R&D to companies. In
21
Contents
Table 2.6. Tekes technology funding decisions in 1998, 2000 and 2002.
Tekes funding 1998 2000 2002

€ € €
% % %
million* million* million*
Industrial R&D grants for companies 146 40 154 41 157 41
Research funding for universities, polytechnics and research institutes 140 39 140 38 144 38
Industrial R&D loans for companies 45 13 45 12 46 12
Capital loans for R&D to companies 30 8 34 9 34 9
Total 361 100 373 100 381 100
* Volume of funding decisions indicated in the value of the respective year.
Source: Tekes Annual Review 2002.
1998−2002, about 40 per cent of Tekes technology funding has been awarded as
industrial R&D grants. In volume terms, industrial R&D grants represent the biggest
category of Tekes funding. Industrial R&D loans and capital loans have together
accounted for around 20 per cent of the Agency’s technology funding during the
period under review. Tekes is particularly keen to support research and product
development in small and medium-sized enterprises. In 1998, 45 per cent of Tekes
business funding went to SMEs, in 2002 the figure was 50 per cent. When monies
channelled to SMEs through Tekes-supported major corporations are included, the
figure for 2002 is 56 per cent. Tekes also seeks to encourage new businesses to get
involved in research and product development. In 1998−2002, new customers have
accounted for 36−42 per cent of the total number of businesses being awarded Tekes
support. In a regional analysis 42 per cent of Tekes business funding went to the
southernmost province of Uusimaa in 2002.
In 2002 Tekes awarded 144 million euros (38% of its technology funding) to support
public research at universities, polytechnics and research institutes. In 1998−2002,
21−25 per cent of Tekes technology funding went to universities and polytechnics
(for research institutes, see chapter 2.4). The Helsinki University of Technology, the
Tampere University of Technology, the University of Helsinki and the University of
Oulu have been among the main recipients of funding from the National Technology
Agency.
2.2.3 Other funding bodies

The Finnish National Fund for Research and Development (Sitra) provides funding for
applied research that is concerned with the future challenges presented to society from
a business and industry perspective (Social... 2003). In 2002 Sitra granted a total of 2.5
million euros to support research, representing around five per cent of the total volume
of its funding decisions (48 million euros) (Sitra… 2003).
Grants from foundations are an important source of funding for doctoral students,
for instance. In 2002, the 51 major foundations and associations represented by the
Finnish Cultural Foundation’s Advisory Board awarded grants worth a total of some
85.5 million euros to support scientific research and the arts in Finland (Säätiöiden…
2003).
22
Contents
2.3 Higher education sector
2.3.1 Universities and university hospitals

In real terms the total combined research expenditure of universities and university
hospitals (hereinafter “university research”) increased by almost one-quarter from 1997
to 2001, when the figure stood at 790.6 million euros. Almost 80 per cent of this increase
was attributable to research expenditure covered from outside sources9. In 2001 over
half (55%) of university research expenditure was funded from outside sources. In 1997
the share of external funding was one-half of total university research expenditure.10
External R&D funding by sources of funding

The most significant source of external funding for university research in 2001 was the
Academy of Finland, which accounted for about 26 per cent of the total (Table 2.7). The
National Technology Agency Tekes accounted for about 18 per cent. Measured in terms of
funding volume, university research expenditure funded by Tekes and the Academy of
Finland increased in real terms by almost the same amount from 1997 to 2001 (Tekes
35.2 million euros, Academy 34.6 million euros). Compared to the 1997 level, however,
R&D expenditure funded by Tekes increased in real terms by about 82 per cent, while the
corresponding increase for the Academy was 47 per cent. In other words, R&D expenditure
funded by Tekes increased in relative terms more rapidly than expenditure covered from
Academy sources, strengthening Tekes’ role as a source of funding for university research.
In 2001 ministries (excluding the Academy of Finland and Tekes) covered 24 per cent
of the research expenditure funded from outside sources (107.1 million euros); in 1997
the figure was 32 per cent. In 2001 about half of the support from ministries consisted
of so-called EVO grants from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, which are paid
out to university hospitals by way of compensation for the research done by university
hospital staff. Other public funding for university research showed strong real growth
from 1997 to 2001, although it accounted for no more than four per cent of the research
expenditure covered from outside sources in 2001.
In 2001 business companies spent 61.6 million euros in support of university research,
which represented about eight per cent of the total research expenditure by universities
and university hospitals. Private business accounted for 14 per cent of the total volume
of external funding made available to university research. Most of the corporate funding
came from domestic companies, whose funding for university research increased in
real terms by 17.3 million euros from 1997 to 2001. The real increase in domestic and
foreign corporate funding was about 55 per cent. In relative terms funding from foreign
companies increased more than funding from domestic companies.
9
University research expenditure covered from core budget sources refers to those categories of research expenditure
that are funded from university appropriations in the State Budget; external research funding refers to all other
sources of funding. Although funding granted to universities by administrative branches (including funding
from the Academy of Finland and the National Technology Agency) is part of the government’s budget resources,
it is considered as a form of external funding. (For more on the definition of external university funding, see
Ulkopuolinen... 2002. For further details on the principles applied by Statistics Finland in compiling R&D statistics
and on the definitions of concepts, see Tutkimus- ja kehittämistoiminta... 2003b.)
10
In 2001 outside sources accounted for 51 per cent of the universities’ research expenditure, in 1991 for 31 per cent
(including investments in buildings).
23
Table 2.7. External funding for research by universities and university hospitals and
real growth of external funding (%) from 1997 to 2001 by source of funding.
Sources of funding 1997 2001 Real growtha %

€ million % € million % 1997–2001
Academy of Finland 69.2 24 112.0 26 47
Ministriesb 91.1 32 107.1 24 7
National Technology Agency Tekes 40.4 14 81.0 18 82
Finnish companies 30.3 10 51.3 12 54
EU fundingc 20.9 7 26.5 6 15
Domestic fundsd 7.3 3 17.0 4 110
Local governments and other public fundinge 8.6 3 16.0 4 70
Foreign companies 5.9 2 10.3 2 58
Other foreign fundingf 6.9 2 8.8 2 16
Universities’ own fundsg 8.3 3 7.8 2 –15
External funding total 289.0 100 437.8 100 38
Core budget funding 291.0 352.7 10
Research expenditure total 580.0 790.6 24
a Deflated by the GDP market price index (2000 = 100).
b Excluding the Academy of Finland and the National Technology Agency Tekes.
c EU funding from framework programmes and structural funds.
d Including foundations, organisations, associations and private citizens.
e E.g. the Finnish National Fund for Research and Development, the Finnish Work Environment Fund, Finnvera, and the
Social Insurance Institution.
f E.g. foreign universities, central agencies and international organisations.
g Including funding from universities’ own foundations.
Source: Statistics Finland 1999 & 2003c.
Financing for university research from domestic funds more than doubled from 1997 to
2001, when it accounted for about four per cent of total external funding.11
In 2001, one-tenth of the external funding made available to university research came
from foreign sources. Funding from EU sources represented 58 per cent of all foreign
funding. The volume of EU funding increased in real terms by around 15 per cent or 3.4
million euros from 1997 to 2001.
University research expenditure by major fields of science

Table 2.8 describes the breakdown of total university research expenditure by major
field of science as well as the allocation of core budget funding and external funding
to different disciplines in 2001. In Finland most support went to research in the natural
sciences, medical sciences, engineering and technology, and the social sciences. Core
funding was more evenly distributed between different fields of science than external
funding. The bulk of external funding was channelled into research in medical sciences
as well as in the natural sciences: both categories represented around 30 per cent of the
total volume of external funding to universities and university hospitals.
11
R&D statistics do not cover all grants and allocations from funds and foundations, but only those that are paid
through university books of account.
24
Table 2.8. Total research expenditure, core budget funding and external funding for
research at universities and university hospitals by major field of science in 2001.
Major field of science Research expenditure Core budget funding External funding
€ million % € million % € million %
Natural sciences 226.9 29 100.0 28 126.9 29
Engineering and technology 147.1 19 56.9 16 90.2 21
Medical sciences 196.8 25 66.1 19 130.7 30
Agricultural sciences 14.2 2 6.2 2 8.1 2
Social sciences 137.0 17 78.4 22 58.6 13
Humanities 68.4 9 45.1 13 23.4 5
Total 790.6 100 352.7 100 437.8 100
Source: Statistics Finland 2003c.
With the exception of the social sciences (43%) and the humanities (34%), well over half of
all research expenditure was covered from outside sources in all major fields of science in
2001. The share of external funding was greatest (66%) for research in medical sciences.
Figure 2.5 describes the relative development of research expenditure and the research
funding structure from 1997 to 2001 in different fields of science. In real terms both
total research expenditure and research funding from core budget sources increased
most in the natural sciences and engineering and technology. With the exception of
agricultural sciences, the real change in external funding was far greater than the real
change in core budget funding in all fields of science. In relative terms external funding
increased most in the humanities and natural sciences, where in real terms funding
from outside sources increased more than a one and a half times over.
Figure 2.5. Real growth (%) of total research expenditure, core budget funding and
external funding for research at universities and university hospitals from 1997 to 2001
by major field of science.
25
Contents
2.3.2 Polytechnics
The applied research and development effort at Finnish polytechnics is geared to
supporting teaching at polytechnics, the needs of working life and regional development.
In 2001, R&D expenditure by polytechnics represented about five per cent (43.6 million
euros) of the higher education sector’s total R&D expenditure. The figures have shown
relatively strong real growth in recent years. Total research expenditure by polytechnics
increased almost one and a half times over from 199912 to 2001, while the real growth
recorded for university research at the same time was no more than 0.6 per cent. By
major fields of science, engineering and technology and the social sciences clearly stand
apart from other fields, accounting for about 80 per cent of total R&D expenditure by
polytechnics. In 2001, engineering and technology accounted for 46 per cent of core
budget funding, and for 51 per cent of external funding. The corresponding figures for
the social sciences were 34 and 27 per cent.
External funding for R&D at polytechnics showed a real increase of 51 per cent and core
budget funding an increase of 44 per cent from 1999 to 2001. In 2001, external funding
for R&D at polytechnics amounted to 32.4 million euros (74%). The share of funding
from outside sources was markedly higher than in university research (i.e. universities
and university hospitals), where 55 per cent of total research expenditure in 2001 was
covered from outside sources. Excluding the contributions of the National Technology
Agency Tekes and the Academy of Finland, public sources accounted for 44 per cent of
the external funding of R&D at polytechnics. Tekes covered around ten per cent of the
all R&D expenditure covered from outside sources, domestic companies 14 per cent. The
share of EU funding was 30 per cent.
2.4 Government research institutes

Total research spending by government research institutes increased in real terms by
about eight per cent from 1998 to 2002, when the figure stood at 447.3 million euros13.
Government research institutes, too, have seen an increase in the proportion of external
funding. Core budget funding for research14 decreased in real terms by one per cent,
while external funding increased in real terms by 20 per cent from 1998 to 2002. In
1998, 43 per cent of the government research institutes’ R&D expenditure was covered
from outside sources, while the corresponding figure in 2002 was 48 per cent. In 2002,
government research institutes expected to receive 33 million euros or 16 per cent of
their external research funding from the European Union. The estimate for EU funding
in 2003 is 41 million euros: that would mean the amount of EU monies available for
research institutes has more than doubled since 2000.
12
Statistics Finland’s R&D statistics have covered R&D expenditure by polytechnics since 1999. Calculations of real
growth deflated by the GDP market price index (2000 = 100).
13
The analysis of research expenditure and the funding of research expenditure in the higher education sector
(chapter 2.3) is based upon Statistics Finland R&D statistics. Funding for research at government research institutes
is described on the basis of figures published in reports compiled based upon the State Budget. The R&D statistics
and the figures from these budget analyses are not directly comparable. Figures for the volume of external funding
for individual government research institutes are target estimates.
14
Core funding for 1998 includes Ministry of Finance real estate investments. Calculations of real growth deflated by
the GDP market price index (2000 = 100).
26
Government research institutes’ structure of R&D funding varies widely case by case.
The Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT continues to account for a significant
proportion of the combined external funding for government research institutes, even
though its share has declined from 79 per cent in 1998 to 70 per cent in 2003. External
research funding has also increased at other research institutes. In 2003 more than 70
per cent of R&D at VTT is funded from outside sources (Table 2.9). Likewise, over half of
the R&D funding at the Finnish Environment Institute comes from outside sources. At
the Research Institute for the Languages of Finland, the share of external funding is no
more than seven per cent.
Table 2.9. Total R&D funding for government research institutes and percentage
share of external funding in 2003. The institutes are rank-ordered according to the
share of external funding.
Government Research Institutesa Funding total Percentage share of

€ million external fundingj
Technical Research Centre of Finland VTTb 216.1 73
Finnish Environment Institutec 18.5 51
Regional Environment Centresc 5.7 45
National Public Health Instituted 27.3 38
Finnish Institute of Occupational Healthd 21.4 36
Agrifood Research Finlande 46.4 35
Consumer Research Centreb 2.6 33
Finnish Meteorological Institutef 9.8 32
National Research and Development Centre
17.9 24
for Welfare and Healthd
Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institutee 11.9 23
Government Institute for Economic Researchg 4.7 21
Finnish Geodetic Institutee 3.8 21
National Board of Antiquitiesh 2.5 17
Finnish Institute of Marine Researchf 4.2 16
National Research Institute of Legal Policyi 1.2 14
Geological Survey of Finlandb 8.5 14
Veterinary Medicine and Food Standards Research Institutee 4.7 14
Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authorityd 6.8 11
Finnish Forest Research Institutee 39.7 10
Research Institute for the Languages of Finlandi 4.9 7
Total 458.5 49
a Host ministry indicated by superscript as follows:
b Ministry of Trade and Industry
c Ministry of the Environment
d Ministry of Social Affairs and Health
e Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
f Ministry of Transport and Communications
g Ministry of Finance
h Ministry of Education
i Ministry of Justice.
j Target estimate including expenditure of budgeted projects as well as projected other external funding.
Source: Statistics Finland 2003a.
27
In 1998−2002 research institutes have received from six to eight per cent of Academy of
Finland research funding. In 2002 the Academy granted to research institutes a total of
10.7 million euros in research funding. In the 2000s especially the National Public Health
Institute, the Finnish Forest Research Institute, the Finnish Meteorological Institute and
the Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT have fared well in the competition for
funding. In 1998−2002 Tekes has awarded 10–12 per cent of its technology funding to
projects at research institutes. The majority of Tekes funding to research institutes (87%
or 34 million euros in 2002) has been awarded to VTT.
28
Contents
References
Academy of Finland Annual Operating Review 1999 (2000). Academy of Finland, Helsinki.
Academy of Finland Annual Operating Review 2002 (2003). Academy of Finland, Helsinki.
Academy of Finland International Strategy (2002). Publications of the Academy of Finland

6/02.
Ali-Yrkkö, Jyrki ja Raine Hermans (2002). Nokia Suomen innovaatiojärjestelmässä.

ETLA (Elinkeinoelämän Tutkimuslaitos, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy),
Keskusteluaiheita no. 799.
FoU-statistikk og indikatorer. Forskning og utviklingsarbeid. Norge 2003 (2003). NIFU, Oslo.
Kansantalouden tilinpito 1995–2001. Uudistetut taulukot (2003). Statistics Finland,

National Accounts 2003: 2.
Kolu, Timo (1998). Tutkimus- ja kehittämisrahoitus valtion talousarviossa vuonna

1998. Suomen Akatemian julkaisuja 4/98.



Main Science and Technology Indicators 2002/2. Database (2002). OECD, Paris.
Main Science and Technology Indicators 2003/1 (2003). OECD, Paris.
More Research for Europe. Towards 3% of GDP (2002). Communication from the
Commission. Commission of the European Communities document COM (2002) 499 final.
<http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2002/com2002_0499en01.pdf>.
Sitra (Finnish National Fund for Research and Development) Annual Report 2002 (2003).
Sitra, Helsinki.
Social Factors of Change in the Balance of Research (2003). Sitra, Helsinki. 18.11.2003.
<http://www.sitra.fi/eng/index.asp?MM=1&DirID=51>.
Säätiöiden ja rahastojen neuvottelukunta (2003). Säätiöpalvelu, Helsinki. 17.11.2003.

<http://www.skr.fi/spalvelu/neuvottelukunta.html>.
Tekes Annual Review 2000 (2001). Tekes, Helsinki.
29
Tekes Annual Review 2002 (2003). Tekes, Helsinki.
Tekes funding statistics 2001 (2003a). Tekes, Helsinki. 22.10.2003. <http://www.tekes.fi/

eng/tekes/rd/statistic01.html>.
Tekes funding statistics in 2002 (2003b). Tekes, Helsinki. 22.10.2003. <http://www.tekes.fi/

eng/tekes/rd/statistic02.html>.
The Tekes strategy. Technology creates future well-being (2003). Tekes, Helsinki. <http://
www.tekes.fi/eng/publications/Tekes_Strategy_eng.pdf>.
Tekes vuosikertomus 2002 (2003). Tekes, Helsinki.
Third European Report on Science & Technology Indicators 2003. Towards a Knowledge-based
Economy (2003). European Commission, Brussels.
Tutkimus- ja kehittämisrahoitus valtion talousarviossa vuonna 2003 (2003a). Statistics

Finland, Science, Technology and Research 2003: 1.
Tutkimus- ja kehittämistoiminta 1991 (1993). Statistics Finland, Science and Technology

1993: 1.
Tutkimus- ja kehittämistoiminta 1997. Taulukot (1999). Statistics Finland, Science and

Technology 1999: 1.
Tutkimus- ja kehittämistoiminta 1999 (2001). Statistics Finland, Science, Technology and

Research 2000: 3.

Research 2001: 4.
Tutkimus- ja kehittämistoiminta 2001 (2003b). Statistics Finland, Science, Technology and

Research 2002: 3.
Ulkopuolinen rahoitus yliopistojen tulosohjauksen näkökulmasta, esimerkkinä

Jyväskylän yliopisto (2002). Valtiontalouden tarkastusvirasto, Tarkastuskertomus 25/2002.
Vuosikatsaus 2002 (2003). Tekes, Helsinki. 20.11.2003. <http://www.tekes.fi/tekes/

vuosikatsaus02.html>.
Yliopistojen ja yliopistollisten sairaaloiden tutkimus- ja kehittämistoiminta vuonna

2001. Tutkimustoiminnan menot rahoituslähteen mukaan tieteenaloittain (2003c).
Statistics Finland, Helsinki. (unpublished statistics)
30
Contents
3 The human resources of research

This chapter provides an overview of personnel engaged in research and development
(R&D) in Finland as well as their placement, employment and mobility, with special
reference to the research career and the researcher’s profession1.
3.1 Research personnel
3.1.1 International comparison

Finland and Sweden are among the EU’s most active member states in terms of
investment in human resources in R&D and research funding (Human resources...
2002). A recent comparison by the EC shows that in 1995−1999, the total number of
research-years increased most in Greece (53%) and in Finland (51%) (Third... 2003). The
average increase for all EU Member States was 12 per cent. Finland recorded the highest
number of research-years2 as a proportion of the total employed population. In 1999
the number of research-years per 1,000 employed persons in Finland was 9.6; in Sweden
the figure was 9.1, while the average for all EU countries was 5.4. The figure for Japan
was 9.7 and for the United States 8.7. It is noteworthy that although the number of
research-years in Finland has been high, it has still continued to show strong growth.
In 1999 the private business sector accounted for half of all research-years worked in
the EU countries. The university sector accounted for one-third, the rest of the public
sector for less than 15 per cent. In Finland, the business sector accounted for 42 per cent,
the university sector for 41 per cent and the rest of the public sector for 16 per cent of
all research-years. In 1999 the number of research-years as a proportion of all person-
years worked by R&D personnel3 in the Finnish business sector was 38 per cent, in the
university sector 70 per cent and in the rest of the public sector 55 per cent. The average
for EU countries in the university sector was 65 per cent and in the rest of the public
sector and in private companies about one-half. (Third... 2003.)
According to OECD statistics the level of education in OECD countries is continuing to

rise even though investment in higher education increased more slowly than GDP in
the latter half of the 1990s. The sharp rise in the educational level has coincided with
an increase in the number of researchers in virtually all OECD countries, particularly
in the private sector. In 2000, the number of new graduates with a researcher training
(science and engineering) per one thousand population aged 25−34 in Sweden was 1.2
and in Finland 1.0, with the EU average standing at 0.6 (Third... 2003).
OECD comparisons suggest that Finland’s main strengths lie in the country’s high
level of education, its strong education system and positive public opinion towards
education. The main challenges for the future, in the assessment of the Science and
1
See also chapter 9 (Hannele Kurki: Gender in the research system).
2
Includes categories ISCO-2: Research Professionals and ISCO-1237: R&D Department Managers (Frascati Manual.
Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development 2002. OECD).
3
Includes categories ISCO-2: Research Professionals, ISCO-1237: R&D Department Managers and ISCO-3: Technicians
and Associate Professionals (Frascati manual... 2002).
31
Contents
Technology Policy Council of Finland (Knowledge, Innovation... 2003), include raising

the level of education and preventing exclusion by encouraging age cohorts in their
entirety to complete a secondary level degree. It is at this level that young people
make the most critical choices with regard to their further studies and professional
career.
4
3.1.2 Placement in different sectors
Around two per cent of the active workforce (person-years) in Finland are engaged in
research and development; this is more than anywhere else in the OECD. In 2001,
almost 70,000 people worked in research and development, with the number of person-
years totalling more than 50,000 (Table 3.1). From 1997 through to 2001, the number
of personnel increased by 26 per cent and the number of person-years by 30 per cent.
Women have accounted for just over 30 per cent of R&D personnel. In 2001, 31 per cent
of the research personnel were engaged in the higher education sector, 15 per cent in
public sector positions and 54 per cent in the business enterprise sector.
Table 3.1. R&D personnel and person-years by sector in 1997, 1999 and 2001.
% change % change
1997 % 1999 % 2001 %
1997–2001 1999–2001
Higher education sector
Number of personnel 16,685 30 20,036 30 21,517 31 29 7
Person-years 11,762 14,840 15,596 33 5
Public sector*
Number of personnel 9,666 17 10,523 16 10,300 15 7 –2
Person-years 7,099 7,946 7,738 9 –3
Business enterprise sector
Person-years 22,302 27,818 30,090 35 8
Total
Person-years 41,163 50,604 53,424 30 6
* incl. private non-profit institutions.
Source: Statistics Finland 1999, 2000 & 2003.
In 2001 about half of the R&D personnel had a university degree, marking an increase
of 23 per cent on the figure for 1997. The number of PhDs as a proportion of research
personnel has remained more or less unchanged at just over 10 per cent. In 2001 less
than one-third or 30 per cent of PhDs were women (Figure 3.1). More than two-thirds
or 68 per cent of PhDs were engaged in the higher education sector, primarily in
universities. Less than one-fifth, 18 per cent were engaged in other public sector jobs.
Only 14 per cent of PhDs worked in the private sector.
4
1) Higher education sector: universities, university hospitals, and polytechnics (since 1999); 2) Public sector:
government administrative branches, other public institutions, private non-profit institutions; 3) Business enterprise
sector: industrial manufacturing and other industries.
32
Figure 3.1. R&D personnel by education and gender in 2001.
In the higher education sector the number of research personnel has increased from 1997
to 2001 by 29 per cent. PhDs accounted for 23 per cent of research personnel, Licentiates
for eight per cent, while 36 per cent had some other university degree in 2001. Natural
sciences accounted for the largest number of research-years in 2001, representing 30 per
cent of the total; within this category biology and environmental sciences accounted
for one-third of the total (Table 3.2). Electrical engineering accounted for one-third
of the 22 per cent share of engineering and technological sciences. Medical sciences
accounted for 19 per cent of all research-years, social sciences for 18 per cent and the
humanities for eight per cent. Agricultural sciences represented no more than two per
cent of the total number of research-years. The number of research-years funded from
outside sources showed the strongest growth in the humanities, social sciences and in
agricultural sciences.
Table 3.2. Breakdown of person-years in the university sector by major fields of

science in 1997 and 2001.
Major field of science 1997 Share 2001 Share % change % change

Person- of external Person- of external in person- in external
years funding years funding years funding
Natural sciences 3,352 2,001 4,731 3,088 41 60 → 65
of which biology and environmental sciences 1,151 662 1,543 1,008 34 58 → 65
Engineering and technology 2,288 1,636 3,503 2,559 53 72 → 73

of which electrical engineering 617 434 1,108 820 80 70 → 74
Medical sciences 2,573 1,613 3,009 1,938 17 63 → 64

Agricultural sciences 274 187 342 256 25 68 → 75
Social sciences 2,244 1,239 2,829 1,765 26 55 → 62
Humanities 1,031 459 1,182 643 15 45 → 54
Higher education sector total 11,762 7,135 15,596 10,249 33 61 → 66
Source: Statistics Finland 1999 & 2003.
33
In 2001 the number of research personnel in the public sector was 10,300, marking an
increase of seven per cent on 1997. The proportion of PhDs was 13 per cent, Licentiates
accounted for six per cent and those with some other university degree 37 per cent.
The administrative branches with the largest number of research personnel were those
under the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. These are all branches that have major
government research institutes. In relative terms the proportion of PhDs was highest,
at one-fifth of research personnel, in the administrative branches under the Ministry of
Education and the Ministry of Transport and Communications.
In the business enterprise sector the number of research personnel in 2001 stood at
37,971 (Table 3.3), of whom more than 22 per cent were women. The number of
research personnel has increased by 30 per cent since 1997, with hardly any change
in the proportion of women. In 2001 the proportion of PhDs was close on three per
cent, that of Licentiates two per cent and that of personnel with some other university
degree 35 per cent. In 1997 the number of business enterprise sector research
personnel engaged in industry stood at 22,094 (women 20%) and in 2001 at 27,592
(women 23%).
Table 3.3. Business enterprise sector R&D personnel by industry in 1997 and 2001.
Industry 1997 2001 % change

Manufacturing total 22,094 27,592 25
Food industry 765 858 12
Textile, clothing, leather and footwear industries 219 216 –1
Wood processing industry 1,222 1,217 0
Chemical industry 3,176 3,430 8
Metal and mechanical industry 4,581 5,104 11
Electronics industry 11,455 16,073 40
Other manufacturing 677 694 3
Electricity, gas and water supply 539 306 –43
Construction 445 648 46
Wholesale and retail trade 596 743 25
Transport, storage and communication 1,120 1,563 40
Computer and related activities 1,147 3,790 230
Research and development 1,256 1,239 –1
Other business activities 1,445 1,842 27
Other industries 405 247 –39
Business enterprises total 29,139 37,971 30
In 2001 the electrotechnics industry had a research staff of 16,073, representing 42

per cent of the total business enterprise sector research staff and 58 per cent of the
research staff in industrial manufacturing companies. The personnel number in
the electrotechnics industry increased by 40 per cent from 1997 to 2001. The second
highest personnel number was recorded for computer and related activities, where
research staff numbers increased by as much as 230 per cent from 1997 to 2001.
Research staff (3,790 in 2001) accounted for 10 per cent of all business sector research
personnel.
34
Contents
3.1.3 Employment
With the jobless rate persistently at around the 10 per cent mark, unemployment remains
a major obstacle to socio-economic development in Finland. However people with a
higher university degree have had little difficulty finding employment. In 2000, the
unemployment rate in this category was no more than 3.6 per cent (Figure 3.2). Among
PhDs, the unemployment rate in 2000 was 1.5 per cent. In engineering and technology
as well as in medical sciences, the unemployment rate among PhDs was just 0.6 per cent.
In the humanities, 3.7 per cent of PhDs were out of work in 2000. (Husso 2002.)
Figure 3.2. Unemployment rate (%) by level of education in 1988−2000.
According to an inquiry5 conducted at year-end 2002 among more than one thousand
public sector organisations and private corporations, PhD graduates were in demand
most particularly in ministries, in the public administration sector, in government
agencies and in the administration of university cities. Half of the respondents
representing these organisations said they would be needing to recruit one or more
PhDs. At government research institutes one in three would have hired PhDs, at
research and product development units in major corporations one in four. Half of
the major corporations (total 100) included in the survey did not have a single PhD in
research and product development positions. It was expected that the demand for PhDs
would be increased in five years’ time. Most of the PhDs would be recruited into research
and development jobs.
The number of R&D personnel has increased steadily throughout the 1990s, particularly
in the higher education and business enterprise sector. The numbers have grown
5
The survey is based on 1,140 interviews with the following target groups: 1) large, medium-sized and small enterprises,
2) major corporations with their own R&D operations, 3) ministries, the administrative sector, government agencies
and university and other cities, and 4) government research institutes (PhDs in Finland...2003).
35
Contents
most in engineering fields. The Finnish industrial structure has become increasingly
knowledge-intensive within a short space of time, and at the same time qualification
requirements have continued to rise. The Science and Technology Policy Council of
Finland (Knowledge, Innovation... 2003) expects to see the same trend continue in
the future, with new jobs more and more often being created in fields that require
high levels of knowledge and expertise. However, for reasons that have to do with the
population’s age structure, the recruitment base is set to become much reduced in the
very near future.
The trends and patterns of change in the volume of research are not the same across
different industries. In Finland the information industry is a more significant source of
employment than in any other OECD country, but the sector’s employment potential is
very much dependent on cyclical effects. According to the Science and Technology Policy
Council of Finland (Knowledge, Innovation... 2003) the outlook for the next few years
is still good, in spite of the current recession. It is expected that the bulk of economic
growth and new jobs will be created in and by the service industries. In Finland
knowledge-intensive services, such as research and development, have increased very
rapidly. The development of service innovations ties in closely with the skills and know-
how of individual staff members. In some service branches the public sector has a major
role either as a provider, regulator or buyer of services. Business know-how is more and
more in demand in several different branches. In their assessment of the government’s
additional funding programme for science and research, Prihti et al. (2000) concluded
that in the near future we may well be seeing a shortage of competent people in the
cultural sector.
In the public sector large numbers of R&D personnel work at government research
institutes, which have seen some cutbacks in their core budget funding during the
1990s. Staff numbers have increased mainly through fixed-term project funding from
outside sources. In the higher education sector there was no change during the 1990s in
the number of university teaching staff paid from core budget funds, so newly recruited
research staff are mainly engaged in fixed-term projects with external funding. Some
research laboratories have a shortage of competent staff, and technical personnel are
more and more often in need of additional training. Future employment prospects will
largely depend upon the development of university funding, changes in the system
of teaching and research posts and the retirement of babyboomers. Research and
development at polytechnics is gathering momentum all the time, and in this sector
there will be a growing need for competent staff to further strengthen that input. The
Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland suggested in 2003 that in developing
their basic training programmes, universities should pay close attention to forecasts of
the future labour demand and to changing regional needs.
3.1.4 Mobility
Labour mobility6 increases with level of education: the higher the level of education,
the higher the level of mobility (Figure 3.3). People with a higher university degree have
6
Mobility in these data occurs between organisations or between organisations operative units. Operative unit refers
here to an administrative unit or area of responsibility within an organisation (Husso 2002).
36
had a higher rate of mobility than people with a lower level of education. Among PhDs,
no less than one-quarter change jobs each year. The labour markets for PhDs are not
as closely dependent on business cycles as they are for the rest of the labour force. This
is explained, among other things, by the fact that the majority of PhDs are engaged in
the public sector. In 1999, PhD mobility at operative unit level in universities was 18
per cent, in government research institutes 10 per cent and in the business sector 33 per
cent (Husso 2002).
Figure 3.3. Mobility rate* by level of education (job-to-job inflow, operative unit level)
in 1988−1998.
Comparatively few PhDs have moved permanently7 to Finland from other countries.
For instance, in 1998 a total of 52 PhDs moved permanently to Finland, but only 15 of
them were foreign nationals. The majority or 37 of them were Finnish citizens, 27 of
them returning from EU countries. In the same year 102 PhDs moved permanently out
of Finland, 92 of them were Finnish citizens. Sixty Finnish PhDs moved to EU countries,
22 of them to Sweden, 15 went to the United States. (Husso 2002.)
In 2000 the number of foreign nationals as a proportion of Finland’s R&D personnel8

(1.3%) was the fourth lowest in the European Union (Figure 3.4). The average for the
EU countries was 4.1 per cent. In 1998 the Finnish figure was no more than 0.6 per
cent. Most foreigners moving to Finland were from non-EU European countries (Third...
2003).
7
Based on immigration authorities’ information on the number of people moving permanently into or out of
Finland.
8
Includes categories ISCO-2: Research Professionals and ISCO-3: Technicians and Associate Professionals (Frascati
manual... 2002).
37
Figure 3.4. Number of foreign nationals as a proportion of R&D personnel and active
workforce in EU Member States in 2000.
Figure 3.5. Visits by teaching and research staff from Finnish universities to foreign
countries and visits by foreign researchers to Finnish universities in 1990−2001.
The number of visits by teaching and research staff from Finnish universities to foreign
countries is smaller than the number of visits made to Finnish universities from abroad
(Figure 3.5). The number of visits by foreign students to Finnish universities has rapidly
38
increased, but the number of visits by Finnish students has remained more or less
unchanged (Figure 3.6).
Figure 3.6. Visits lasting more than three months by Finnish university students to
foreign countries and foreign students’ visits lasting more than three months to Finnish
universities in 1997−2001.
In 2002 the Academy of Finland had bilateral researcher exchange agreements with
37 organisations and 25 countries. Almost all of the Academy’s funding instruments
can also be used for purposes of supporting researcher mobility. In 2002 the number
of researchers working in foreign countries with international exchange grants from
the Academy stood at 412, while the number of foreign researchers in Finland was
236. A total of 136 persons (125 person-years) worked abroad in 2002 with funding for
researcher training and work abroad.
In Finland the Centre for International Mobility (CIMO) coordinates and implements
scholarship and staff exchange programmes and has responsibility for the national
execution of almost all EU training, culture and youth programmes. Grants for
postgraduate students and researchers are awarded primarily to Russia and neighbouring
regions. In 2001 a total of 389 scholars travelled from Finland to 35 different countries,
while Finland received 785 fellows from 60 countries. Scholars from Russia accounted
for 27 per cent, those from the Baltic States and countries of Central Eastern Europe
for 38 per cent. In 2000−2001, the number of students arriving in Finland through the
Erasmus programme (3,554) exceeded the numbers leaving Finland (3,286) for the first
time. (CIMOn vuosi... 2002.)
The Fifth EU Framework Programme in 1998−2002 included 31 projects that had

researcher exchange with Finland. Sixteen of these consisted of grants to individual
39
Contents
researchers travelling to Finland, fifteen provided funding for the Finnish host
organisation. Twenty-nine researchers left Finland for Europe with a Marie Curie grant.
In addition, some Finnish researchers joined European research infrastructures. The
most popular destination for Finnish researchers was Great Britain, followed by the
Netherlands, France, Greece, Poland and Germany.
3.2 The researcher’s profession
3.2.1 Science policy lines and objectives

The Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland has stressed the importance of raising
the overall level of education in the country and at once of upgrading the competencies of
R&D staff within the Finnish research and innovation system (Finland... 1996, Review...
2000). One of the three main development challenges identified in the Council’s most
recent review is presented by training, the development of research careers and the
expansion of broadly-based research knowledge (Knowledge, Innovation... 2003).
A working group appointed by the Ministry of Education to explore different avenues

for the development of the research career (Tutkijanuran... 1997) recommended that a
postdoctoral system be created and that young researchers be supported in the initial
stages of setting up research teams. Research environments should be so developed
that posts for teacher-researchers would be for fixed terms only. That would promote
mobility. Universities should also work more closely with business and industry, sectoral
research and the school system. The Ministry of Education’s Education and research
development plan adopted by the Council of State for 1999−2004 (Education... 2000)
included plans to further expand and strengthen the graduate school system, which
was to become a key avenue to the PhD: the target was set at around 1,400 new degrees
annually. Graduate schools were to be appointed on a fixed term basis through open
competition. Furthermore, the aim was to encourage and promote collaboration
between individual schools; to establish a network of graduate schools with nationwide
coverage; to allocate training places according to the need for PhDs in different
branches; and to remove obstacles to women’s careers in research.
In 2002 the Ministry of Education appointed a working group charged with the
promotion and development of researcher training during 2002−2005. Specifically, the
working group is concerned with developing researcher training and research careers;
securing a sufficient supply of competent professional researchers; securing a broad and
diverse knowledge base as well as its regeneration and renewal; and developing creative
research and training environments.
The agreement on target outcomes between the Ministry of Education and the
Academy of Finland for 2001−2003 includes the targets of promoting high-quality and
effective researcher training and offering professional researchers competitive career
prospects. In addition, the Academy of Finland has compiled the following strategies:
Competition and Cooperation (1998), Academy of Finland’s Forward Look 2000 (2000),
the Academy’s Equality Plan for 2001−2003 (2001) and the Academy’s International
Strategy (2002). It is emphasised in all these documents that professional researchers
shall be given the opportunity to an internationally competitive, interesting and
40
Contents
financially rewarding career. Steps shall also be taken to secure an adequate supply
of professional researchers. The aim is to have one-fifth of all PhD graduates proceed
to the postdoctoral system, with the Academy proposing to increase the number of
postdoc vacancies to 500. At graduate schools the PhD shall be completed before
age 30. Researcher exchange, mobility as well as women’s careers in research shall
be supported. The skills and competencies needed by researchers in international
cooperation shall be improved and upgraded. The discussion below will also consider
the attainment of these objectives.
3.2.2 The professional research career: stages and avenues

The research career proper (Figure 3.7) begins with PhD training. However, the
foundation is provided by the school system as a whole, which ideally inspires young
people at school to consider the option of a career in research.
Figure 3.7. The professional research career: from researcher training to professor.
Academy of Finland Universities, government research institutes,

other organisations
Academy Professor (5→ years) Professor

Research Professor
Director of Research etc.
Appropriation for senior scientist (1 year)
Academy Research Fellow (3–5 years) Senior researcher, researcher, etc.

Lecturer (universities)
Senior assistant (universities)
Postdoctoral researcher (2 years) Assistant (universities)
Doctorate
Graduate school system Other pathways

(4 years) to doctorate
In spring 2003, Finland’s regular (daytime) upper secondary schools had a total of
115,000 pupils. International comparisons have shown that learning results in Finland
are of a very high standard. For instance, the OECD’s PISA survey, youth literacy in
Finland is at a higher level than anywhere else in the world (Knowledge and skills...
2001). Educational equality is also reasonably well secured, both in regional terms
and between individual schools and genders. There are not very many drop-outs or
top performers in Finland. In maths and the natural sciences, Finnish schoolchildren
rank in the top one-quarter. Nonetheless, it is estimated that 10−20 per cent of each
age cohort have gaps in their knowledge in these subjects that will adversely affect
their future success and performance even in upper secondary school (Knowledge and
skills… 2001). In Europe the main focus in the development of secondary education
is on strengthening the interest of young people in the natural sciences, which in
many countries has been showing signs of dwindling. Coordinated by the Ministry of
Education, the national LUMA development programme in 1996−2002 was aimed at
41
improving skills and competencies in mathematics and the natural sciences (physics,
chemistry, biology and natural geography), but the final evaluation of the programme
still identified areas that called for further development.
In 2002 Finnish universities had a total of 169,970 degree students. The number of
new students was 20,563, 56 per cent of whom were women. From 1997 to 2002, the
total number of degree students has increased by 19 per cent. About one-half of all
matriculating upper secondary school students seek admission to university, but no
more than one-fifth gain entry at their first attempt. In 2003 the Ministry of Education
and the universities agreed that as from the beginning of 2005, newly matriculated
students will have a 50 per cent quota among new university entrants. Gap years after
the matriculation examination are another typical feature of Finland. In 2000−2001,
four per cent of all university students dropped out.
Researcher training
Launched by the Ministry of Education in 1995, the graduate school system in Finland
is built around a network of schools that are nominated for a fixed period of time.
Students are enrolled on a full-time basis, and they are expected to complete their
doctoral degree within four years. The selection of both graduate schools and students
is based on open competition. The graduate school system was set up with a view
to providing better supervision for doctoral students, supporting more systematic
researcher training and raising its quality standards, lowering the average age of PhD
graduation, promoting the professionalisation of the research career and increasing
international cooperation in the field of research and researcher training. The scientific
standard of applications for graduate schools and the quality of researcher training
provided are evaluated by the Academy of Finland. The Board of the Academy submits
to the Ministry of Education a shortlist of graduate school candidates and the number of
student places at each school. The final decision rests with the Ministry of Education.
At the beginning of 2003 there were a total of 114 graduate schools in Finland.
Operating in connection with universities, they offered 1,426 graduate school places
funded by the Ministry of Education. Graduate schools are often multidisciplinary,
but they can be roughly categorised as follows. There were 45 graduate schools in the
field of natural sciences and engineering, with a total of 618 student places (43%); 40
graduate schools in the fields of culture and society, with 346 places (24%); 16 graduate
schools and 245 places in medicine and health sciences (17%); and 13 graduate schools
with 217 student places in the field of biosciences and environmental research (15%).
Some 320 graduate school places were allocated to information industry branches, and
roughly the same amount to biotechnology. Out of the country’s 20 universities 19
have cooperation through the graduate school network, and 17 out of 19 government
research institutes are involved. In addition, graduate schools have an estimated 2,500
places that are financed from other than Ministry of Education funds.
Graduate schools have varied widely in terms of their funding structure, academic
orientation and research and training traditions. Most graduate schools work closely
with centres of excellence in research, biocentres or research teams under Academy
Professors.
42
The number of postgraduate students enrolled at universities has increased by 21
per cent from 1997 to 2002, when the figure stood at 21,937. Universities are also
responsible for the provision and development of researcher training in those fields that
are not covered by the graduate schools. Many universities have adopted the graduate
school model for purposes of developing their researcher training. For instance, at the
University of Jyväskylä Rector’s graduate school places and grants are awarded to such
fields of research where there are no graduate schools; on the other hand university
funds are also made available to support graduate schools. University assistants have
traditionally researched their PhD thesis as part of their teaching and other duties at
the department, in the process gaining the qualifications of researcher. However, with
the changes that are now being made to the system of teaching and research posts, the
number of vacancies available for doctoral students is declining. Some government
research institutes have taken part in developing researcher training mechanisms
within their own branches through their involvement in graduate schools, and several
docents provide teaching and supervision as well.
The Academy of Finland has worked consistently to develop and promote an efficient
researcher training system among other things by providing funding for researcher
training in the context of research projects, research programmes and centres of
excellence in research. According to the Academy’s Annual Operating Review
(Suomen... 2003) some 5,300 persons received Academy research funding in 2002.
Around 70−75 per cent of them were doctoral students. In 2002 the Academy awarded
close on 2.7 million euros to support other graduate school activities.
One of the main criteria on which the Ministry of Education has allocated core budget
funding to universities is the number of doctoral degrees completed. The total number
of PhDs has shown rapid growth in all fields of study during the 1990s, rising from less
than 500 in 1990 to more than 1,200 in 2002. Women accounted for 36 per cent of all
PhDs in 1995, in 2002 the figure was 46 per cent. By major fields of science, the largest
number of PhDs in 1997−2001 was completed in medical sciences, the social sciences
and natural sciences, which together accounted for almost 70 per cent of all doctoral
degrees. The sharpest increase in the number of PhDs from 1997 to 2001 is seen in the
social sciences (30%), engineering and technology (25%) and medical sciences (20%).
In the humanities and natural sciences the number of degrees went up by around 13
per cent. (KOTA database.)
In 1999 over half of all research work towards the PhD9 was done in the employ of
universities and the rest in other workplaces, such as local government (including
university hospitals), business enterprises and government research institutes (Figure
3.8). By major fields of science, the number of PhDs completed at universities and
research institutes is the highest in the natural sciences, in the municipal sector in
medical sciences, in the central government sector in the social sciences and in the
business sector in engineering and technology (Husso 2002).
Almost 70 per cent of those who took their PhD in 2000 had had a scholarship at some
stage of their studies: public funds and private foundations therefore had a major role
9
Sector in which 1999 PhD graduates were employed two years before graduation.
43
Figure 3.8. Placement of PhDs graduating in 1999 two years before graduation.
in financing doctoral degrees. The proportion who had held a university post or position
was 41 per cent, 23 per cent had been funded by a government research institute and
21 per cent had had Academy project funding. Industry had supported 10 per cent of all
graduating PhDs and almost 10 per cent had worked under an international exchange
agreement or with EU funding. Three-quarters of PhDs had also received funding from
some other sources than those mentioned above. (PhDs in Finland... 2003.)
Almost 60 per cent of PhDs graduating in 2000 had completed their degree in less than
four years of full-time study, 20 per cent had taken 4−5 years and 20 per cent more than
five years. When both full-time and part-time work is included in this analysis, only 12
per cent completed their degree in less than four years, almost 17 per cent took less than
five years and 70 per cent more than five years. (PhDs in Finland... 2003.)
On average people who work outside universities are older upon PhD graduation
than those who work at universities. In 1999, the average age of PhDs graduating at
universities was 35.5 years, while the figure for those working in local government,
research institutes and private business was over 39 years. PhD graduates were the
youngest in the natural sciences and engineering and technology, aged 35−36. In the
social sciences and the humanities they were over 40 (Husso 2002). The mean age of
PhD graduates who studied at graduate schools in 1995−1999 was about 32 years (The
Graduate... 2000). According to Määttä et al. (2002) those completing their PhD at
graduate schools in 1996−2000 were younger in all fields than those completing their
PhD elsewhere. However, the median age of PhD graduation at graduate schools will
rise when the figures for those graduating later are included in the analysis.
The graduate school system has brought major changes to researcher training in
Finland. Most of the goals set for the system have been reached. The quality of
postgraduate training has improved, work has become more systematic, supervision
more focused and teaching more diversified, and there has been better cooperation
and networking among research teams (Aittola & Määttä 1998, The Graduate... 2000).
Students at graduate schools have also had active cooperation with colleagues abroad
(The Graduate...2000).
The directors of graduate schools were unanimous in their opinion that the system had
many important advantages. They said they had seen improved cooperation among
44
research teams and more international contacts. Postgraduate training was more
systematic now, and the standard of teaching had improved. It was easier for doctoral
students to concentrate full-time on their research. Another advantage of the system
was that it had lowered the average age at PhD graduation and encouraged growing
numbers to proceed to take the doctorate. On the reverse side of the coin, it was
pointed out that pay levels were too low to allow the school to recruit the most talented
students, who often had to rely on several different sources of funding. Some referred to
the problems of excessive bureaucracy and the lack of coordinators, others still to the
inequality between graduate school students and other postgraduate students. Some
voiced the criticism that the university was unable to provide supplementary funding
to graduate schools and in this way to secure adequate resources. In addition it was
felt that steps were needed to clarify the division of tasks between graduate schools,
university administration, faculties and individual departments. (The Graduate...
2000.)
Graduate school students generally had a very positive assessment of the system: 10 per
cent described it as excellent, 45 per cent as good and 25 per cent as reasonably good.
Students were particularly pleased with the continuity that the system provided, the
opportunity to work full-time on research, the security of funding and the contacts with
researchers at home and abroad. More than 40 per cent felt the atmosphere at graduate
schools was creative and inspiring. The main sources of dissatisfaction were the poor
pay and the resulting difficulties in making ends meet, which in turn was reflected in
the amount of time taken to complete the degree. Graduate school students often had
to take on teaching or other jobs to earn extra. About 40 per cent took the view that
the funding they received was not enough, but levels of satisfaction varied between
different disciplines. In the humanities and social sciences, the pay level was regarded
as wholly inadequate. In these fields it is rarely possible to pay the researcher more than
the sum granted by the Ministry of Education. (The Graduate... 2000.)
According to Määttä (2001) the graduate school system has met the main targets it
has been set: those concerning the number of new PhD graduates, the organisation
of researcher training, raising the quality standards of training and the allocation
of training places to fields with the greatest national significance. He considered
particularly important that all universities across the country offer doctoral degrees
and that university studies are free of charge. Another significant advantage is that
there are two separate avenues to completing the PhD, either through graduate schools
or outside that system.
There remain a number of challenges for graduate schools that they will need to tackle
in order to further improve the quality of researcher training (The Graduate... 2000).
First of all, steps are needed to further develop and improve research and innovation
environments in order that graduate schools can remain an attractive option. It is also
important to avoid overlap between graduate schools, to encourage closer cooperation
between graduate schools and to support their efforts at further specialisation in their
areas of expertise. In addition, it has been suggested that steps are needed to make
a professional career in research a more viable option by strengthening the support
structures available after PhD graduation, especially for women. It is also considered
important that adequate resources are made available to graduate schools.
45
One of the main challenges for researcher training today is to stem the outflow of
the most talented students. It is also crucial to make sure that adequate support is
made available for fields of research and for PhD students that are not covered by the
graduate school system. In research and researcher training environments, a further
potential problem is the lack of support and supervision from senior researchers. The
research equipment is not always up-to-date, nor is professional maintenance always
available. In most cases the financial rewards for the time spent in training do not
provide sufficient incentive to the young researcher. Doing quality research is a time
consuming business, and it may be hard to fit together the intensive years of researcher
training with family life, for instance.
The research career after the PhD

A significant fraction of PhDs continue with their research at least for some while
after graduation. In 2002, almost 70 per cent of PhDs who graduated in 2000 were
still engaged as postdoctoral researchers (PhDs in Finland... 2003). About 40 per cent
of those who had graduated in 1997−1999 were still in university jobs in 1999 (Figure
3.9). According to a questionnaire carried out among graduate school students in 1995,
around 40 per cent of them were aiming for a university career, a further 40 per cent
had career plans outside of research (Aittola & Määttä 1998).
Figure 3.9. Placement in 1999 of PhDs who graduated in 1997−1999.
The sharp increase in the amount of external funding in the 1990s meant that
universities were able to step up their research effort and hire more research staff in
fixed-term projects. The number of teaching staff in universities has remained more
or less unchanged during the 1990s (Figure 3.10), whereas the number of students has
grown by 140 per cent over the past 10 years. At the same time the number of researchers
and doctoral students hired on external funding has increased by 150 per cent.
University posts of assistants are more and more often held by researchers with a
PhD. The universities of Helsinki and Turku have recently streamlined their system
46
Figure 3.10. University teaching staff (professors, senior assistants, assistants, lecturers
and full-time teachers) and research personnel in 1992−2002.*
of teaching and research posts so that positions previously intended for doctoral
students and financed from core budget sources will be reallocated to PhDs; many other
universities will soon be following suit. At the University of Helsinki, many departments
have adopted a policy whereby two assistantships have been discontinued for every
new post opened for a researcher-lecturer. PhDs have also been hired with external
funding.
Almost 30 per cent of universities’ teaching staff are professors. Large numbers of
professors of the babyboomer generation are set to retire towards the end of this decade,
and over the next 15 years some one hundred professors will be pensioned off each
year. How the number of teaching staff relative to the number of university students will
develop over the next few years, is mainly dependent upon the funding made available
to universities.
The Academy of Finland has developed its system of research posts by clearly
demarcating different stages in the research career and by opening vacancies for
postdoctoral researchers and Academy Research Fellows. In 2002 the total number
of research posts, excluding those for Academy Professor, stood at 588, 51 per cent
up on the figure for 1997. Posts for postdoctoral researchers numbered 350, and those
for Academy Research Fellows 230. Both types of posts have been primarily tailored
to relatively young researchers oriented to a professional career in research, and the
Academy has awarded incentive monies to the most promising Academy Research
Fellows. Universities and business companies have been encouraged to apply for
postdoc positions for joint research projects in companies, but not many applications
have been received.
47
In 2002 one-third or 33 per cent of Academy Research Fellows and 56 per cent of
postdoctoral researchers were women. The Academy has consistently sought to promote
gender equality and women’s prospects for career advancement, and in 1997−2002 the
number of women appointed to research posts has been higher than their share among
the applicants to those posts.
In 2000−2002, a total of 5,200−5,400 persons received Academy research funding, with

PhDs accounting for an estimated 25−30 per cent of that number (Suomen... 2002,
2003). The majority of the PhDs hired were postdoctoral researchers.
The position of Academy Professor is one of the most fiercely contested in the Finnish
research system. In 2002 there were 38 such posts in the country, marking an increase
of 52 per cent on the figure for 1997. Less than one-third or 29 per cent of all Academy
Professors in 2002 were women. In addition, 75 person-years have been awarded each
year to professors and other senior scientists, usually in the form of 12-month fellowship
contracts. This has given incumbents an opportunity to concentrate full-time on their
research, away from their departmental duties.
Many Academy researchers have had extremely prominent careers. Unpublished

materials from the Academy of Finland history I-III project indicate that in 2000, there
were in Finnish universities a total of 1,837 professors (compared to 1,480 in 1990), of
whom 38 per cent (29% in 1990) had at some stage of their career held an Academy
research post. Among them 42 per cent had occupied the position of Senior Research
Fellow (now renamed as Academy Research Fellow). At the University of Helsinki 50 per
cent and at the universities of Turku, Jyväskylä, Kuopio and Joensuu more than 40 per
cent of all professors had at some stage of their career held an Academy post. In 2000 the
number of professors working at government research institutes stood at 151 (compared
to 126 in 1990), 19 per cent of whom had held an Academy post (13% in 1990).
Grants awarded by public funds and private foundations are an important source of
research funding. In 2001, for instance, 300 of the 6,000 members of the Finnish Union
of University Researchers and Teachers worked on a grant. Over half of the union
membership had at some stage of their career conducted research with funding from
a grant (Puhakka & Rautopuro 2001). Researchers working on grants do not have
the unemployment, pension and social security benefits that come with regular wage
employment. They may also feel excluded from the workplace community and have
difficulty arranging the tools and other facilities they need.
Finland has invested heavily in the development of its researcher training and
postdoctoral system, but for graduated PhDs the career options available are still very
constrained – there is no system in place that opens up any meaningful prospects
through success in research career. Most crucially, the individual researcher at this
stage needs to have the opportunity to gain the experience and qualifications needed
for top research positions. At universities the teacher-researcher career offers the
options of a position as senior assistant or university lecturer, and from there further
to the position of professor. However, the teaching duties of university lecturers may
be so demanding that it is virtually impossible in that position to engage in serious
research. The posts of assistant and senior assistant are usually for fixed terms, as are
48
Contents
some professorships. Finnish universities have no tenure track system for these posts
and positions.
Universities also have large numbers of project researchers as well as researchers

working on grants. Fixed-term contracts have also increased at government research
institutes with the growth of external funding. However, for researchers a position at
a research institute has the important advantage that it involves no teaching duties.
That said, many researchers working at research institutes also hold docentships and
thus teach at universities. However, involvement in other duties, projects and activities
at the research institute may prove an unnecessary distraction from one’s own research
work.
3.2.3 People with a researcher training in positions of expertise

Knowledge, know-how and innovation together with skills of cooperation and
communication are in ever greater demand in the modern workplace. More and more
often now, employees are expected to show not only broad skills and knowledge but
also flexibility, the ability to use and process large amounts of data and a readiness to
learn.
Most PhDs in Finland today work in universities, central government or in the municipal
health care sector; only a small minority are engaged in private business companies. A
growing proportion of newly graduated PhDs work outside the university system. About
one-third of all PhDs are engaged in other than R&D positions (Husso 2002). A new
emerging challenge for universities and indeed for the whole innovation system is how
best to combine high level know-how in a special area of expertise with the expertise of
application. In this world of accelerating change, the education system needs to show
extraordinary flexibility.
A survey10 conducted among more than one thousand organisations at the end of 2002
found a strong sentiment in favour of making researcher training less theoretically
and more practically minded, especially among respondents representing ministries,
public administration, government agencies and university cities (53% of respondents).
This was also stressed by other research target groups in the survey. The importance of
having a close enough understanding of working life was emphasised most particularly
by government research institutes, but also by other government agencies and
organisations in university cities. Major corporations, ministries, the administrative
sector, government agencies and university cities were the keenest to stress the
importance of closer cooperation between workplaces and universities; the same
opinion was also shared, somewhat less frequently, by government research institutes
and business companies.
The opinion that it would be useful for employees to be able to work while researching
their doctoral thesis was raised in the responses of ministries, the administrative sector,
10
The survey is based on 1,140 interviews with the following target groups: 1) large, medium-sized and small enterprises,
2) major corporations with their own R&D operations, 3) ministries, the administrative sector, government agencies
and university and other cities, and 4) government research institutes (PhDs in Finland...2003).
49
From graduate school to human resource development manager – shuttling between research and practical
development
Eveliina Saari, PhD

Human Resources Development Manager
VTT Corporate Management and Services
I graduated with a Master of Arts in Education from the University of Helsinki in 1989, majoring in adult education.
Ever since, my career has kept me shuttling in the middle ground between research and practical human resource
development. I started as education planner for human resources at the Technical Research Centre VTT. I had only
just graduated and felt very much that I needed to know more about what I was supposed to be developing, so while
I was doing this job I began my studies for the Licentiate. I started to research ongoing efforts at a VTT laboratory to
set up research groups. When I completed my research in 1995 I was offered a place at the graduate school hosted
by the University of Helsinki Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research. Rather than working part-
time on my research while working, I got the chance to try my wings as a full-time researcher. Inspired by my earlier
studies I continued my investigations of research teams at VTT. My superior was very supportive and during my first
two years at the graduate school I continued to work part-time in the human resources development team. In 2001, I
returned to VTT after the graduate school and a period on maternity leave, and completed the writing of my doctoral
thesis while working in human resources. As from the beginning of 2003 I started as human resource development
manager and in June the same year I took my PhD.
During my years in research I attended international conferences and wrote my first ever scientific article. I soon
realised how much effort it takes to develop your own distinctive approach and style of work as a researcher and
to build up a career in research. I visited the New Mexico University to collect research data I needed; coping with
all that was a major boost to my self-confidence. In the researcher’s job I learned to express myself in the English
language and received constant critical feedback. On the other hand I was in the position to concentrate on one
single issue and to push myself to the very limits of my abilities. The further I progressed with my doctoral thesis, the
more I became convinced that I wanted to return to human resource development. I felt the research I was doing
would serve me in good stead in the practical job of development. My analysis of the development of a Finnish and
American research team opened up a useful angle on understanding the dynamics of applied research. I ventured
out into the fields of organisational learning and the sociology of science and asked how they could be put to better
use in the development of research. When I returned to VTT my writing skills had improved, my English had improved
and my ability to present my case had improved. I need all of these skills in my present job as well.
The move from research to practical development was not an entirely smooth process. Initially I did not feel at home
with the language of human resources administration, and my own research-driven discourse seemed somewhat
cumbersome in the context of human resource development. I needed to “translate” my research results to make
them more easily intelligible. I had to try and hold in check my research instincts and learn to share my time among
several development projects. The main discovery I made while shuttling between practical development and
research was the realisation that research groups engaged in applied technical research move in exactly the same
way between the realms of practice and research, switching angles every now and then. In order that they can
find solutions that will benefit their clients and at once generate new knowledge for their research communities,
researchers have to cross these boundaries.
I feel that in my HR development role I am only just beginning to put to use the results of my research: the challenge
for me is to maintain a living contact with this field of research. It is only by continuing to shuttle between these
realms that I can feel I will be able to continue to develop as an expert and a human resource developer.
Doctoral thesis: The Pulse of Change in Research Work. A Study of Learning and Development in a Research
Group.
government agencies and university cities. Major corporations and their R&D units
would also be keen to recruit PhDs who were more closely integrated in working life.
There was also a strong opinion that the themes covered in doctoral theses should be
more clearly oriented to working life and the business world, and that the research
subjects provided by industry were meaningful. Some criticism was voiced about PhDs
not having enough understanding about business.
50
A small field of research as a case in point: art history PhDs and working life
Riitta Nikula, professor

Department of Art History, University of Helsinki
Art historians are primarily engaged in 1) museums and galleries; 2) research and protection of the built environment;
3) teaching duties at universities, polytechnics and art schools; 4) popular education and leisure supervision; 5) the
media; and 6) research posts and other positions at universities and the Academy of Finland. A typical career in the
field of art history runs from intermittent jobs while one is still studying through the Master’s degree to jobs in cultural
institutions that are gradually upgraded into permanent positions. People build up their expertise over time, through
their studies and on the job.
Full courses in art history are taught at the universities of Helsinki, Jyväskylä and Turku and at Åbo Akademi
University. Students at the universities of Tampere and Oulu can take art history as a minor subject. In all there are
six full professorships.
Although the first public examination of a doctoral dissertation in art history dates back all the way to 1878, organised
postgraduate training in Finland did not get under way until the first Academy-funded projects in the 1980s. Up until
then, participation in international congresses was negligible and very few research groups were set up; it was all
based on independent thinking and silent seminars. Prior to 1980 a total of 33 PhDs had been completed in the field
of art history; at the beginning of 2003 the figure stood at 103.
Postgraduate training started in 1995 in the form of a nationwide network. The first meeting of postgraduate students
brought together 51 research plans. At the first summer school in 1996, organised with Academy funding, 15 select
students had the opportunity to talk about their research with three foreign professors under the heading “The
History of Art and Its Paradigms”. Summer schools became a recurring institution, and the visiting professors who
have taught at these schools have gradually become an expanding international network. Each summer has had
its own set theme (literature and teachers) through the lens of which doctoral students have reflected upon their
own work. The main emphasis has been upon theoretical issues. The graduate school proper has received funding
since 1999; the number of new student places over the past three years has been 5+2+5, the number of applicants
28+19+27, respectively. At summer schools the core group has always been joined by a number of other students
working on their thesis with other sources of funding or while working.
People with a PhD in art history have had little difficulty finding work. Some have remained unemployed, though,
mainly because they have been reluctant to do anything else except independent research. There have also been
some complaints that PhDs have not always been given preference when vacant posts have been filled. Nonetheless
it is widely recognised by now that especially the development of the country’s museums calls for an increasingly
innovative attitude. The only way forward in this typically female-dominated, low-pay sector is through training.
One special challenge for postgraduate training is represented by those museum professionals who want to take
the doctorate so that they can deepen their expertise. In these cases supervision has been provided according to
individual needs and timetables. To me it is important that postgraduate training in art history always remains open
for both young students and more experienced scholars. It is never easy to bring together expertise on the subject
matter and fresh theoretical angles, but it is always necessary – both in postgraduate training and in the world of
work.
The protection of buildings is an important aspect of community development; ill-informed decisions cause
irreparable damage. Sustainable argumentation calls for a high level of education. Understanding values is one of the
most difficult specialist tasks for the humanist in modern society. Although the EU is now beginning to register natural
values, it is still hard to find experts with the necessary competencies to evaluate layers of the built environment.
Contemporary culture consists essentially of visual communication. Keen to understand advertisements, the
media, the human image, art history has seen a growing trend of multidisciplinary research into visual culture. The
development of critical visual literacy is also among the goals of free popular education.
51
Contents
3.3 The researcher’s profession: under pressure of change?

Universities have seen quite dramatic changes in their operating environment during
the 1990s and early 2000s. The principles of management by results have been installed,
and universities’ own administration has swelled. The growth of external funding has
meant that the number of project researchers hired on a fixed-term basis has increased.
Teaching staff hired with universities’ core budget funds have less time to devote to
research, and new knowledge production is increasingly done on the strength of outside
resources (Nieminen & Kaukonen 2001, Ylijoki 2003). Orientation to the commercial
marketplace is now relatively common in universities, although the extent to which
that is required does vary depending on the application potential in the field of research
concerned (Nieminen & Kaukonen 2001, Ylijoki 2003). Each discipline’s internal culture
as well as institutional cultures will also have a bearing on adaptation (e.g. Räsänen &
Mäntylä 2001, Ylijoki 2003).
University research today is walking a tightrope between different kinds of research

orientations and social interests. Hakala and Ylijoki (2001) identified four different
research orientations: academic, market-oriented, administrative and civil society
oriented. The researchers they interviewed felt that these different orientations presented
conflicting pressures. For all researchers the academic orientation had a strong and
prominent position. The market orientation was most prominent in the engineering
field, although it was certainly not alien to other fields either. Some researchers had
adapted well to the requirement of having to apply for and administer outside project
funding, and they worked closely with the organisation applying their research results.
In the administrative orientation the focus of research was upon different decision-
makers: such fields in the research material were represented by the social sciences and
agriculture and forestry. The civil society orientation was weak: for instance, there was
hardly any cooperation at all with civic organisations. (Hakala & Ylijoki 2001, Hakala
et al. 2003.)
University researchers’ main complaints and problems had to do with securing funding,
time pressure and the stress that came from their having to produce results. Lacking
staff skills and inadequate research equipment also caused some difficulty. Human
relations and scope for cooperation were the least of their problems (Nieminen 2000,
Hakala et al. 2003). Several researchers have found that in recent years, research
communities have regarded researcher autonomy, work load, time management, social
status and pay levels as problematic (Winter et al. 2000, Aittola 2001, Barry et al. 2001,
Räsänen & Mäntylä 2001, Ylijoki 2003). The researchers interviewed by Hakala et al.
(2003) felt that the researcher’s job requires above all a capacity to tolerate stress as well
as diverse talents. Some researchers were concerned about the dwindling freedom and
independence of their job, which may eventually affect the human interest in and blur
the meaning of doing science as well as undermine the professional commitment to the
principles of science and research ethics.
Nonetheless many researchers value and appreciate the university atmosphere, the
freedom and independence of the job, so they are prepared to make sacrifices: if they
decided to change jobs and go somewhere else to work, they would not do so lightly.
Resources, funding and the research environment are all crucial factors, whereas status
52
Contents
and pay have not had such a major influence on researchers’ career choices. Many
researchers take the view that the prestige and honour of an academic career have
declined, but the university was still seen as a special place to work, in spite of all the
time pressures and in spite of the fixed term job contracts (Hakala et al. 2003).
Different fields of research differ from one another in terms of how often researchers join
forces in research groups; this depends, among other things, on traditions and needs
within individual disciplines. Teamwork has increased in all disciplines, but going it
alone is most common in the social sciences and the humanities. Research cooperation
across disciplinary boundaries has also increased with the increasing complexity
of research questions. The shared use of expensive research equipment and the
organisation of business activities in the near vicinity have influenced the development
of biocentres, for example. Younglove-Webb et al. (1999), for instance, say that the key
advantages of groupwork include scientific dialogue, cooperation, support from other
group members and efficiency. The main drawback is that other group members have
to be taken into account, but questions of time management and various conflicts also
come into play.
Practices of research management in different disciplines depend upon the nature

and methods of research work in those disciplines. According to Kekäle (2001) physics
and biology departments that represent the applied natural sciences have been the
keenest to adopt manager-driven practices that draw upon management by results.
In more theoretical disciplines research is more clearly expert-driven, with greater
emphasis placed on creativity and freedom, and it is less amenable to management in
the traditional sense. Historical research, for instance, is traditionally an individually
minded discipline where it is harder to set up joint research projects than in, say,
experimental natural sciences.
Research management should emphasise the distinctive features of creative research

and researcher training environments, without ignoring the differences between
individual disciplines. Traditionally, the aim has been to identify the common features
of such environments, such as the promotion of open interaction, openness to new
ideas and the development of know-how and confidence (e.g. Graversen et al. 2002). It
is also necessary to have a clear research strategy, clear objectives and clearly defined
tasks for research. Science Nobelists, according to Hurley (1997), say it is especially
important that the scientist can enjoy freedom of thought as well as the freedom to
choose her/his research subjects, and to do so in a constructive work climate. However,
there has been very little research into how different disciplines and fields of research
differ from one another, and we have also very limited evidence on creative solutions in
different fields of research.
3.4 Conclusions
R&D personnel
Concerted efforts are needed in both the public and the private sector to further raise
the quality of research and development in Finland with a view to maintaining and
strengthening the competitiveness of the national economy. R&D quality can be raised
53
by recruiting competent people and by providing those people with the best tools and
facilities available. It is particularly important to ensure that staff members have the
skills and competencies they need as well as a sufficiently high level of education.
Special attention needs to be given to the recruitment of PhDs in the private business
sector and on the other hand to improving the professional competencies of technicians
and associate staff for instance in the use of new instruments and equipment.
Professional careers in research

The science policy targets set for the promotion and development of the professional
research career have been reasonably well achieved. There is now in place an established
graduate school system and researcher training is effective and of a reasonably high
standard. A large fraction of PhDs proceed to the postdoctoral stage. Nonetheless there
remain major challenges for the development of the professional research career.
Key development objectives include the removal of obstacles to a professional career

in research, maintaining the competitiveness of the researcher’s career and securing
career continuity. This can only succeed in a coordinated and concerted effort in
researcher training, in the allocation of research funding and in the development
of infrastructures. Young people in Finland are still interested in researcher training
and the option of a career in research, which is by no means the case in all western
countries.
Stiffening international competition for talented young researchers presents a major

challenge for research and researcher training environments in Finland, which need to
increase their appeal. It is important that the differences between individual disciplines
and fields of research are taken into account in developing research and researcher
training environments. With the pace at which science is now advancing, there is
growing pressure on research infrastructures as well, especially in the natural sciences
and engineering where the technical instruments are developing very rapidly and where
the quality and maintenance of those instruments is a crucial consideration. Again, the
priority concern must be to ensure the high quality of training and research.
Creative problem-solving should be encouraged from an early age, and efforts should be
stepped up to inspire greater interest among young people in science and research. Later
on, training at universities should equip young students with the skills and resources
they will need in researcher training and provide the impetus for a career in research.
Among the threats on the horizon are the declining quality standards of education,
the declining number of students and the growing numbers of dropouts. Development
efforts may focus on the learning environment as well as on the cooperation between
teachers and students. In addition, adequate structural and economic support should be
made available to students. Compared with other jobs, the career prospects in research
and its financial incentives do not necessarily live up to the long-term commitment that
is required.
The structure of first and higher university degrees in Finland is currently being revised
in the context of the Bologna Process in line with the objectives set for the European
University Area. This supports the extension of researcher training to the stage
54
preceding the Master’s degree and the entry of research oriented students into research
teams during their basic and subject-related studies. The right of students flexibly to
move between universities guarantees access to a diverse range of courses.
Graduate schools are the main avenue to the doctorate and to a career in research.
Steps are also needed to support doctoral students outside graduate schools. University
faculties, for instance, could set up their own graduate schools. International networking
among graduate schools is also important. In addition, teaching in foreign languages
should be more readily available, and the number of foreign students enrolled in
graduate schools should be increased.
The first years of a career in research are often dogged by fixed-term contracts, poor
pay and working on grants. Better pay levels, rewards for good results and support for
the researcher’s family would all provide important incentives for young people who
are considering a career in research and possibly help persuade them to remain on
that career path. Grants awarded by funds and foundations represent a major source
of funding for doctoral students. Immediate steps are needed to improve the socio-
economic position of researchers working on grants. In particular, for reasons of gender
equality it is essential that maternity and parental allowances are made available to
researchers working on grants. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has in 2003
appointed a working group to look into the social security of grant recipients.
It is important that young people setting out on a research career can look forward to
a clear set of objectives. The postdoctoral stage should support the researcher’s quest for
independence. It is usually at this stage of the research career (depending on the field
of research) that people start to set up their own research teams. At the postdoctoral
stage a sufficient number of talented researchers should be persuaded to continue to
work in research because a certain number always take up other jobs or move abroad.
Obstacles to a research career include the lack of satisfactory job opportunities and
difficulties in career advancement. At this stage of their career researchers often spend
a couple of years abroad, so questions related to the mobility of researchers and their
family as well as to their social security must also be resolved. This will require joint
efforts by authorities in several administrative sectors.
Steps are needed in both the public and private sector to open up career opportunities
that are based exclusively on research. Researchers who have had good success in their
job should have the right to a permanent job contract with reasonable certainty. The
researcher’s career path should allow for greater flexibility: for instance, researchers
should have the option of flexible retirement or early retirement, on the other hand they
should be allowed to work beyond retirement age if they continue to remain active.
As they proceed with the reform of their systems of teaching and research posts as well
as their pay systems, universities and government research institutes should give better
recognition to the role and contribution of young researchers. They should also invest in
the later stages of the research career and create opportunities for career advancement
with increasing qualifications. Universities have now joined forces in the reform of their
systems of teaching and research posts. At the beginning of 2003, the Finnish Council
of University Rectors appointed a working group charged with exploring the prospects
55
of harmonisation. This is important, among other reasons, for ensuring the equality
of researchers at different universities. Adequate resources must be made available for
supervision, bearing in mind the role of postdoctoral researchers in the supervision of
doctoral theses. Academy of Finland funding is not closely tied to researcher training,
but the emphasis has been shifted towards funding the postdoctoral stage.
Attracting foreign researchers to Finland and persuading them to stay are an important
part of the overall effort to develop the research career. Although visits by foreign
students to Finnish universities have increased, the number of foreign nationals
working in R&D in Finland is much lower than the average figure for EU countries. Job
vacancies should be opened for international application. Adequate start-up monies
should be granted to researchers recruited. Good research facilities and the high quality
of research will not alone suffice to attract researchers to Finland; their choices will also
be influenced by several factors outside the research environment, such as pay and
taxation, children’s schooling, opportunities for spousal employment and immigration
policy. All these factors need to be explored and thresholds lowered in a concerted effort
among all the relevant authorities.
Positions of expertise outside R&D

It is important for the development of the information society that knowledge and
know-how can move to wherever they can be used in fresh and innovative ways.
Various career paths and staff mobility between universities, public administration
and the business sector should be made easier and more attractive. Doctoral students
should be given the opportunity to work in business companies, and doctoral theses
should be researched on issues that are of immediate interest to business and industry.
People working in other than research positions should be given the opportunity to
build up their expertise through training, and support should be made available for
those researching their PhD while working. Most significantly, universities and business
companies need to work more closely with one another.
56
Contents
References
Academy of Finland. Equality Plan 2001–2003 (2000). Academy of Finland, Helsinki.
Academy of Finland. International Strategy (2002). Publications of the Academy of

Finland 6/02.
The Academy of Finland’s Forward Look 2000 (2000). Publications of the Academy of
Finland 3/00.
Aittola, Helena (2001). Academic life and the pressure of massification. In Välimaa,
Jussi (ed.): Finnish higher education in transition, 111–138. Institute for Educational
Research, Jyväskylä.
Aittola, Helena & Pentti Määttä (1998). Tohtoriksi tutkijakoulusta. Tutkijakoulut

tieteellisten jatko-opintojen uudistajina. Jyväskylän yliopisto, Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitoksen
tutkimuksia 3.
Barry, J., J. Chandler & H. Clark (2001). Between the ivory tower and the academic
assembly line. Journal of Management Studies 38, 87–101.
CIMOn vuosi 2001 (2002). Toimintakertomus. CIMO, Helsinki.
Education and research 1999–2004. Development plan (2000). Ministry of Education,

Helsinki.
Finland: A Knowledge-based Society (1996). Science and Technology Policy Council of

Finland, Helsinki.
Frascati Manual. Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental
development (2002). OECD, Paris.
The Graduate School System in Finland. Survey of Functioning, Results and Efficiency by 2000
(2000). Ministry of Education, Helsinki.
Graversen, E. K., E. K Schmidt, K. Langberg & P. S. Lauridsen (2002). Dynamik og

fornyelse på danske universiteter og sektorforskningsinstitutioner. En analyse af hvad
der karakteriserer dynamiske og fornyende forskningsmiljøer. Rapport fra Analyseinstitut
for Forskning 2002/1.
Hakala, Johanna, Erkki Kaukonen, Mika Nieminen & Oili-Helena Ylijoki (2003).
Yliopistollinen tutkimus murroksessa. Gaudeamus, Helsinki.
Hakala, J. & O.-H. Ylijoki (2001). Research for Whom? Research Orientations in Three
Academic Cultures. Organization 8: 2, 373–380.
Human Resources in RTD (including attractiveness of S&T professions). Benchmarking National

R&D Policies (2002). STRATA-ETAN expert working group, Final report 21 August, 2002.
European Commission, DG Research, Brussels.
57
Hurley, J. (1997). Organization and scientific discovery. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Husso, Kai (2002). Tohtoreiden työllistyminen, sijoittuminen ja liikkuvuus

työmarkkinoilla. Paper presented at the Academy of Finland and Ministry of
Education seminar on ”Challenges and opportunities of the research career”. Helsinki
22.11.2002.
Kekäle, J. (2001). Academic leadership. Nova Science Publishers, New York.
Kilpailu ja yhteistyö. Competition and Cooperation. The Science Policy Strategy of the
Academy of Finland 1998–2000 (1998). Publications of the Academy of Finland 7/98.
Knowledge and skills for life. First results from the OECD Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) 2000 (2001). OECD, Paris.
Knowledge, Innovation and Internationalisation (2003). Science and Technology Policy

Council of Finland, Helsinki.
KOTA database. Ministry of Education. <http://www.csc.fi/kota/kota.html>.
Määttä, P. (2001). Doctoral studies in the 1990s: From elite to mass training? In Välimaa,
Jussi (ed.): Finnish higher education in transition, 139–155. Institute for Educational
Research, Jyväskylä.
Määttä, Pentti, Sakari Valkonen & Helena Aittola (2002). Tieteellisen jatko-opiskelun
tehostuminen tutkijakouluissa. Korkeakoulututkimuksen VIII kansallinen symposium
29.–30.8.2002. Jyväskylä.
Nieminen, M. (2000). Diversity meets conformity – Changing research organization in

Finnish universities. VEST Tidskrift för Vetenskapsstudier 2, 23–42.
Nieminen, Mika & Erkki Kaukonen (2001). Universities and R&D networking in a
knowledge-based economy. Sitra Reports series 11.
PhDs in Finland: Employment, Placement and Demand (2003). Publications of the

Academy of Finland 5/2003.
Prihti, Aatto, Luke Georghiou, Elisabeth Helander, Jyrki Juusela, Frieder Meyer-
Krahmer, Bertil Roslin, Tuire Santamäki-Vuori & Mirja Gröhn (2000). Assessment of the
Additional Appropriation for Research. Sitra Reports series 2.
Puhakka, Antero & Juhani Rautopuro (2001). Pätkillä tieteen huipulle. Tieteentekijöiden
liiton jäsenkysely 2001. Tieteentekijöiden liitto, Joensuu.
Review 2000: The Challenge of Knowledge and Know-how (2000). Science and Technology
Policy Council of Finland, Helsinki.
58
Räsänen, K. & H. Mäntylä (2001). Preserving academic diversity: promises and
uncertainties of PAR as a survival strategy. Organization 8: 2, 299–318.
Suomen Akatemian toimintakertomus ja tilinpäätöslaskelmat 1.1.2001.–31.12.2001 (2002).

Suomen Akatemia, Helsinki.
Suomen Akatemian toimintakertomus ja tilinpäätöslaskelmat 1.1.2002.–31.12.2002 (2003).

Suomen Akatemia, Helsinki.
Tutkijanuran kehittämistyöryhmän muistio (1997). Opetusministeriön työryhmien

muistioita 5: 1997.

Technology 1999: 1.

Research 2000: 3.

Research 2002: 3.
Winter, R., T. Taylor & J. Sarros (2000). Trouble at mill: quality of academic worklife
issues within a comprehensive Australian university. Studies in Higher Education 25,
279–295.
Ylijoki O.-H. (2003). Entangled in academic capitalism? A case-study on changing

ideals and practices of university research. Higher Education 45, 307–335.
Younglove-Webb, J., B. Gray, C. W. Abdalla & A. Thurow (1999). The dynamics of

multidisciplinary research teams in academia. The Review of Higher Education 22,
425–440.
59
60
Contents
4 Measures of science policy aimed

at supporting research
This chapter is concerned with measures of science policy. It discusses the way that
universities are responding and adapting to changes in their operating environment;
research and technology programmes that network and provide direction to research
efforts; practical steps taken to promote the internationalisation of research; and
practices of evaluating research and technology. As well as describing the measures
through which science policy is pursued, this chapter also looks at the outcomes of those
measures and where possible their impacts.
4.1 Universities and their operating environment 1
4.1.1 Boundary conditions for the national development of universities

Finland has a large network of universities and polytechnics. In 2003, there are around
170,000 degree students in the country’s 20 universities and some 126,000 students in
31 polytechnics. In the 1990s core budget funding for universities2 was cut back, and
at the same time the proportion of external competitive funding sharply increased.
Central government appropriations earmarked for universities in the state budget
were slashed in 1993−1994 and did not recover to the level of the early 1990s until
towards the end of the decade. In nominal terms core budget funding for universities
showed an increase, among other reasons because acquisition and operating costs for
facilities were included under university expenditures. In 2001, university development
legislation was so amended that in 2002, operating expense items for universities were
increased by 40 million euros in addition to the cost effects of pay rises. Furthermore,
a total of almost 3.4 million euros was set aside for regional development. Although
public R&D investment in Finland is comparatively high, the scarcity of core budget
resources at universities remains a major hindrance to long-term development. The
increase in appropriations has not always been felt at departmental level.
A target outcome system was introduced between the Ministry of Education and
universities in 1994: since then the amount of core budget funds made available to
universities has been decided in negotiations on university performance and outcomes.
The system has given universities greater operational freedom and increased their
responsibility for outcomes. In particular, attention has been focused on the number
of degrees completed. The student intake has grown, but there has been hardly any
increase at all in the number of teaching posts.
The new Universities Act and decree that took effect in 1998 were designed to streamline
legislation concerning universities in Finland. The law details the functions of universities
and establishes their autonomy as well as the independence of research and education.
1
Changes in the universities’ operating environment are discussed from the researcher’s point of view under
section 3.3.
2
The development of research funding for universities and university hospitals is described in section 2.3.1.
61
Contents
In 2003, the Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland expressed the view that
in the future development of this legislation, the aim should be to encourage universities
to invest greater effort in the practical application of research results. Furthermore, the
Council considered it essential that core funding for universities be increased as part
of ongoing efforts to develop the information society. In 2002, a working group was
appointed to look into the existing system of management by results in universities. It
recommended that universities should have closer interaction and exchange with the
rest of society and that they should take steps to increase the impact of their research
findings. Work is currently under way to revise the legislation. Once these changes are
in place, they may cause new tensions between the university’s teaching and research
functions, on the one hand, and service functions, on the other.
Adopted and endorsed by the Government, the Ministry of Education’s Education and
Research Development Plan for 1999−2004 sets out the science policy objectives for the
work and operation of universities, which the universities coordinate with their own
goals. The aim of universities is to maintain high standards of research, education and
artistic activity; and to work more closely with cultural life and with business and industry.
Furthermore, for reasons of more effective internal profiling, universities are committed
to intensifying their cooperation and division of tasks. They are also committed to
improving the facilities and resources available for research and education and to
strengthening their core areas of expertise through continued structural development.
The agreements on target outcomes signed between the Ministry of Education and
universities include specific objectives concerning the allocation of basic resources,
the development of the faculty and departmental structures and regional cooperation.
Universities have their own strategies for operational and structural development.
4.1.2 Operational and structural changes in universities

Finnish universities have seen some significant changes of late through national
and internal reorganisation and reprofiling as well as through the intensification
of regional, national and international cooperation. Universities have invested in
quality and sought to diversify their interaction with the rest of society. The growth of
internationalisation at universities has extended from student and teacher exchange
through to various bilateral and multilateral agreements of cooperation, research
cooperation, associations, exhibitions and conferences. Budgetary constraints
together with the rapid growth of project-based research have thrown up major new
challenges.
Universities have overhauled their organisations. Many faculties and departments have
become more clearly profiled than before. At the University of Helsinki, for instance,
the main emphasis in reforming the faculty and departmental structures has been
on strategic management and quality assurance, as well as on the efficiency of
administration and customer service. At the University of Jyväskylä, the aim is a broadly-
based multidisciplinary organisation, which has been supported by the establishment
of the Agora Centre, a department organised around the networking principle.
In line with their management-by-results goals and objectives, all universities

reinvested from 1999 to 2002 three per cent of their 1999 level of basic resources towards
62
improving research and education and strengthening their core areas of expertise.
Several universities have poured funds into libraries, information administration and
into learning facilities. Support has been made available to key areas of emphasis, or to
those that have expanded rapidly. For instance, both Helsinki University of Technology
and Lappeenranta University of Technology have allocated resources to the growth
sectors of electrical engineering and information technology.
Universities have pooled their resources. Arts universities have concentrated operations,
or are each in the process of bringing operations under the same roof. The Media Centre
at the University of Art and Design Helsinki is used jointly by all arts universities. The
University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University have stepped up their cooperation
and now provide integrated research services. The economics units at the University of
Helsinki, the Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration and Hanken, the
Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration will be moving to the same
premises during 2003. Work to build a joint scientific library and learning centre for the
University of Vaasa, Hanken and Åbo Akademi University was completed in 2001.
New openings have been created in the fields of university education and research.
For example, education and to some extent research in economics and business
administration has expanded to several universities, including Joensuu, Kuopio,
Lapland and Oulu as well as Lappeenranta University of Technology. At Tampere
University of Technology, the opening of a new Department of Science and Engineering
and a training programme have strengthened the position and increased the exposure
of natural sciences. The University of Turku has launched a new Functional Foods
Forum and IPR University Center, which it shares with other universities. The University
of Oulu has expanded into environmental sciences. The universities in Kuopio and
Turku have opened new faculties in information technology.
In the mid-1980s, steps were taken in Finland to encourage and support the concentration
of research in the biosciences into multidisciplinary units. Between 1986 and 1995, six
administratively independent biocentres were set up at or in conjunction with five
universities. The number of staff working at biocentres has increased by more than one-
quarter from 1997 to 2001. The national evaluation of biotechnology (Biotechnology…
2002) concluded that biocentres have played a major role in modernising university
structures and education and contributed significantly to raising the quality of
research and infrastructures. They have also stressed the importance of cooperation
and assembling a critical mass. However, some biocentres now face the risk of reduced
funding for core functions.
A new opening in the humanities and social sciences was the launch in 2001 of a
new independent institute at the University of Helsinki, the multidisciplinary Helsinki
Collegium for Advanced Studies. Each year the Collegium recruits newly graduated
PhDs and more experienced scholars on the basis of merits and competition. In 2003,
the Collegium has a research staff of 35 whose terms range from one to five years. The
purpose of having researchers from different fields working under the same roof is to
promote cooperation across disciplinary boundaries and to encourage the creation
of a transdisciplinary community. Furthermore, the Collegium is intended as an
international meeting-place for scholars. As an institution, the Helsinki Collegium is
63
unique in Finland. Its international models include several similar institutes in Europe
and North America.
Rapid advances in information technology, new forms of learning and the principle of
life-long learning have all combined to change the operating environment of scientific
libraries. The changes taking place in the way that universities operate requires ever
closer networking among libraries. The Helsinki University Library is Finland’s National
Library, which functions as a service and development centre for Finnish scientific
libraries and is also charged with the responsibility of national and international
cooperation. In 2002 it has been suggested that the duties of the National Library be
expanded to cover general libraries, polytechnic libraries and specialised libraries.
Complemented by a number of other scientific libraries and information services,

university libraries constitute the backbone of the Finnish system of scientific libraries.
The growing clientele of university libraries includes not only university staff and
students, but also polytechnics, public administration and the business sector. Funding
for university libraries comes mainly from core university funds. The single biggest
problem for university libraries has been the decline in the funds made available to
them. In spite of the growing demand for their services, they have had to cut back their
staff as well as acquisitions.
FinELib, the National Electronic Library, acquires Finnish and international resources to
support teaching, learning and research. FinELib negotiates user-rights agreements for
electronic resources on a centralised basis for its member organisations. The National
Library of Finland is responsible for FinELib operations and development. FinELib’s
operation was evaluated in 2003 and found to be of a high quality (Varis & Saari
2003). The library was recognised as having a key role to play in the development of
the information society. However, development needs were identified in such areas as
strategy, funding, services, utility of statistics and cooperation. Work is continuing to
develop the operation of FinELib on the basis of the recommendations made in the
evaluation report.
Networking among universities has increased considerably. The Finnish Virtual

University is a new form of collaboration aimed at developing and promoting
university networking. Launched in 2001 as a project organisation, its aim is to develop
online services as well as new forms of networking in the fields of university education,
research and administration. Apart from diverse forms of national networking, Finnish
universities are also involved in several international networks, in some cases in the
capacity of coordinator. For instance, the national Arctic Centre at the University of
Lapland coordinates the network of universities in northern regions, and the University
of Turku is coordinator for a network of 16 universities in the Baltic Sea region.
Cooperation among universities working in the same region has been established in the
form of consortia. For instance, the various university units and polytechnics operating
in Vaasa have set up the Vaasa Consortium of Higher Education, which is committed
to diversifying education and increasing flexibility. The university consortium in the
Helsinki region includes four science and four arts universities as well as the National
Defence College.
64
Contents
4.1.3 Interaction with the rest of society

Interaction and exchange between the university sector and the rest of society has
continued to intensify. Looking forward to synergy benefits, universities have stepped
up their cooperation with different educational institutions, research and technology
centres, other public organisations, service businesses and industry.
The role of universities in regional research and development varies widely. In volume
terms their involvement is highest in the southernmost region of Uusimaa, but in
relative terms the figures here are lower than average because of the major contribution
of other sectors. There are regions in northeastern Finland where universities account
for almost one-half of research and development.
It is essential that universities have good cooperation with polytechnics in order that
they can develop a strong regional innovation system. Polytechnics have been building
up their networks of cooperation. Research and development at polytechnics is very
much an applied effort geared to the needs of working life. Its goals are often tied up
with local or regional objectives. Supporting industry in the SME sector and service
production is therefore paramount.
Government research institutes are also important partners for universities, playing
a major part in supporting the transfer of university research results into practice.
For example, the Northern Environmental Research Network (NorNet) involves
the University of Oulu, four government research institutes, regional environment
centres as well as environment sector businesses operating in northern Finland.
Promoting both scientific and societal objectives, the purpose of the project is to support
cooperation between the research community and end-users, business and industry as
well as the various bodies responsible for regional development. Among the concrete
forms of cooperation are joint professorships and an environmental graduate school.
The National Public Health Institute also has close cooperation with the University of
Kuopio and the University of Helsinki, which has resulted in two centres of excellence
based on networks of cooperation.
Many universities also provide degree programmes and adult education and engage
in research outside their home town. In 2001, degree programmes were available in 23
locations around the country. One example of a new type of network arrangement is
provided by the “regional university of Lapland” in which local educational institutions
have joined forces to offer the widest possible range of educational services to the local
population.
Another indication of the wide range and diversity of interaction between universities
and the rest of society is provided by the artistic activities of arts universities. For
instance, exhibitions and expertise in the fine arts represent the areas in which the
Academy of Fine Arts has the greatest social impact. Performances by the Theatre
Academy and concerts by the Sibelius Academy are the most visible part of the artistic
activities of these universities.
65
Innovation at universities
Universities have adopted very differing ways of responding to the challenges related
to knowledge and technology transfer (Paasio 1998, Nieminen 2000, Innovatiivisen
toiminnan... 2001). In recent years universities have launched various services, units
and posts (such as those for innovation ombudsmen) to promote the commercialisation
of new research results and to protect the legal and financial interests of universities
and their researchers.
In 2000–2001 the Finnish Council of University Rectors, with funding from the National
Fund for Research and Development Sitra, commissioned a project3 to overview existing
innovation services in Finnish universities and to outline plans for the development of
those services. The project identified several problems related to ethical and legal aspects
of innovation as well as to questions of organisation and resourcing. A network was set
up within which universities provide some of the basic services themselves and outsource
others that they are unable to maintain. The project group did not consider it justified
to adopt innovation as an outcome criterion for all universities, but recommended that
it be applied on an experimental basis in selected fields of research (e.g. economic and
business administration, engineering and certain natural sciences).
The overall situation has not been reviewed since the completion of this project,
but services have been developed for instance at the universities of Oulu, Helsinki
and Kuopio and at several specialised universities. Contract models have also been
developed that help universities protect their financial and legal interests. Since the
turn of the millennium, universities have drawn up their own innovation strategies,
strategies for external activities as well as strategies for regional activities. The Ministry
of Education has its own regional strategy and has identified the regional impacts of
universities as one of its priority targets for the 2003 outcome negotiations. While these
strategies are designed at the highest organisational level, the task of implementation
and fitting the different requirements together remains for individual departments and
laboratories: their job is to piece together the different functions of university into a
balanced whole.
Organisations for knowledge and technology transfer

Knowledge and technology transfer is mainly in the hands of technology transfer
companies, technology centres and business incubators. Technology transfer through
business companies started up in the 1980s with support from Sitra, and they became
an established part of the scene during the 1990s. Technology transfer companies have
been set up in the five biggest university towns. Universities have provided some funding
for these companies, mainly through their foundations. However, given their scarce
resources and the comparatively small scale of their operation, transfer companies
have not been able to channel a very significant proportion of universities’ knowledge
and technology transfer. Technology centres and business incubators, which have a
3
Project report in Finnish only: Innovatiivisen toiminnan tukipalvelut yliopistoissa. Projektin loppuraportti ja
suositukset. Espoo 5.6.2001.
66
highly differentiated and diverse ownership base, have been an important complement
to transfer companies.
Case studies of the University of Helsinki and Helsinki Science Park, Helsinki University
of Technology and its Innovation Centre as well as the Helsinki School of Economics and
Business Administration and LTT Research Ltd have shown that transfer organisations
frequently have problems negotiating between the interests of different kinds of cultures
(Pelkonen 2001, Tuunainen 2002). Case studies in the Jyväskylä and Tampere regions,
for their part, have concluded that the role of the university and its relationship to the
environment cannot be determined on the basis of one uniform model because each
operating environment presents very different kinds of demands upon the university, its
structures and the way it works. Depending on the situation, universities have served and
can serve as the anchor, dynamo or magnet within their region (Kolehmainen et al. 2002).
Transfer organisations are now expanding from their traditional fields of knowledge
and technology transfer to universities’ cultural functions. For instance, the University
of Art and Design Helsinki has joined forces with the Helsinki School of Economics and
Business Administration and Helsinki University of Technology to set up the Design
Innovation Centre Designium. The Sibelius Academy has had joint business incubator
projects with Hanken, the Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration.
There has been no systematic review of the nature of knowledge and technology transfer
in Finnish universities. The University of Joensuu has opened dedicated posts together
with the Forest Research Institute, the Regional Environment Centre of North Karelia
and most recently with Joensuu Science Park. At Helsinki University of Technology,
technology transfer is primarily organised through joint research and development
projects with industrial partners.
Collaboration with outside partners in technology transfer places special requirements

on universities’ support services. Effective strategic management requires clear
definitions of the basic functions and the service role of universities in society, clear
guidelines and agreements as well as strategies that set out the general framework of
operations (Innovatiivisen toiminnan... 2001, Korkeakoulujen osallistuminen... 2002).
Development efforts and evaluation of their outcomes is complicated by the large
number of actors, interests and organisations involved as well as by deficits in the
information systems for knowledge and technology transfer.
University participation in different kinds of programmes

In the 1980s and 1990s, universities also sought to establish closer contact both with
the local community and with the broader society through their involvement in various
kinds of programmes. The discussion below describes the centre of expertise programme
(see also section 4.2.2) and EU structural funds from the vantage-point of interaction
and exchange between universities and their environment. Tekes-funded technology
programmes are covered separately under section 4.2.1.
As far as universities are concerned the centre of expertise programme serves primarily
as a support structure for research and development. The university network together
67
Contents
with polytechnics is of great significance for this programme. University inputs to

centres of expertise have mainly been of an operational nature, but this has varied
widely across centres and areas of expertise. The overall impact of these programmes
has also varied, and it is difficult to provide a reliable assessment. On the one hand,
the programme has increased and diversified the funding available, improved facilities
and strengthened collaboration. On the other hand, different fields of research are quite
differently placed, relying as they do on regional funding sources. At the same time,
universities have become ever more dependent on the short-term output and impact
demands imposed on them. The role of the centre of expertise programme from the
point of view of cooperation is discussed under section 4.2.2.
For purposes of regional development, universities have received international funding

particularly through the EU’s structural funds. In recent years the annual amount
that universities have received through these sources (including national funding)
has been in excess of 30 million euros. A significant proportion of that sum has been
channelled through the National Technology Agency Tekes. Funds have been allocated
among other things for purposes of strengthening the research capacity of universities.
The funding obtained through structural funds for R&D and innovation has clearly
increased in recent years. Structural funds have increased universities’ funding options,
provided clearer direction to regional strategic thinking and promoted cooperation
between different parties. Opinions are more sharply divided on the question of how
far the structural funds can bolster universities’ innovation policy (Kuitunen 2000,
Korkeakoulujen alueellisen... 2001). It has been argued that certain features about EU
structural funding – its bureaucracy and narrow scope, the focus on project work and
individual regions – effectively undermine universities’ own strategic control and the
prospects of universities having a local impact.
All in all the regional strategies and other links discussed above increase the prospects
of universities having a stronger local impact (through the joint use of infrastructures,
improved networking and division of tasks, information dissemination, etc.), but they
do not support immediate, short-term impacts. Some commentators believe that the
decentralisation of universities and the regional network of knowledge and technology
transfer have supported each other and strengthened the regional impacts of
universities. However, there are also mutual tensions between innovation and regional
policy. Both may furthermore be at lesser or greater variance with the responsibilities
and challenges of basic research at universities. In addition, the science and technology
policy objectives as well as the actors and instruments related to technology transfer are
interwoven in such a way that it is rarely possible to make a clear distinction between
the aims, outcomes and impacts of different actors. It is difficult to gain solid overall
control (Kuisma 1998, Huippuosaamisesta... 2003).
4.2 Programmes
4.2.1 Research and technology programmes

Recent trends in funding for research and technology programmes provide a useful
illustration of the significance of these programmes for research and development (Table
4.1). Programme funding from the Academy of Finland (for research programmes,
68
on the one hand, and centre of excellence programmes, on the other) has increased
substantially in recent years. Programme funding from Tekes has doubled from 1997
to 2002.
Table 4.1. Academy of Finland and Tekes programme funding in 1997–2002.
Programme funding* 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

€ € € € € €
million million million million million million
Academy of Finland research programmes 23.2 26.5 31.9 30.8 39.6 21.8
Academy of Finland centre of excellence programmes 5.6 3.0 24.7 – 16.0 30.3
Tekes technology programmes 95.4 148.8 185.0 157.3 185.0 204.0
*Volume of funding decisions indicated in the value of the respective year.

Sources: Academy of Finland Annual Operating Review 2002, Tekes Annual Reviews 1997–2002.
Research programmes coordinated by the Academy of Finland

Academy of Finland research programmes are composed of a number of research projects
that are focused on a defined subject area or set of problems and that are scheduled to
run for a set period of time under a coordinated management. Funding may also be al-
located for a specific field of research, theme or purpose. Research programmes are im-
portant tools for developing research, science policy, research funding and cooperation.
They may be motivated by internal development needs within a discipline or field of
research, by needs to support a new, emerging field or by needs to produce new informa-
tion on an issue or problem that is considered to be of great societal import. Usually run-
ning for three years, there have been some 20 ongoing research programmes each year
during the period from 1998 to 2002. As from 2003, programme funding will typically be
made available for four-year terms, which is the most appropriate period from the point
of view of postgraduate training needs, for instance. (Suomen Akatemian… 2003.)
Academy research programmes can be seen as tools for promoting a new kind of re-
search culture that revolves around diverse and multilayered interaction, networking
and cooperation (Hakala et al. 2003.) According to the Academy’s research programme
strategy (2003), its general science policy objectives are
• to develop research environments
• to coordinate scattered research capacities
• to promote multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity
• to develop national and international cooperation between researchers, funding
bodies and end-users of research results
• to increase the international exposure of Finnish research through closer cooperation
between researchers, funding bodies and end-users of research results
• to promote researcher training and professional careers in research.
National and international cooperation among funding bodies has increased in recent
years in the funding of research programmes. This has involved some coordination
and harmonisation of divergent research interests, funding criteria, decision-making
procedures and time frames. In the funding of its research programmes and targeted
programmes in 2002, the Academy had cooperation with 26 private and public funding
69
bodies from Finland and elsewhere. International partners were involved in the funding
of six programmes. A total of seven ministries and three other public funding bodies, five
domestic foundations and three other private funding bodies plus eight foreign funders
were involved in the preparation and funding of Academy programmes. The National
Technology Agency Tekes was involved in 10 Academy research programmes, the Academy
for its part was involved in three Tekes technology programmes. Six of the foreign funding
bodies were from Sweden, one from the United States and one from France.
The Academy is now taking active steps towards the international networking of its
programmes, towards jointly funded programmes and towards opening up programme
components and even whole programmes to the international research community.
Programmes initiatives from foreign funding bodies are screened and selected
according to current needs of cooperation. The Academy has supported in various ways
the involvement of Finnish researchers in European and other international research
programmes. The Academy is looking forward to coordinating and taking part in
several ERA-NET programme networks under the EU’s sixth framework programme.
These programmes that are jointly funded by research funding bodies promote the
networking of research and the opening up of research programmes.
The Academy’s research programme strategy (2003) takes account of the challenges
presented by what is an increasingly international operating environment and the
needs to further develop national programme cooperation. The strategy recognises
that carefully planned and well-managed research programmes provide one possible
platform for expanded national and international cooperation. The research programme
is a goal-driven, diverse form of research funding whose success is evaluated upon its
completion. The results of evaluation are used for purposes of research development
and science policy planning.
The attainment of the objectives of Academy research programmes is evaluated upon their
completion by international experts. The following summarises the main findings of
the evaluation reports4 on research programmes evaluated in 2001−2003, and reviews
the results of Hakala et al. (2003) on 12 research programmes from the late 1990s.
According to these assessments, the Academy’s research programmes have supported

the development of research environments and science communities and have had a
positive impact on the development of the disciplines concerned. For the main part the
scientific standard of the research projects has been excellent or good. This is only to be
expected: after all the projects have been selected in rigorous processes of international
peer reviews. In some cases the evaluations have concluded that the objectives set for
the research programme have been too broad and ambitious when considered against
the resources available.
The objectives set for researcher training have been met very well or well. The growth
of postgraduate training has been the most significant change in all fields of research.
At the same time, the programmes have provided training for experts in such fields as
urban policy, environmental health and industry. One of the problems identified is that
4
The evaluation reports are listed at the end of this chapter under Other sources.
70
the three-year term of the research programme is not long enough for the completion
of the doctoral degree. Most projects in Academy research programmes starting up in
2004 will be funded for a four-year period.
Research programmes have helped to promote multidisciplinarity. There is increased

cooperation across disciplinary boundaries, and some programmes have created
entirely new contacts between the humanities and social sciences on the one hand and
the natural sciences, on the other. However, given the different vantage-points, concepts
and traditions of different disciplines, it is clear that they must invest considerable effort
in finding a common language and understanding: they cannot expect to achieve
deeper interdisciplinary cooperation until some way down the road. Some programmes
have set overly ambitious objectives.
Research programmes have also increased cooperation and networking among

researchers representing different disciplines and organisations, providing a useful
framework and the necessary resources for cooperation. The exchange of information
and experiences as well as the description and comparison of results were the most
common forms of cooperation. There was significantly less cooperation at a deeper level.
Research programmes reinforced existing relations or helped collaborating projects
find new partners with whom they thought they would benefit from cooperation. There
was less cooperation in programmes that involved very different kinds of projects.
The structure of the programme and the emphases of the projects involved as well as
coordination can affect the shape that cooperation assumes. Consortia set up among
several projects within the framework of a research programme have proved to be
a very useful form of collaboration. There has also been some cooperation between
programmes. The natural sciences have had good success in integrating basic and
applied research.
Research programmes have helped to bolster international cooperation. In most cases

existing relations of cooperation are strengthened during the course of the programme,
but it is not very often that new contacts are established. International publishing and
research cooperation have increased especially in projects in the humanities and social
sciences. In a few programmes researchers have been unhappy with the opportunities
offered for internationalisation.
Some Academy research programmes have been set specific targets with regard to
their social impacts. In most cases the social impacts of programmes are not seen
until several years later. However, they are evaluated immediately upon completion
so that their immediate impacts can be identified – even though it is impossible
at this stage to say anything definite about their indirect impacts. It is also worth
considering how the impacts of the programme can be distinguished from the
impacts of other activities.
Separate analyses of the social impacts of three different research programmes were
carried out for the first time in 2002. Commissioned by the Academy, an outside
consultant evaluated the national impact of the Biodiversity Research Programme
(Otronen & Tirkkonen 2002). The social impacts of the Research Programme on
Environmental Health were evaluated by a panel of national experts representing
71
different fields of expertise (Ympäristöterveyden… 2003). End-users considered the
Research Programme for Urban Studies so significant that the Ministry of the Interior
commissioned an evaluation of how the results of the research programme impacted
debate and discussion on urban policy and urban planning (Antikainen et al. 2002). In
addition to the separate impact assessments mentioned above, international scientific
evaluations have commented on the social impacts of research programmes.
Research programmes in the humanities and social sciences have produced useful
information in support of political decision-making. The Russia and Eastern Europe
Research Programme has helped to satisfy the growing needs for information and
expertise in different sectors, primarily in the field of economics and political studies.
The Research Programme for the Economic Crisis of the 1990s (LAMA) has drawn
attention to and analysed issues relevant to social development and produced
significant material for political debate.
The ministries involved in the Research Programme for Urban Studies (URBS) felt that
the objectives set for the programme were met reasonably well. Designed to cover a
broad range of different perspectives, it generated new information for various different
policy sectors. Some of the projects have clearly highlighted the extent and significance
of political themes whose importance has previously been underestimated. According
to a separate study (Antikainen et al. 2002), the programme concluded that urban
policy should also cover small and medium-sized urban regions and that measures of
urban policy shall also take into account the growing tendencies of individualisation
and give more attention to cultural as well as identity questions.
The Research Programme on Environmental Health (SYTTY) produced results that

have been used for purposes of risk assessment, health protection and legislation. The
programme has helped to raise the general esteem of this field, and large numbers
of experts have been trained in its projects. Knowledge transfer and its application
in decision-making were successful, and decision-makers were well aware of the
programme. The immediate social impacts of the programme upon the quality and
funding of environmental health research as well as upon researcher training were very
significant indeed. However, there was only limited production of economically viable
innovations and experimental interventions.
The Research Programme on Health and Other Welfare Differences between Population
Groups (TERO) has had an impact on ongoing work within government to draft a
national health programme as well as on national health policy. The programme has
also increased awareness about flaws and problems in health policy.
The Finnish Biodiversity Research Programme (FIBRE) has enjoyed quite exceptional
international exposure and has also had a significant impact on international policy.
The general impacts of the programme have been to enrich biodiversity research and
promote general awareness and sustainable development in society. Most social impacts
are related to environmental protection, which also has socio-economic impacts. The
Integration and Synthesis Project (BITUMI) brought together research results, promoted
the application of those results, and increased exchange and discussion between FIBRE
projects, the rest of the science community and end-users in line with the objectives
72
set for BITUMI. In general this has been an innovative effort that has supported
communication between researchers and end-users.
Universities and research institutes have worked closely with industry particularly
in research programmes in the natural sciences and engineering. For instance, the
Materials Research and Structures Research Programme (MATRA) and the Research
Programme for Process Technology (PROTEK) involved close cooperation between
universities and the business sector and produced important innovations and patents.
Young researchers were recruited into industry. The MATRA programme also produced
a few spin-off companies. The Research Programme for Electronic Materials and
Microsystems (EMMA) inspired several researchers to try and find industrial applications
for their research.
Tekes technology programmes

Programmes funded and administered by the National Technology Agency Tekes are
aimed at organising technology development within larger projects that are focused
on a certain area of technology, theme or problem. As well as running programmes
that are aimed at increasing basic knowledge at a national level, Tekes coordinates
programmes that are designed around industry needs.
The general aim of technology programmes is to support and strengthen the capacity
of business companies for technological renewal; to produce new information, skills
and technologies; to promote the dissemination and application of research results;
and to improve national and international cooperation in R&D. Furthermore, each
technology programme will have a more specific set of objectives. According to Tekes
strategies and programme documents these concern:
• desired social impacts (promoting employment and welfare, diversification of
production structures, etc.)
• desired industry impacts (promoting the internationalisation of new industries,
promoting the commercialisation of industry products, etc.)
• desired direct impacts (promoting the interaction and networking among programme
projects, boosting business and industry competitiveness, etc.).
Tekes technology programme funding in 1997−2002 is described in Table 4.1. The

average budget for technology programmes ongoing in 2002 was around 33 million
euros and their average duration 4.5 years. Tekes is keen to support and promote the
cooperation and networking among different organisations by launching joint research
and technology programmes together with other funding bodies. In particular, Tekes
has intensified its cooperation with the Academy of Finland. In 2002, Tekes technology
programmes involved a total of some 2,200 business participations and around 790
research unit participations. According to the agency’s annual report, Tekes had in
2002 a total of 48 ongoing technology programmes. Tekes and the Academy of Finland
were collaborating in nine technology and research programmes; five of these were
Academy of Finland research programmes.
Programme cooperation between Tekes and the Academy has increased and diversified
in recent years, starting from the planning and implementation of joint programmes
73
and extending through to joint evaluations and joint development efforts. So far
cooperation between the two agencies has been most extensive in two programmes
that have already been evaluated: the research and technology programmes in the
field of electronics and telecommunications (ETX and TLX, launched by Tekes) and
Telectronics I (launched by the Academy of Finland) as well as the Nanotechnology
Research Programme. The programme components were jointly designed and
implementation was coordinated, even though formal definitions were avoided. The
programmes were aimed at boosting the growth and development of the Finnish
IT sector, but they also had goals related to the development of the programme
instrument which supported the interests of both Tekes and the Academy. Participation
in planning and supervisions meant that Tekes gained access to the domain of
strategic basic research, the Academy for its part gained a new angle on the needs of
business and industry.
From the Academy’s point of view, Telectronics I was one in a series of eight research
programmes launched on the strength of the government’s additional spending
programme and geared at forging closer links between general science funding
and Tekes technology funding (Evaluation of Finnish… 2002). This programme
cluster provided business companies with a useful opportunity to develop their R&D
operations by supporting and sponsoring business-driven projects that involved
technological or financial risks and to take part in longer-term projects run by
research organisations.
The Nanotechnology Research Programme shared the same goal of crossing the
boundary between basic and applied research and between different funding bodies
and improving the cooperation between Tekes and the Academy. Since the boundary
line between basic and applied research is rather fluid in the field of nanotechnology
and since the programme was driven towards multidisciplinarity, it was organised
flexibly rather than having strict definitions imposed on the scope of its work. Because
applications take a long time to mature in nanotechnology and because the programme
was primarily oriented to basic research, there were no expectations of immediate
commercial benefits. Some of the projects did proceed to produce commercially
relevant applications, but commercialisation was hampered by patenting problems.
(Nanotechnology… 2002.)
Technology programmes vary in their focus and they also have different objectives with
regard to their impacts. According to a recent assessment the Tekes programme concept
is being revised and technology programmes are focusing more and more closely on the
development of a certain component of a sectoral innovation system (e.g. actors within
a certain industry): under active programme management, the aim now is to achieve
innovation benefits at system level (Autio et al. 2003). Examples of such programmes
include the Kenno, Plastic Processing and Pigments technology programmes. The Kenno
programme is aimed at stimulating light-weight product innovations in the metal
industry. The Plastic Processing programme was focused on new product innovations
in the plastic industry, while Pigments was concerned to develop new ways of using
pigments in the paper industry. A more systematic overview of the new programme
concept is provided in a technology review by Gustafsson et al. (2003). Focusing on
weak signals, this review explores the role of technology programmes in the future and
74
seeks to identify new approaches for the future. It proposes a distinction between five
new types of programme5.
For reasons of strategic emphasis the size of programmes and the scope of evaluations
have been expanded. In addition to the electronics and telecommunications programmes
mentioned above, relevant examples include the evaluations of the Static Electricity,
Future Products and Control of Vibration and Sound programmes (Laine 2003). These
three programmes were aimed at integrating the know-how of two industries or fields of
research (e.g. the control of sound and vibration in buildings and machinery). Another
example is provided by the evaluation of the GPB, ProBuild and Quality programmes
(Kilpailukykyä... 2002). Here the focus is upon global project business, the progressing
building process and quality in the network economy. The Information Technology
and Electronic Power Systems Technology Programme TESLA and the Waste to Energy
Technology Programme (Rajahonka et al. 2002) are concerned with the production of
energy and the utilisation of waste energy as a new challenge in society. The orientation
to broader programme entities has also contributed to the development of new type
of cluster concept (Uusikylä et al. 2003). The sensitivity of programme evaluations to
recognising, predicting and supporting ongoing changes has been improved by more
closely integrating the functions of foresight and evaluation.
The social impacts of technology programmes are diverse and far-reaching. They
have produced new knowledge and know-how, facilitated the strategic focusing of
research, supported the networking of knowledge, activities and resources, strengthened
competitiveness, increased the visibility of research and made possible a longer term
approach to research (Tuomaala et al. 2001).
The impacts of technology programmes have changed over time. In the 1980s, they
promoted and supported the introduction of new technologies. Today, programmes serve
the purposes of creating new technology openings and developing technologies of great
societal import (e.g. Rissa 2003). As well as having important benefits, programmes are
also in need of development. The ambitious objectives set for technology programmes
have not always led to radical reform. Problems and risks are related to the organisation
and implementation of programmes, the application of their results, the way they are
focused as well as to the loss of diversity in research and development (Berg 1999,
Tuomaala et al. 2001).
The main development challenges that face technology programmes, according to

evaluation reports, have to do with international networking and strengthening
technologies that are environmentally friendly and have beneficial welfare effects.
For reasons of strategic coherence, the programme concept needs to be clarified and
methods of programme evaluation continually improved. Closer attention needs
to be paid to the start-up phase of programmes (e.g. identification of targets) and
their management, and the overall level of challenges should be raised. All this
requires closer cooperation among the funding bodies and especially the inclusion of
polytechnics and social research. The Research Programme for Advanced Technology
5
These are vision programmes; programmes supporting knowledge and know-how sectors; cluster programmes in
different industries; user-driven technology programmes; and social megatrend programmes.
75
Contents
Policy (ProACT) has taken steps in precisely this direction. ProACT is a programme run
jointly by the Ministry of Trade and Industry and Tekes, concentrating on questions
of interaction between technology, business and industry and the rest of society. It
comprises both research interests related to decision-making on technology policy and
projects concerned with more traditional themes of social research.
4.2.2 Cluster programmes and centre of expertise programme
Cluster programmes
Cluster programmes were first launched in 1997 in the wake of the government’s
decision to open an additional spending programme aimed at boosting research
and development. A cluster programme is built up around business companies and
organisations that share a common goal and that are keen to reap the benefits of
cooperation (Prihti et al. 2000). The aim of these programmes has been to strengthen
the international competitiveness of the know-how clusters concerned. They have gone
about this task by promoting the networking of public and private agents. There have
been eight cluster programmes in Finland under the administration of five different
ministries. Involving more than 300 projects, the combined volume of these clusters
in 1997−1999 was in excess of 100 million euros. In its 2003 review the Science and
Technology Policy Council of Finland recommended that cluster programmes redirect
their focus to promoting social innovations and service innovations.
Ministries have had an important role in organising the work of clusters. Most of the
public funding has come through Tekes, followed by the Academy of Finland. The
discussion below provides an overview of the national cluster programmes that have
been started up with funding from the government’s additional spending programme
and that have by now been evaluated. Since then cluster programmes have diversified
and developed.
In 1997−2000, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry granted 2.1 million euros to
support 12 research projects under the Foodstuffs cluster. The target set for the programme
was to support the adaptation of Finnish agriculture and the food industry and to
strengthen their competitiveness. According to the national evaluation of the cluster
programme (Poutiainen & Salminen 2001) the projects by and large achieved their
goals. New contacts of cooperation were created between the research organisations
involved, and existing contacts were reinforced. Cooperation with the business sector,
by contrast, left much to be desired: there were no more than a few projects in which
business and industry took any significant part. Although the programme produced
only very little information with immediate application in product development, it
was thought that the results overall were encouraging and that they provided a useful
foundation for future business, production and product development purposes. The
reviewers recommended that cluster programmes in this sector be continued and that
more than one funding body is needed.
Set up on the initiative of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Forest Cluster
Research Programme (Wood Wisdom) in 1998–2001 had a total budget of 33 million
euros, with monies from public sources accounting for two-thirds or 22 million
76
euros. The programme was funded by Tekes, the Academy of Finland, the Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry and the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Private sources and
the research organisations themselves accounted for one-third of the funding. The aim
of the programme was to promote the competitiveness of the forest sector in an ever-
changing environment by combining the resources of the whole production chain so
that the customer’s expectations and demands with regard to the end-product can
be satisfied. The research and technology programme cluster covers the whole chain
of chemical and mechanical processing from the raw material through to the final
product.
The scientific and technical standard of the programme was rated highly in an
international peer review (Finnish Forest… 2002). It was described as well organised
and coordinated. The consortia set up under the programme’s umbrella promoted
the development of research environments, and university projects had good success
in researcher training. The consortia were successful in integrating basic and applied
research and other aspects of know-how, adding to synergy benefits. National and
international cooperation and networking among researchers was highly successful.
The end-users of the results were also closely involved in the programme. According
to the programme’s self-assessment (Salo et al. 2002) it had reasonably good success
in improving research cooperation and strengthening the knowledge base for
industrial competitiveness. The programme brought together different kinds of funding
organisations, university researchers, people from government research institutes
and industry and created a new forum of discussion and deliberation on the cluster’s
challenges and future prospects. However, it was felt that more international networking
and cooperation was needed.
Starting up in 2003, the sequel to Wood Wisdom – the Wood Material Science programme
– is divided into two components: the production of new strategic knowledge on the
material properties of wood and the development of new ways of using research results.
The programme will be funded jointly from international sources, possibly within the
ERA-NET scheme.
The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health spent close to five million euros on the welfare
cluster in 1997−2000. This cluster comprised research into the technology and service
products used in social welfare and health care as well as their development, production
and use. It also comprised home help services and home health care, self-care and
solutions promoting independent coping. In addition to general networking objectives,
the cluster had the specific goal of improving the quality of social and health care
services.
The biggest single project in this cluster has been the Macro pilot project, which
involved 20 projects. The aim was to create seamless customer-driven service chains
using information technology, to test a customer card supporting this service chain and
to improve privacy protection. According to the evaluation of the programme, the best
success was achieved with the introduction of experimental legislation. At the meso
level, attention was drawn to the key significance of regions and health care districts;
at the micro level the best results were achieved in encounters with the client and in the
organisation of the service chain. The people involved in the projects learned better to
77
understand one another. However, the Macro pilot had great difficulties attaining the
targets set for it, apparently for reasons that have to do with preparation, organisation,
supervision and scheduling. Many of the objectives (including the involvement of
business companies, IT solutions, practical reforms in social and health care services,
new significant strategies of action) were only partially met, some were not met at all.
The programme did, however, have some indirect benefits. It encouraged the units
that took part in the competition to weigh and consider their own ability to engage
in cooperation across sectoral boundaries. In the Oulu region in northern Finland, the
competition also led to determined efforts to build up cluster contacts. The project has
continued to expand and its overall impacts are not yet fully visible. (Ohtonen 2002,
Tarkiainen 2002.)
Transport Cluster and Telecommunications Cluster. At the Ministry of Transport and

Communications, the funds made available through the government’s additional
spending programme were used to launch the Research and Development Programme
of Transport Telematics (TETRA: 58 projects, total funding around 11.5 million euros),
the Transport Chain Development Programme (KETJU: 36 projects, more than 14
million euros) and the Verkkokaveri Programme supporting datacommunications
development (VEKA: 7.5 million euros). The aim of the TETRA programme was to
support private R&D projects working to create new telematics products and services.
KETJU, for its part, was a development programme aimed at increasing national know-
how about international freight transport chains, at developing new products for the
international marketplace and at promoting national objectives within EU transport
policy. Finally, the purpose of VEKA was to provide concrete support and information to
SMEs on the opportunities offered by the Internet, on different forms of online business
and on practical solutions and in general on the application of IT and communications
technologies in SME business.
For reasons of confidentiality, the interim evaluations in 2000 had only limited access
to information on new projects launched under the umbrella of the TETRA and KETJU
programmes (KETJU… 2000). The projects within the TETRA programme had led to
certain products and services (e.g. personal navigators and personal digital systems).
The programme provides useful support for various public sector operations and the
development of private sector products and services. The projects will be brought to
conclusion during 2002 and 2003. The appearance of the KETJU programme at Finland’s
premier logistics exhibition in 2002 is a good example of how a programme can support
the commercial success of its projects. The programme had no clear guidelines for
supporting small companies in their efforts to commercialise their products. According
to an assessment carried out towards the final stages of VEKA in 2000 (Verkkokaveri…
2000), the targets set for the programme had been met both in terms of exercising an
impact on SMEs and in terms of results. As for permanent incentive impacts, applicable
strategy models and concrete implementation at company level, it was concluded that
further effort was still required in order to meet the objectives.
Coordinated by the Ministry of Labour, the first term of the Finnish National Workplace
Development Programme ended in 1999; its second term runs from 2000 through to
2003. Aimed at supporting development efforts within this field and at promoting
the dissemination of knowledge and know-how, it received five million euros out
78
of the government’s additional spending programme. According to the programme
evaluation, it achieved its objectives (Pitkänen et al. 2003), responding well to the
development challenges in the workplace. The most important of these challenges
was maintaining the competitiveness of the Finnish national economy in the global
marketplace. The programme launched development projects aimed at increasing
productivity and promoting the quality of working life. Its scientific and research
impacts were considered somewhat limited. It had less contact with other programmes
than would have been desirable.
The Finnish Environmental Cluster Programme is coordinated by the Ministry of the

Environment and funded by the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Trade
and Industry, Tekes and the Academy of Finland. The programme received more than
13 million euros through the government’s spending programme. Its aim has been to
generate new information that would create a sound basis for developing the living
environment and for resolving the key environmental problems of the immediate future.
The purpose is to find new ways to save the environment, to create new innovations that
can help promote welfare and people’s living environment and to intensify cooperation
between researchers, business and industry, the authorities and funding bodies. Carried
out in three phases, the main theme of the programme has been that of eco-efficiency.
Not all projects in the programme have been selected primarily on the basis of the
scientific standard of their research. The programme’s steering group commissioned an
outside evaluation of the programme for internal use upon completion of the first stage.
After the second stage, the programme was refocused in line with the recommendations
of a separate study (Heinonen et al. 2002). The programme’s third term starts in 2003
and continues through to 2005.
Centre of expertise programme

Based on the Regional Development Act (602/2002), the Centre of expertise programme is
aimed at promoting the national goals set for regional development. The programme
consists of 14 regional centres of expertise and two centres built around a national
network which operate in connection with technology centres. In 2001 a total of 430
interest groups were represented on the advisory boards and steering groups of centres
of expertise, with 1,100 experts from different fields engaged in the expert groups
responsible for supervision. A total of 3,075 companies, 460 research and training units
and 480 other development organisations were involved in the programme in 2001.
(Huippuosaamisesta... 2003.)
The programme has the aim of facilitating the placement and development of
internationally competitive business and research that requires a high level of
expertise. The original idea of the centre of expertise concept – to increase interaction
and cooperation between the business sector and research – has for the main part been
successful. Its most significant impacts are thought to have included an increased level
of know-how, a higher standard of technology and an improved readiness to make use of
research and development resources. (Osaamiskeskukset... 2001, Huippuosaamisesta...
2003.) The significance of the centre of expertise programme from the point of view of
universities is discussed under section 4.1.3.
79
Contents
4.2.3 Centre of excellence in research programmes

Several countries around the world have earmarked funding for centres of excellence
in research (Malkamäki et al. 2001). In Finland there are two ongoing centre of
excellence programmes in 2003: the 26 centres appointed for the 2000–2005 term and
the 16 centres appointed for the 2002–2007 term. The programmes are funded by the
Academy of Finland, Tekes, universities, research institutes and foundations. The centre
of excellence programmes are evaluated upon their completion.
The programme is open to all disciplines. The units taking part are selected on a
competitive basis, and funding is provided for two consecutive three-year periods. A
centre of excellence may operate within a university or research institute, and it may
also include groups from the private sector. The centres appointed to the programme
are either at or very close to the international cutting edge in their own field of expertise.
The centre consists of one or more high-profile research groups who share a clear set
of objectives and who work under the same management. The criteria applied in the
selection of centres of excellence are their scientific merits and outputs, their research
and action plan, the research environment they provide as well as success in researcher
training.
Each centre of excellence has its own international scientific advisory group whose job
it is to support, promote and monitor the work that is done at the centre. Depending
on the field of research, two or more centres of excellence may have partly or wholly
the same advisory group. The 42 centres of excellence in the two programmes have a
total of 38 advisory groups, who usually convene once a year in the centre’s premises.
Often a seminar is organised to coincide with the meeting to give senior fellows and
junior researchers the opportunity to introduce their work. In addition, advisory groups
have been introduced to laboratories and fieldwork. The advisory groups report to the
Academy and other funding bodies on the scientific and organisational development
of the centres of excellence, the development of research careers, infrastructures,
cooperation, social impacts, international exposure and the added value gained from
the status of centre of excellence. There is a separate chapter in this review on the social
impacts of individual centres of excellence.
The Academy promotes international networking among centre of excellence

programmes, and it has had an active role in planning and starting up the Nordic
centres of excellence programme. Within the context of this programme, the Nordic
Natural Science Research Councils (NOS-N) and the Nordic Council of Ministers
provided in 2003−2007 funding for four units in the field of global change research.
This is a pilot programme that is expected to yield useful experiences and ideas for the
further development of Nordic research cooperation.
In 2002 the Academy of Finland and the National Natural Science Foundation of China
invited applications from Finnish centres of excellence and high-level research groups
in China for joint projects. Four such joint projects were granted funding in the fields of
population biology, forestry research, signal processing and chemical engineering for a
period of three years. The funding organisations are closely monitoring progress, with
special reference to the added value generated in cooperation.
80
Contents
4.3 Internationalisation of research

In Finland, responsibility for technology policy and the preparation and coordination
of matters related to EU science and technology policy lies with the Ministry of Trade
and Industry. The Ministry of Education is responsible for international cooperation
in the field of education and to some extent in research. The Academy of Finland and
the National Technology Agency Tekes serve as national points of contact for and as
experts on several international science and technology organisations. The foundation
for cooperation is provided by the payment of membership fees to international
associations, or by bilateral and multilateral agreements. The most important objective
of cooperation is to facilitate the internationalisation of universities, research institutes
and other organisations involved in research and development. The discussion below
provides an overview of the main forms of international cooperation from the point of
view of science policy.
4.3.1 National competitive funding from the point of view

of internationalisation
The Academy of Finland’s mission is to raise the standards of research and education
in Finland and to support international mobility and cooperation among researchers.
The Academy promotes international cooperation in research and researcher training
by funding and supporting research projects and posts, researcher training as well
as research programmes and centres of excellence. Virtually all Academy-funded
projects involve international cooperation. In addition, the Academy awards grants for
purposes of supporting bilateral researcher exchange and work abroad. The Academy
also provides support for foreign researchers working in Finland; for the organisation of
international conferences; and for the preparation of joint international projects.
The Academy has bilateral agreements of research cooperation with 37 organisations

and 25 countries. For purposes of reviewing applications it receives, the Academy relies
to an increasing extent on the services of foreign experts. In 2000 they reviewed 18 per
cent of the applications received for general purpose funding, in 2002 the figure was up
to 41 per cent.
The National Technology Agency Tekes promotes the internationalisation of business

companies, research, technology and the whole innovation system by awarding funding
for the preparation of international research and product development projects and
joint international projects. According to the agency’s 2002 annual report, well over
one-third of the R&D projects it funded in 2002 (754 out of 2,017) were internationally
networked. In over half of these it had cooperation with EU countries, in over one-
quarter with the United States and in five per cent with Japan. In 2002, Tekes had 48
ongoing technology programmes, 44 of which involved international collaboration.
Close to half or 43 per cent of the projects in these programmes were international.
4.3.2 Nordic cooperation

The Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Academy of
Finland are all represented on the Nordic Council of Ministers’ education and research
81
Contents
committees and advisory boards. The most important bodies are the research policy
council (FPR) and the steering committee within higher education (HÖGUT). Finland
last chaired the Nordic Council of Ministers and its bodies in 2001. During Finland’s
chairmanship the main emphasis in education and research cooperation was on
promoting the mobility of researchers, information society policy and life-long learning.
Special attention was also paid to the start-up of the centres of excellence programme
and to cooperation among distance universities.
The project to build up a European Research Area has presented a host of new
challenges as well as new opportunities for Nordic cooperation. The Nordic Council
of Ministers has commissioned an inquiry into the Nordic research cooperation and
structures and into the need for reform. The aim is to make the Nordic countries a
leading international force in research and innovation. The findings of the inquiry will
be published in autumn 2003.
The Academy’s Research Councils are represented on the Joint Committees of

Nordic Research Councils (NOS-S, NOS-H, NOS-M, NOS-N). Their aim is to promote
collaboration among the Research Councils in their respective fields and to improve
coordination. The Nordic Joint Committees prepare and issue joint statements on
questions of international research policy and suggest new research and postgraduate
training projects in the Nordic countries. Some Committees award funding for
joint Nordic research projects and for hosting Nordic scientific conferences. All four
Academy Research Councils are involved in the Nordic Data Grid project, which in
Finland is coordinated by the Centre for Scientific Computing under the Ministry of
Education. Organised as part of the European GRID project, its purpose is to facilitate
the processing and application of scattered research data and to develop the related
infrastructure. In the natural sciences, NOS-N has joined the Nordic Council of
Ministers in funding the Nordic centres of excellence pilot programme in 2002−2006,
which is concentrated on the theme of global change. There is also close cooperation
with the Baltic countries.
Researcher mobility is supported and promoted through the Nordic Academy for
Advanced Study (NorFa). As part of the Nordic centres of excellence programme, NorFa
provides funding for Nordic graduate schools in the natural sciences and engineering;
as from the beginning of 2004 it will also be supporting graduate schools in social and
cultural research together with NOS-S (Joint Committee of the Nordic Social Science
Research Councils) and NOS-H (Joint Committee of the Nordic Research Councils for the
Humanities). Tekes promotes international cooperation in research and development
projects through the Nordic Industrial Fund, and cooperation between business
companies and research organisations through Nordic Energy Research.
4.3.3 European cooperation

Intensified cooperation and networking as well as increased research funding are all
geared to improving the quality and competitiveness of European education, research
and knowledge-intensive business. The ultimate aim is to create a European Research
Area (ERA). The European Union has set itself the target of increasing, by 2010, EU
research investments to three per cent of its Member States’ combined GDP. ERA will
82
also help to strengthen the Northern Dimension and increase cooperation among the
Nordic countries and with the neighbouring areas. Among the steps taken to build up
the ERA are to increase the number of doctoral students and young researchers (and
women in particular), to promote the international mobility of researchers and to
improve the cooperation among public and private funding bodies.
Finland has been actively involved in ongoing work to build up the ERA. In this
work the European Commission has consulted independent advisory bodies, most
notably the European Research Advisory Board (EURAB). EURAB is made up of top
level research and technology policy experts who have been nominated in a personal
capacity, not as country representatives. There are two Finnish members on the board,
one of whom has been nominated on the recommendation of the European Science
Foundation. In addition, a Finnish representative has chaired the European Union
Research Organisations Heads of Research Councils (EUROHORCS).
In connection with the ERA project there has been some discussion about the need for
a European Research Council. The aim is to strengthen basic research in all fields of
research, to improve the mechanisms of European research funding and to provide
consistent, long-term support for scientific research. The Academy of Finland has been
actively involved in discussions on the start-up of the Council and taken, in principle, a
positive stance on the initiative.
One of the new tools of ERA implementation is network cooperation through ERA-NET.
It is expected that these networks will increase cooperation among the various bodies
involved in funding and organising research. In Finland this may involve not only the
Academy of Finland and Tekes but also ministries, various foundations, innovation
organisations and regional centres. It is hoped that the ERA-NET scheme will help
to strengthen national and regional cooperation and open up a workable channel
of communication and planning between different countries. Finland has taken
numerous ERA-NET initiatives and been an active partner in applications coordinated
by other countries in 2003.
The EU’s five-year research framework programmes have been the Union’s most
significant tool of science and technology policy. By the end of March 2003, a
total of 12,700 projects had been approved under the fifth framework programme
(1998−2002), of which 1,380 (11%) had at least one Finnish participant. Some 320
million euros of EU funding has been channelled into these projects. Almost two per
cent of all projects or 235 were coordinated by Finnish partners. Close to one-third or
29 per cent of all project proposals with Finnish participants were accepted. Among
Finnish projects, universities accounted for 32 per cent, research institutes for 31 per
cent, business companies for 30 per cent and others for seven per cent.
Major new forms of cooperation in the sixth framework programme (2002−2006)

include broadly-based, integrated projects, networks of excellence and the networking
of national research programmes and opening these to international cooperation. The
framework programme is also aiming to intensify cooperation with EUREKA and COST.
In Finland, main responsibility for the coordination of the sixth framework programme
rests with the Academy and Tekes. In 2002 the content of the framework programme
83
was defined for the first time on the basis of expressions of interest, the aim being to
find out which areas of the framework programme were of most interest in the research
community. In Finland, 70 per cent expressed an interest in integrated projects, 30 per
cent in networks of excellence. Universities and research institutes accounted for more
than 85 per cent of all expressions of interest from Finland, while the business sector
accounted for eight per cent. The framework programme’s first calls for applications
proper were issued in spring 2003, attracting considerable interest.
European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research (COST) is an

EU sponsored forum for research cooperation that involves 32 states. Each year COST
awards some two billion euros towards the costs of research networking. All in all some
30,000 researchers are involved. In 2002 there were almost 200 ongoing COST projects;
Finland was involved in 137 of these. National COST coordination is the responsibility
of Tekes.
Cooperation through EUREKA provides for businesses, research institutes and universities
a channel for the development of new products, processes and services in the context of
cooperation or cluster projects. In 2002 Finnish partners joined 15 new EUREKA projects.
The main emphasis was on information and communications technology. Finnish
interest in cooperation has increased in recent years. EUREKA cooperation in Finland is
coordinated by Tekes.
Finland is also actively involved in European research cooperation through the

European Science Foundation (ESF), the European Space Agency (ESA), the European
Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), the European Molecular Biology Laboratory
(EMBL) and the European University Institute (EUI).
The ESF’s mission is to promote European science and basic research of high quality,
which it does through research programmes, exploratory workshops, networks and
EURESCO conferences. In 2002 the Academy of Finland took part in 37 research
programmes. A new form of ESF funding is represented by Collaborative Research
Programmes (Eurocores). Programmes are jointly prepared by the ESF and member
organisations, with the latter providing the funding for the research projects. In 2002
the Academy was involved in two Eurocores programmes, with six programmes under
preparation. ESF activities are managed under disciplinary committees, which among
other things submit proposals for the start-up of new programmes and networks. The
Academy of Finland has a representation on these committees. The Academy also has
experts on other ESF committees, thematic programmes, working groups and networks,
putting it in a good position to shape and influence the contents and start-up of
European research cooperation and new programmes
The European Space Agency (ESA) has 14 member states, all of which are involved
in space science, general technology and investment programmes and on a selective
basis in other programmes. Finland’s annual membership fee is two million euros,
in addition to which participation in compulsory programmes costs the country
5.5 million euros a year. Furthermore, in 2002 seven million euros was spent on
optional programmes. All active members states get commissions for research and
development projects in proportion to their membership fee. Finland has been very
84
active in this regard. National coordination rests with the Ministry of Trade and
Industry and Tekes; the Academy of Finland is responsible for the space science
programme. The Academy supports research in ESA satellite projects through
general purpose appropriations and through the ANTARES research programme
in 2001−2004. Finnish space research is of high standard, and the same goes for
expertise in building space equipment. The number of Finns on the ESA payroll
remains quite modest. The most widely publicised of ESA’s operations are its satellites,
which also incorporate Finnish know-how.
The European Southern Observatory (ESO) has emerged as the world’s leading
astronomical organisation whose flagships are the VLT (Very Large Telescope) and the
forthcoming ALMA (Atacama Large Millimetre Array). Finland is currently negotiating
membership of the ESO, which would happen in summer 2004 earliest. Finnish
astronomical research is well placed to take advantage of ESO equipment.
The European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) involves 20 member states
from across Europe. In 2002 Finland’s membership fee was almost nine million
euros. Finland was the first member state to evaluate its own operation within CERN
(Evaluation of … 2001), with positive results. Some 15−20 Finnish experts are involved
in research and technology positions at CERN, but none of them at the very highest level
of the organisation. Drafted under Academy supervision on the basis of the findings
of the recent evaluation, Finland’s new CERN strategy emphasises the importance
of visible participation in basic research, the promotion of accelerator based physics
and applied research, postgraduate training, the commercial utilisation of projects
and increasing public awareness of these activities (Suomen kansallinen… 2002). The
Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP) will assume an ever more prominent role in national
coordination through CERN activities.
Funded by 16 states, the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) is an

international research organisation that engages in high-level molecular biology
research. It runs, among other things, an international PhD programme. The European
Molecular Biology Conference (EMBC) is an international organisation made up
of 24 states whose main function is to promote international cooperation and the
development of research in modern biosciences by funding researcher mobility. EMBC
operations are run by the European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO), a
science academy type of organisation. In 2002 Finland paid 727,000 euros to EMBL
in membership fees, the membership fee to EMBC was 125,000 euros. The Academy of
Finland is represented on both EMBL and EMBC committees. In 2003 the EMBL Council
was chaired by a Finnish delegate.
Jointly run by EU Member States, the European University Institute (EUI) offers doctoral
training programmes and research facilities for doctoral students and researchers. It
has four departments: economics, history and civilization, law, and political and social
sciences, plus a Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. Finland’s membership
fee in 2002 was 228,000 euros. The Academy of Finland has representation on the EUI’s
budget and student selection committees. There are 15 Finnish postgraduate students at
the Institute during the 2003−2004 term.
85
Contents
4.3.4 Global cooperation

Finland is a member of many international scientific organisations and networks. From
a science policy point of view, key organisations among these – apart from European
contacts of cooperation – are the OECD and UNESCO. Finnish ministries and funding
bodies have also signed numerous bilateral and multilateral agreements of cooperation
which in many cases are essential for establishing contact and getting research
cooperation off the ground with countries outside the European Union. The Academy
of Finland is taking steps to develop and upgrade bilateral agreements of research
cooperation from quota-based researcher exchange towards a more strategic orientation
of programme-based cooperation and exchange of experts. One example of joint
international cooperation among Finnish organisations is provided by the agreement
of cooperation that the Academy of Finland and Tekes have signed with the Japanese
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) to promote cooperation
among experts in methods of scientific and technological foresight and evaluation as
well as comparisons of those methods. The Finnish National Fund for Research and
Development Sitra and VTT Finland are also involved in this cooperation.
Ministry of Trade and Industry and Ministry of Education officials are involved in
intergovernmental cooperation through the OECD’s Committee for Scientific and
Technology Policy. Finnish representatives are active in the working groups under this
committee, including the Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology
Indicators (NESTI), the Working Party on Biotechnology (WPB), the Global Science
Forum (GSF) and the Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP).
Finland’s participation in UNESCO is coordinated by the Finnish National Commission

for UNESCO, which assists the Ministry of Education and the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs. Major intergovernmental science programmes concentrating on the natural
sciences and social sciences represent an important part of UNESCO’s science sector.
The Academy of Finland administers Finland’s participation in UNESCO science
programmes. The Academy provides funding for Finnish projects in the programme
and helps to organise international meetings.
One of the key functions of UNESCO is to draft international guidelines on research

ethics. Ethical issues surfacing in the field of science and technology are considered,
among others, by the UNESCO Biotechnology Action Council (BAC) and the World
Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology. COMEST has the
mission of disseminating information, experiences and ideas to decision-makers and
ordinary citizens, in the recognition that open debate and discussion facilitates the
forecasting and prevention of risks and threats. Finnish experts have taken part in joint
seminars organised by COMEST.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s (NATO) science programme is aimed at

promoting science and technology through various support mechanisms and at
increasing international scientific cooperation. Finnish researchers are involved in
NATO-supported research cooperation through the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council.
The Academy of Finland has national responsibility for the science programme.
86
Contents
One example of an international research institute is the International Institute for

Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), which not only provides a research environment but
also facilitates international multidisciplinary research cooperation and networking. In
2003 this cooperation involves 16 countries. Finland’s IIASA member organisation is the
Finnish IIASA working group. In 2002 the Academy of Finland paid out 580,400 euros
in IIASA cooperation participation fee. The Academy also supports IIASA cooperation
by awarding grants for conference and researcher visits.
4.3.5 Finnish researchers’ international cooperation: how it has developed

One way to study the internationalisation of Finnish research is to study the trends of
international articles co-authored with colleagues from other countries. The number
of articles that Finnish researchers have co-authored with foreign researchers has
shown strong growth during the 1990s. According to a report by the National Science
Foundation (Science… 2000), 34 per cent of the articles published by Finnish researchers
in international series in 1995−1999 were published jointly with international
organisations. Cooperation with EU countries increased during the latter half of the 1990s
more rapidly than it did with the United States and Canada. There was most cooperation
with Sweden, Great Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Denmark. A survey
in the field of biosciences and medicine shows that the number of joint publications
between Finnish and foreign organisations increased in 1997−2001 by 50 per cent with
European partners and by 25 per cent with US partners (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1. Articles co-authored by Finnish and foreign researchers in 83 biosciences

and medical journals in 1990–2001.
Participation in EU framework programmes has helped researchers establish new

international contacts and increased awareness of Finnish research organisations
around the world. Researchers themselves say that cooperation through the European
Union has strengthened and diversified other international cooperation as well. The
most important partners of Finnish university researchers come from Sweden, Great
87
Contents
Britain and Germany, and outside Europe from the United States. However, universities
are now becoming ever more selective. The standard of research in EU programmes has
not always lived up to expectations. The EU should invest more funds in long-term basic
research and greater effort in enhancing the flexibility of its administrative practices.
(Niskanen 2001, Hakala et al. 2002.)
4.4 Research evaluations and the use of their results

Evaluation is understood here as referring to a procedure undertaken by a science
policy organisation to compare scientific research or the system underlying and steering
that research against a given set of evaluation criteria for purposes of establishing its
quality, impacts or some other aspect that is deemed important. As science policy tools,
evaluations are intended primarily to provide assistance and guidance to decision-
making: they provide a platform for social value judgements as well as learning
processes (Kekäle & Lehikoinen 2000, Oksanen 2000, Valovirta 2000).
The Nordic countries are the first in Europe to have adopted evaluations in their science
policy and science administration toolbox (Luukkonen 2002). Evaluations can be used
in various different ways. It is very rarely that decision-making is based essentially
upon information produced by evaluations. In most cases evaluations have only an
indirect effect: they provide background information for decision-making purposes,
open up useful new perspectives, challenge traditional ways of thinking and help find
new solutions to existing problems. (Luukkonen 1997, Valovirta 2001.)
All conducted by international panels of experts, evaluations of research institutes

are one example of an evaluation that can have significant and immediate impacts.
For instance, following on the evaluation carried out at the National Public Health
Institute, work here has concentrated on a smaller number of projects with greater
social impact.
Several factors combine to determine the use value of evaluations. One of the key
factors is the extent to which the evaluation ties in with the planning, preparation
and implementation of science policy tools, operational steering systems and policy
measures taken in other administrative branches (Boekholt et al. 2001,Virtanen 2002).
The following provides an overview of the kind of evaluations6 that are currently
employed in science policy. The most significant of these are 1) assessments of disciplines
and fields of research organised by the Academy of Finland, 2) reviews of the current
state and quality of scientific research in Finland and 3) technology evaluations and
foresight carried out in Finland. The aim is to draw a clearer picture of the premises of
evaluations, the use of their results and key problems.
6
Evaluations are discussed among others by Oksanen 2000, Hjelt et al. 2001, Valovirta 2001, Eerola & Väyrynen
2002. These (meta) evaluations do not systematically review the completion or attainment of different evaluation
functions or objectives. In the Science and Technology Policy Council’s 2003 review on Knowledge, Innovation
and Internationalisation, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Trade and Industry are charged with the
responsibility of general maintenance and development of evaluations. Public funding and research organisations,
for their part, are required to monitor and evaluate science and technology development, launch studies and
inquiries looking ahead to future trends in development, and promote dialogue between citizens and decision-
makers.
88
1) Academy of Finland assessments of disciplines and fields of research
and their utilisation
The initial impetus behind the first reviews and evaluations of scientific research in
the early 1980s was provided by the growth and expansion of the university system;
concerns about funding for basic research; the scarcity of international contact in Finnish
research; ambitions of reunifying Finnish science following the highly politicised period
of the 1970s; and the example set by Sweden. All these factors combined to create the
foundation for discipline and field of research assessments.
Discipline and field of research assessments have usually been concerned to study
inputs, the research process and outputs. It is impossible to lay down any detailed,
unambiguous criteria as to what counts as “good research”. In practice, the scientific
standards of research have been compared to the work done in the same field
internationally, and the impacts of research have been weighed against the objectives
set and the resources made available. The social impacts of research have received
only limited attention in discipline and field of research assessments. (Oksanen 2000,
Valovirta 2001.)
The results of discipline and field of research assessments have for the most part had
indirect use. In some cases the evaluations have led to institutional and organisational
development. For example, the problems and recommendations raised in the
evaluation reports have influenced decisions to start up graduate schools, to launch
research programmes or visit programmes, or to facilitate international cooperation
among researchers. As far as individual researchers are concerned, evaluations have
encouraged them to weigh up the premises of their work and provided arguments to
support their funding applications.
Discipline and field of research assessments have had two main benefits: first, their have
helped to identify weaknesses in Finnish research and the Finnish research system, and
second, they have provided important opportunities for the development of evaluation
practices (Helander 2002, Karjalainen 2002). One way to further strengthen those
opportunities is to extend the scope of evaluation to comprise not only research but also
education, to emphasise the role of self-assessment and where possible to include other
elements of participatory evaluation. Other challenges for evaluation include securing the
independence of experts conducting the evaluations; resolving the problem of evaluation
fatigue caused by repetitive evaluations; and the need to compare inputs and outputs.
The international biotechnology evaluations of 1996 and 2002 are examples

of evaluations that have led promptly to development efforts. Underlying these
biotechnology evaluations is the biotechnology development programme that was
launched in 1987 under the Ministry of Education. One of its outcomes has been the
decision to establish biocentres in five Finnish cities. In 1996 the Academy of Finland
conducted a discipline assessment commissioned by the Ministry of Education that was
focused upon Finnish molecular biology and related biotechnology research.
In 2002, the Ministry of Education joined forces with other ministries and funding
organisations to assess the impacts of public funding for biotechnology (Biotechnology…
89
2002). This was a follow-up of the evaluation carried out in 1996 and the subsequent
development efforts. The emphasis on this occasion was not on the evaluation of
research projects, but on the structures and impacts of research as well as on the use of
research results. Action programmes have been compiled on the basis of the evaluation
reports’ recommendations; the first of these programmes has by now been implemented,
the second is about to get under way (Biotekniikan… 2003).
2) Reviews of the state and quality of scientific research in Finland

and their utilisation
Reviews of the state and quality of scientific research in Finland have become an
integral part of the Academy’s evaluation repertoire. Once during the three-year term
of its Research Councils, the Academy presents an assessment of the current state and
quality of research in Finland. These reviews have covered the resources of research, its
organisational structures, processes, standards, outputs and impacts, with the specific
focus varying from one review to the next. Internal quality assessment of research and
the broader horizon of science policy overlap and complement each other.
The Academy’s reviews have produced background information on the state of research
and technology, on current challenges as well as on development efforts required,
aiming this information at research funding bodies as well as science policy makers.
These reviews have been cited in development work, they have been used as a statistical
source as well as in organisations’ own analyses. The reviews have not always singled
out the responsibilities and impacts of individual agents, which has detracted somewhat
from the use value of their results.
There has been some variation by fields of research and problem areas in terms of how
the recommendations of these reviews have been met. For instance, the Academy’s
Research Council for Health observed in 2000 that most of the recommendations
made in the 1997 review were met, and overall it was satisfied with the progress
made (The State … 2000). Among the examples mentioned by the Council were the
establishment of new graduate schools, the refocusing of doctoral training, the launch
of new research programmes and collaboration with the National Technology Agency
Tekes.
In their reports included in this review, all the Academy’s Research Councils comment
on how the recommendations made in the 2000 review have been met. Generally, it is
felt that the recommendations have been met at least satisfactorily, although this does
vary depending on the field or problem concerned as well as on the time spans and the
bodies responsible. In the case of researcher training, for instance, there has generally
been good progress in line with the recommendations. At the same time, though, the
concentration of resources in certain key areas has adversely affected the development
of postgraduate training in certain fields. There still remain bottlenecks in research
funding, most particularly in the funding for instruments. To help alleviate these
problems, the Academy of Finland will be carrying out an infrastructure programme
in 2004.
90
3) Technology foresight and evaluation and their utilisation
In a European comparison Finnish practices of technology foresight and evaluation are
still quite young and lack coherence as well as strong institutions. No resources have
been allocated for purposes of broadly-based foresight and evaluation functions at the
national level (Eerola & Väyrynen 2002). The Ministry of Trade and Industry project on
technology visions, the VTT Finland project on energy visions and the Tekes Technology
and Future project have been chiefly aimed at producing instrumental information
that supports decision-making. Among the issues not covered in the analyses are the
societal processes required in tackling future challenges as well as alternative values
to technology. However, the criteria of foresight and evaluation have also sought to
take into account premises that lie outside the realm of technology: it is precisely in
this direction that international foresight and evaluation of technology is gradually
moving. (Hjelt et al. 2001, Eerola & Väyrynen 2002.)
The above-mentioned Ministry of Trade and Industry and Tekes national projects had
no immediate interface with decision-making. In surveys focused on specific sectors
and technologies, these links with decision-making have been clearer. In an overall
assessment the strength of Finnish foresight and evaluation lies in its close ties with
other future-oriented activities (e.g. planning, building research and technology
programmes). Foresight and evaluation are used in a variety of different ways in
decision-making. One of the key challenges for foresight and evaluation is to increase
the impacts of operations. It has also been felt that more attention needs to be given to
inspiring public debate. (Eerola & Väyrynen 2002.)
The following three points summarise the main concerns with regard to the use of
evaluation results:
1) The impacts of evaluations are indirect and multilayered. This is also seen in the
assessments of disciplines and fields of research organised by the Academy of
Finland, the Academy’s reviews of the current state and quality of scientific research
in Finland, as well as in the technology foresights and evaluations organised within
the administrative branch under the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Evaluations are
an integral part of the science and technology system’s pursuit of self-understanding
in which different actors aim to find their roles and define their limits vis-à-vis
the science community and society (Hemlin & Wenneberg 2002). The impact of
evaluations extends from decision-makers to disciplines, individual fields of research
and researchers.
2) Evaluations have led to concrete development and corrective measures or contributed

to those measures. These include the establishment of new graduate schools and the
refocusing of education, new research programmes and programme cooperation
with other funding bodies, facilitating international cooperation and resolving
specific problems with funding.
3) Many impacts of evaluations are not seen until in the longer term. As far as science
policy is concerned the most important choice has to do with whether evaluations
are used and processed primarily as a tool of control and coordination or as a tool
91
for developing operations in the science community. The latter, if conducted as a
bottom-up evaluation procedure, may support supervision and coordination, but
on the other hand it may also prove to be a complication. Secondly, bottom-up
evaluation procedures (e.g. participant evaluation) have been quite rare, both at
the national and international level (Diez 2002). However, the current review is one
instance where steps have been taken in this direction: researchers have been given
the opportunity to assess the impacts of their own work and the manifestations of
those impacts.
Organised by the OECD or the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council, university
evaluations at Jyväskylä, Helsinki and Oulu have applied a more diversified range of
criteria and at once provided opportunities for a new kind of development effort. One
of the positive consequences of the diversification of evaluation and its criteria is that
the actors involved have begun to work more closely with one another. One example
is provided by the increased cooperation between the Academy of Finland and Tekes.
Evaluations by universities themselves provide useful examples of diverse evaluations
with diverse impacts (Mustajoki 2002).
92
Contents
References
Antikainen, J., V. Hirvensalo & V. Kanninen (2002). Kaupunkitutkimusta kaupunki-
politiikan tueksi. Suomen Akatemian kaupunkitutkimusohjelmassa mukana olleiden
tutkimushankkeiden keskeisimmät tulokset kaupunkipolitiikkaan soveltamisen näkökulmasta.
Sisäasiainministeriö. Alueiden ja hallinnon kehittämisosasto, Helsinki.
Autio, Erkko, Sami Kanninen & Bill Wicksteed (2003). Targeted Technology Programmes:
A Conceptual Evaluation. Evaluation of Kenno, Plastic Processing and Pigments
Technology Programmes. Evaluation Report. Technology Programme Report 13/2003.
Berg, Pekka (1999). Appraisal for the Technology Programmes – Development and
Verfication of a New Assesment Model in Some National Technology Programmes of
the Construction Industry in Finland. Tampere University of Technology Publications 263,
Tampere.
Biotechnology in Finland. Impact of public research funding and strategies for the
future (2002). Publications of the Academy of Finland 11/02.
Biotekniikan tutkimuksen julkisen rahoituksen kansainvälisen arvioinnin

jatkotoimenpiteet ja suositusten toimeenpano (2003). Opetusministeriö. Työryhmä-
muistioita ja selvityksiä 2003: 11.
Boekholt, Patries, Maureen Lankhuizen, Erik Arnold, John Clark, Jari Kuusisto, Bas
de Laat & Paul Simmonds (2001). An international review of methods to measure relative
effectiveness of technology policy instruments. Technopolis.
Diez, Maria-Angeles (2002). Evaluating New Regional Policies: Reviewing the theory
and Practice. Evaluation 3, 285–305.
Education and research 1999–2004. Development plan (2000). Ministry of Education,

Helsinki.
Eerola, Annele & Erja Väyrynen (2002). Teknologian ennakointi- ja arviointikäytäntöjen

kehittäminen eurooppalaisten kokemusten pohjalta. VTT tiedotteita 2174.
Evaluation of Finnish R&D Programmes in the Field of Electronics and

Telecommunications (ETX, TLX and Telectronics I). Evaluation Report (2002). Technology
Programme Report 2/2002.
Evaluation of the Finnish CERN Activities. Panel Report (2001). Publications of the
Finnish Forest Cluster Research Programme 1998–2001. Evaluation Report (2002).

Publications of the Academy of Finland 15/02.
Gustafsson Robin, Eija Ahola, Leena Ilmola, Jarkko Kuusinen & Pekka Pesonen (2003).
Uuden sukupolven teknologiaohjelmia etsimässä. Teknologiakatsaus 135/2003.
93
Hakala, Johanna, Leena Ahrio, Erkki Kaukonen & Mika Nieminen (2003).
Tutkimusohjelmien anatomia. Suomen Akatemian tutkimusohjelmat hankejohtajien
ja koordinaattorien silmin. Suomen Akatemian julkaisuja 1/03.
Hakala, J., P. Niskanen & E. Kaukonen (2002). Becoming International, Becoming

European: EU Research Collaboration at Finnish Universities. Innovation – The European
Journal of Social Sciences 15, 357–379.
Heinonen, S., P. Kasanen & M. Walls (2002). Ekotehokas yhteiskunta. Haasteita

luonnon ja ihmisen systeemien yhteensovittamiselle. Ympäristöklusterin kolmannen
ohjelmakauden esiselvitysraportti. Suomen ympäristö 598.
Helander, Elisabeth (2002). Kommenttipuheenvuoro Tieteenala-arviointien meta-

arviointiraportin julkistamisseminaarissa 17.1.2002 Suomen Akatemiassa.
Hemlin, Sven & Soren Barlebo Wenneberg (2002). From Quality Control to Quality
Monitoring and Organisational Learning. Copenhagen Business School, Department of
Management, Politics and Philosophy. Working Papers 13/2002.
Hjelt, Mari, Päivi Luoma, Erik van den Linde, Andreas Ligtvoet, Janneke Vader & James
Kahan (2001). Kokemuksia kansallisista teknologiaennakoinneista. Sitran raportteja 4.
Huippuosaamisesta alueille kilpailukykyä. Osaamiskeskusten väliarviointi 1999–2002

(2003). Sisäasiainministeriön julkaisu 4: 2003.
Innovatiivisen toiminnan tukipalvelut yliopistoissa. Projektin loppuraportti ja suositukset

(2001). Espoo 5.6.2001.
Karjalainen, Sakari (2002). Tieteen arviointi. In Päiviö Tommila & Allan Tiitta (eds.):
Suomen tieteen historia 4. Tieteen ja tutkimuksen yleinen historia 1880-luvulta lähtien, 366–
367. WSOY, Helsinki.
Kekäle, Jouni & Markku Lehikoinen (2000). Laatu ja laadun arviointi eri tieteenaloilla.
Joensuun yliopiston Psykologian tutkimuksia 21.
KETJU and TETRA. Mid-term Evaluation Report (2000). Ministry of Transport and
Communications Finland. Publications 32/2000.
Kilpailukykyä yritysten toimintatapoja kehittämällä. GPD-, ProBuild- ja Laatu-

ohjelman arviointi. Arviointiraportti (2002). Teknologiaohjelmaraportti 10/2002.

Kolehmainen, Jari, Mika Kautonen & Pasi Koski (2002). Korkeakoulut ja alueellisen
innovaatiopolitiikan visiot. Korkeakoulututkimuksen VIII kansallinen symposium,
Jyväskylä 29.–30.8.2002. Jyväskylä.
94
Korkeakoulujen alueellisen kehittämisen työryhmän muistio (2001). Opetusministeriön
työryhmien muistioita 28: 2001.
Korkeakoulujen osallistuminen teknologian siirtotoimintaan. Korkeakoulun

tutkimustulosten ja innovaatioiden siirtäminen yritysten hyödynnettäväksi (2002).
Valtiontalouden tarkastusviraston tarkastuskertomus 22: 2002.
Kuisma, Mika (1998). Teknologian siirron ja kaupallistamisen nykytilanne Suomessa.

VTT, Teknologian tutkimuksen ryhmä. Työpapereita 34: 1998.
Kuitunen, Soile (2000). T&k- ja innovaatiotoiminta EU:n rakennerahastoissa. Katsaus

arviointeihin vuosilta 1994–1999. VTT, Teknologian tutkimuksen ryhmä. Työpapereita 54/
00.
Laine, Kalle (2003). Osaamisen ja tiedonsiirron merkitys teknologiaohjelmissa. STAHA-,

PRESTO- ja VÄRE-ohjelmien arviointi. Arviointiraportti. Teknologiaohjelmaraportti 11/
2003.
Luukkonen, Terttu (1997). The Increasing Professionalisation of the Evaluation of

Mission-oriented Research: Implications for the Evaluation Process. In Policy Evaluation
in Innovation and Technology: Towards Best Practices. OECD Proceedings 1997, 347–
356. OECD, Paris.
Luukkonen, Terttu (2002). Research Evaluation in Europe: State of the art. Research
Evaluation 11: 2, 81–84.
Malkamäki Ulla, Tuula Aarnio, Annamaija Lehvo & Anneli Pauli (2001). Centre
of excellence policies in research. Aims and practices in 17 countries and regions.
Mustajoki, Arto (2002). Tuloksena yliopisto. Kokemuksia ja näkemyksiä yliopiston hallinnosta.

Yliopistopaino, Helsinki.
Nanotechnology Research Programme 1997–1999. Evaluation Report (2000). Technology

Programme Report 11/2000.
Nieminen, Mika (2000). Diversity Meets Conformity – Changing Research Organizations

in Finnish Universities. VEST Tidskrift för Vetenskapsstudier 2, 23–42.
Niskanen, Pirjo (2001). Finnish universities and the EU Framework Programme

– Towards a new phase. VTT Publications 440.
Ohtonen, Jukka (2002; ed.). Satakunnan Makropilotti: Tulosten arviointi. FinOHTA:n

raportti 21: 2002.
Oksanen, Juha (2000). Research Evaluation in Finland. Practices and Experiences, past
and present. VTT, Group for Technology Studies, Working Papers 51/00.
95
Osaamiskeskukset aluekehitystyössä (2001). Valtiontalouden tarkastusviraston tarkastus-
kertomus 13: 2001.
Otronen, M. & J. Tirkkonen (2002). Biodiversiteettitutkimusohjelma FIBREn kansallinen

vaikuttavuus. Paino-Raisio Oy, Raisio.
Paasio, Antti (1998). Yliopistojen tiedon ja osaamisen tuotanto ja sen ulkoiset hyödyntä-
mismahdollisuudet. Selvitysmiehen raportti. Opetusministeriö, Koulutus- ja tiedepolitiikan
osaston julkaisusarja 1998: 61.
Pelkonen, A. (2001). Yliopistot ja innovaatiopolitiikan haasteet. Sosiologia 3, 161–173.
Pitkänen, Sari et al. (2003). Työelämän kehittämisohjelman kokonaisarviointi. Keskeiset

tulokset. Työministeriö, Helsinki.
Poutiainen, E. & K. Salminen (2001). Elintarvikeklusteritoiminnan arviointi. Raportti maa-

ja metsätalousministeriölle 30.4.2001. Helsinki.
Prihti, Aatto, Luke Georghiou, Elisabeth Helander, Jyrki Juusela, Frieder Meyer-
Krahmer, Bertil Roslin, Tuire Santamäki-Vuori & Mirja Gröhn (2000). Assessment of the
Additional Appropriation for Research. Sitra Reports series 2.
Rajahonka, Mervi, Lasse Kivikko, Mikko Valtakari & Matti Pulkkinen (2002).
Avautuneet sähkömarkkinat ja jätteiden energiakäyttö lainsäädännöllä synnytettyinä
markkinoina. TESLA- ja Jätteiden energiakäyttö -teknologiaohjelmien arviointi.
Arviointiraportti. Teknologiaohjelmaraportti 13/2002.
Rissa, Kari (2003). Ilmastonmuutos – teknologiapolitiikan vaikutukset. Tekes.
Salo, A., P. Utunen, J. Lievonen, T. Gustafsson & P. Mild (2002). Finnish Forest Cluster
Research Programme WOOD WISDOM (1998–2001). Results from the self-evaluation process.
Tekes.
Science and Engineering Indicators 2000 (2000). National Science Board (NSB). National
Science Foundation, Arlington.
The State and Quality of Scientific Research in Finland. A Review of Scientific Research
and Its Environment in the Late 1990s (2000). Husso, Kai, Sakari Karjalainen & Tuomas
Parkkari (eds.). Publications of the Academy of Finland 7/00.
Suomen Akatemian tutkimusohjelmastrategia. Academy of Finland Research

Programme Strategy. (2003). Publications of the Academy of Finland 2/03.
Suomen kansallinen CERN-strategia vuosille 2003–2010 (2002). Työryhmän ehdotus.

Suomen Akatemian julkaisuja 13/02.
Tarkiainen, Ari (2002). Miksi suuresta tuli niin pieni? Pohdintoja makropilotista ja sen
arvioinnista. Janus 4, 360–365.
96
Tuomaala, Ellen, Satu Raak, Erkki Kaukonen, Jyrki Laaksonen, Mika Nieminen &
Pekka Berg (2001). Research and technology programme activities in Finland. Tekes
Technology Review 106/2001.
Tuunainen, Juha (2003). Reconsidering the Mode 2 and the Triple Helix: A Critical
Comment Based on a Case Stydy. Science Studies 15, 36–58.
Uusikylä, Petri, Ville Valovirta, Risto Karinen, Enno Abel & Thomas Froese (2003).
Towards a competitive cluster. An evaluation of real estate and construction technology
programmes. Evaluation report. Technology Programme Report 6/2003.
Valovirta, Ville (2000). Kokemuksia valtion virastojen ja laitosten arvioinneista.

Valtiovarainministeriön tutkimuksia ja selvityksiä 9/2000.
Valovirta, Ville (2001). Tieteenalojen arviointi Suomessa – Kehittämisen vai

vakuuttamisen väline. Suomen Akatemian julkaisuja 6/01.
VERKKOKAVERI-ohjelman arviointi (2000). Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö, Helsinki.
Virtanen, Petri (2002). Ohjelma-arviointi. Metodologisia ja arviointitiedon

tiedonmuodostukseen liittyviä näkökohtia. Hallinnon Tutkimus 2: 02, 128–140.
Web of Science (online). Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA.

<http://isiknowledge.com/>.
Ympäristöterveyden tutkimusohjelman yhteiskunnallisen vaikuttavuuden arviointi

(2003). Publications of the Finnish Research Programme on Environmental Health – Sytty
1/2003.
Other sources
Academy of Finland. Annual Operating Review 2002.
Annual Operating Reviews of Finnish Universities 2001 and 2002.
Evaluation of the research programme for Russia and Eastern Europe 1995–2000. Panel
Report (2001). Publications of the Academy of Finland 4/01.
Finnish Research Programme on Environmental Health 1998–2001. Evaluation Report

(2002). Publications of the Academy of Finland 14/02.
Information Research Programme 1997–2001. Evaluation Report (2002). Publications of

the Academy of Finland 9/02.
National Programme for Materials and Structure Research 1994–2000. Evaluation

97
Research Programme for Ecological Construction. Evaluation Report (2002). Publications
of the Academy of Finland 1/02.
Research Programme for Electronic Materials and Microsystems 1999–2002. Evaluation

Research Programme for Health and Other Welfare Differences between Population
Groups 1998–2000. Evaluation Report (2001). Publications of the Academy of Finland
5/01.
Research Programme for Process Technology 1999–2002. Evaluation Report (2002).

Research Programme for the Economic Crisis of the 1990s: Reasons, Events and
Consequences 1998–2001. Evaluation Report (2002). Publications of the Academy of
Finland 7/02.
Research Programme for Urban Studies 1998–2001. Evaluation Report (2002).

Tekes Annual Operating Reviews 2000–2002 and Annual Reviews 1997–2002.
Yliopistot. Universiteten. 2002 (2003). Opetusministeriö. Koulutus- ja tiedepolitiikan

osasto. Yliopistoyksikkö, Helsinki.
98
Contents
5 Scientific and social impact of research
5.1 Scientific publishing in Finland: an international

comparison
This section looks at the number of publications by Finnish researchers and the number of
citations received by these publications, and compares these statistics with corresponding
figures for other countries. The number of citations received by Finnish publications are
related to total publication numbers and compared to the figures for different countries.
The purpose is to see how Finnish research compares internationally with respect to its
scientific outcomes and impacts and visibility in the 1990s and early 2000s.
5.1.1 Evaluation of scientific outcomes and impacts in the light

of publication numbers and citations
Science administration and research organisations have begun increasingly to use
bibliometric methods for purposes of evaluating scientific outcomes and impacts. The
US-based Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) maintains widely used bibliometric
databases, one of which will be used here: the National Science Indicators (NSI) database.1
With certain reservations,2 publications and the citations they receive can be regarded
as measures of the outcome of scientific activity. The use of the NSI database is limited,
among other things, by the overrepresentation of American and English-language
scientific journals. This is particularly the case in the social sciences and humanities.
Analysis of publication numbers and citations is best suited for purposes of assessing
scientific publishing within an individual country or internationally, or for an
examination of publishing within a certain field of research. It is also useful as a
complement to peer evaluations by experts when comparing the output of organisations
or research groups within a certain field of research.
Bibliometric indicators have limited utility. For instance, there is no point comparing
the standards of research in different fields of research because they may differ widely
in terms of how quickly they respond to new literature, in terms of the life-span of
publications and in terms of publishing and citation practices. In medicine and
molecular biology, research results may become outdated within a matter of years, in
the social sciences many studies are still cited decades after their publication.
5.1.2 Publishing in Finland
The Finnish publishing profile

The total number of Finnish publications in the scientific journals included in the NSI
database increased rapidly throughout the 1990s from some 4,000 publications in
1
The National Science Indicators 1981−2002 (NSI) database is described in Appendix 1.
2
For more details, see e.g. Husso, Kai & Maija Miettinen (2000): Scientific research and bibliometric indicators.
Appendix 1 in The State and Quality of Scientific Research in Finland. Publications of the Academy of Finland
7/00.
99
1990 to almost 7,300 in 2002 (Figure 5.1). The number of Finnish publications as a
proportion of all publications in the OECD countries has also grown, rising from 0.81
per cent in 1990 to 1.14 per cent in 2002; the one per cent mark was reached in 1996.
Finland’s share of OECD citations has likewise increased, rising from 0.72 per cent in
1990 to 1.20 per cent in 2002. Here the one per cent mark was reached in 1994.
Figure 5.1. Number of Finnish publications and number of Finnish publications and
citations as a proportion of OECD and world publications and citations in 1990−2002.
Table 5.1 compares the development of Finnish publication and citation numbers
during three five-year periods from the 1980s through to the early 2000s. This analysis
irons out year-on-year fluctuations. In 1998−2002, Finnish researchers produced 35,550
publications, accounting for 1.11 per cent of all publications in the OECD countries.
The number of publications was 52 per cent up on the figure for the period from 1990
to 1994.
Finnish publications released in 1998−2002 received almost 174,000 citations during

the same period. This was 126 per cent more than during the period 1990−1994. In
1998−2002, Finland’s share of all OECD citations was 1.19 per cent. The share of
citations showed relatively rapid growth in the 1990s.
The impact factor3 and relative citation impact,4 which provide rough measures of the
visibility of research and its scientific impact, have also developed favourably. During
the period from 1990 to 1994 the impact factor was 3.3, from 1998 to 2002 the figure
3
Impact factor describes the average number of citations received by publications in each country.
4
Relative citation impact describes how many per cent more or less citations the publications of the country concerned
have received in comparison with the average for the group of countries with which it is being compared (index =
1).
100
was 4.9. In the 1980s and early 1990s Finland’s relative citation impact was weaker
than the average for the OECD countries (index = 1), but from 1998 to 2002 the number
of citations received by Finnish publications was seven per cent higher (relative citation
impact = 1.07) than the average figure for publications in the OECD countries.
Table 5.1. Finnish scientific publications and citations received by these publications:
numbers, trends and shares of OECD publications and citations in 1982−1986,1990−1994
and 1998−2002.
1982–1986 1990–1994 1998–2002

PUBLICATIONS
Number of publications 16,024 23,345 35,550
% change in number of publications to previous period under review – 46 52
% share of OECD countries’ publications 0.77 0.88 1.11
CITATIONS
Number of citations 44,392 76,748 173,710
% change in number of citations to previous period under review – 73 126
% share of OECD countries’ citations 0.68 0.79 1.19
Impact factora 2.77 3.29 4.89
Relative citation impactb 0.89 0.90 1.07
a Impact factor = number of citations / number of publications.

b Relative citation impact = impact factor for Finland / impact factor for OECD. (E.g. in 1998–2002, the impact factor for
Finland was 4.89 and for OECD 4.57, i.e. the index value is 4.89 / 4.57 = 1.07.)
Source: Institute for Scientific Information, NSI 1981–2002.
Maintained by the Ministry of Education, the KOTA database provides systematic

information on publishing by Finnish university researchers (Table 5.2). In 2002 the total
number of publications was 21,710. Almost 70 per cent (15,000) of these publications
were international, with 9,703 published in foreign peer-reviewed scientific journals.
(The NSI database covers 7,274 publications, or 75 per cent of the number reported in
KOTA.) The number of publications by Finnish university researchers in international
peer-reviewed journals increased by 15 per cent from 1998 to 2002. During the same
period the total volume of international publishing by university researchers increased
by 16 per cent, while domestic publishing decreased by 10 per cent.
Figures from both the KOTA and the NSI database suggest that during the 1990s and early
2000s, Finnish researchers published far more often than previously on international
fora. Raising the quality standards of publishing and increasing its international
visibility have been among the key objectives of Finnish science policy, so in the light of
the information above it seems that those objectives have been well met.
International publishing in Finland by major fields of science 5
According to the NSI database the natural sciences and the medical sciences together
accounted for 84 per cent of all academic publishing in Finland in 2002 (Table 5.3).
The figures for other major fields of science (hereinafter “fields of science”) were
5
Scientific publishing is also described in the reviews of the respective Research Councils.
101
Table 5.2. Publishing* by university researchers in 1994, 1998 and 2002.
Publishing by university researchers Number of publications % change

1994 1998 2002 1998–2002 1994–2002
Finnish publications total 6,974 7,505 6,719 –10 –4
Publications in Finnish refereed journals 2,302 1,777 2,044 15 –11
Publications in Finnish edited volumes or printed
3,248 4,569 3,823 –16 18
conference proceedings
Finnish monographs 654 770 524 –32 –20
Publications in university series 770 389 328 –16 –57
Foreign publications total 11,046 12,969 14,991 16 36
Publications in foreign refereed journals 7,536 8,458 9,703 15 29
Publications in foreign edited volumes or printed
3,388 4,348 5,125 18 51
conference proceedings
Foreign monographs 122 163 163 0 34
All publications total 18,020 20,474 21,710 6 20
* According to publications indexed in the Ministry of Education KOTA database. Data available from 1994 onwards.
Source: KOTA database, Ministry of Education.
markedly lower: engineering and technology accounted for around eight per cent,
the social sciences for less than five per cent and agricultural sciences for 2.5 per cent.
The humanities accounted for 0.6 per cent of Finnish publications indexed in the NSI
database. There have been some minor shifts in the relative shares of different fields of
science in 1990−2002. The figures for the natural sciences, engineering and technology,
and social sciences have increased, whereas those for medical sciences, agricultural
sciences and the humanities have declined.
The periods of most intense internationalisation have not necessarily coincided in

different fields of science. In the natural sciences, engineering and technology, and
medical sciences, the number of international publications increased most sharply
from 1990 to 1994. Publication volumes in the agricultural sciences, the social sciences
and the humanities, for their part, showed the strongest growth from 1994 to 1998.
During the period from 1998 to 2002, the rate of increase has slowed down in all fields
of science with the exception of engineering and technology.
Finland’s share of OECD publications increased in all fields of science except the
humanities from 1990 to 2002. In 2002, Finnish publications in the agricultural sciences
accounted for 1.4 per cent of all OECD publications in this field. Finnish publications also
accounted for more than one per cent of the total volume of OECD publications in their
respective fields in medical sciences (1.3%), natural sciences (1.2%) and engineering and
technology (1.0%). From 1990 to 2002, the sharpest increase in the fraction of Finnish
publications at 0.5 percentage points was recorded in the natural sciences. During the
same period the share of publications in engineering and technology, agricultural
sciences and the social sciences increased by 0.4 percentage points, while the figure for
medical sciences was 0.1 percentage point. In all years under review Finnish publications
in the humanities accounted for 0.3 per cent of OECD publishing.
102
Table 5.3. Profile of Finnish publishing by major field of science in 1990, 1994, 1998
and 2002.
% change
Major field of science / Year 1990 1994 1998 2002 1990–2002
Natural sciences
Number of publications in Finland 1,813 2,617 3,280 3,955 118
Share of publications in Finland % 41.4 42.7 43.9 48.5
% change in no. of publications to previous year under review – 44 25 21
Number of publications in OECD countries 258,425 299,606 325,789 335,814 30
Finland’s share of publications in OECD countries (%) 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.2
Relative publication index a 0.86 0.89 0.93 1.01
Engineering and technology
Number of publications in Finland 253 467 541 665 163
Medical sciences
Number of publications in Finland 1,956 2,627 2,985 2,880 47
% change in no. of publications to previous year under review – 34 14 –4
Agricultural sciences
Social sciences
% change in no. of publications to previous year under review – 37 75 –4
Humanities
% change in no. of publications to previous year under review – –14 14 2
TOTAL
Total number of publications in Finlandb 4,374 6,128 7,468 8,150
Number of Finnish publications in the database 3,977 5,486 6,637 7,274
a Relative publication index = Number of publications in the field of science as a proportion of all publications in Finland
/ number of publications in the field of science as a proportion of all publications in OECD countries. The index value of
natural sciences in 2002, for example, was 1.01, i.e. natural sciences accounted for one per cent more of all publications
in Finland than they did in the OECD countries on average. In engineering and technology, on the other hand, Finns
published 11 per cent (index 0.89) less than the OECD average.
b The note is due to the qualities of the NSI database. When publication and citation data are first searched by individual
field of research and then combined into larger groups, some publications may be included more than once. Therefore
the total annual publication numbers that are obtained by adding together the number of publications from all six fields
of science are about 10–13 per cent higher than those obtained in an overall database search.
103
Contents
Medical sciences as well as agricultural sciences are the most prominent fields of
science in the Finnish publishing profile. At the beginning of the 2000s that profile
has a broader and a healthier foundation in that the share of medical sciences has
declined at the same time as that of other fields of science has increased. In 2002,
the number of publications in medical sciences as a proportion of all publications in
Finland was 15 per cent higher than the corresponding fraction of this field among
all OECD publications (relative publication index = 1.15). In agricultural sciences,
the corresponding figure was 17 per cent higher. In 2002, the fraction of humanities
publications among all publications in Finland was 74 per cent lower and that of
social science publications 35 per cent lower than their corresponding shares of OECD
publications on average.
The relatively low volume of publications in the humanities and social sciences as
a proportion of all OECD publications and their low relative publication index are
explained in part by certain features of the NSI database6. Although Finland does
not seem to have a very strong position in these fields of science in the light of the
indicators just mentioned, these fields have nonetheless fared extremely well in a
comparison of their relative citation impact with other OECD countries (see Table
5.10).
Figures from the KOTA database indicate that publications by Finnish university
researchers in international peer-reviewed scientific journals increased in all fields of
science from 1998 to 2002 (Table 5.4). The largest number of publications in international
peer-reviewed journals was recorded in the medical sciences at 3,872 (2002) and the
lowest in the humanities at 354 (2002). The number of publications increased most in
engineering and technology, by 66 per cent, followed by the humanities at 48 per cent.
Publication volumes in the social sciences and in the agricultural sciences increased by
one-fifth. In the natural sciences and the medical sciences, the figure was up by around
ten per cent. By contrast publishing in the Finnish language declined from 1998 to 2002
in almost all fields of science. The significance of domestic publishing on scientific fora
varies between different fields of science. It is particularly important in many disciplines
in the humanities and social sciences7.
5.1.3 International comparison of publishing
Publication and citation numbers and trends

In 2002, a total of some 746,500 titles were published in the scientific journals indexed
in the NSI database. Finnish researchers accounted for 7,274 of these titles, or 0.97
per cent of all publications. The OECD countries published a total of some 640,600
publications, or 86 per cent of the total. The share of publications from the EU countries
(273,216) was 37 per cent. Among the OECD countries Finland ranked eighteenth,
among the EU countries tenth in this comparison.
6
The predominance of English-speaking countries and the United States in particular is most pronounced in the social
sciences and humanities.
7
The distinctive features of publishing in the social sciences and humanities are described in more detail in the review
by the Research Council for Culture and Society.
104
Table 5.4. Publications* by university researchers by major field of science in 1994,
1998 and 2002.
Natural sciences 1994 1998 2002 % change

1998–2002 1994–2002
Finnish publications total 618 467 338 –28 –45
of which publications in foreign refereed journals 1,756 2,102 2,303 10 31
Engineering and technology 1994 1998 2002 % change

1998–2002 1994–2002
Finnish publications total 1,415 955 808 –15 –43
of which publications in foreign refereed journals 792 791 1,313 66 66
Medical sciences 1994 1998 2002 % change

1998–2002 1994–2002
Finnish publications total 1,601 1,317 1,450 10 –9
of which publications in foreign refereed journals 3,663 3,502 3,872 11 6
Agricultural sciences 1994 1998 2002 % change

1998–2002 1994–2002
Finnish publications total 153 293 232 –21 52
Foreign publications total 314 435 497 14 58
of which publications in foreign refereed journals 208 307 369 20 77
Social sciences 1994 1998 2002 % change

1998–2002 1994–2002
Finnish publications total 1,985 2,395 2,252 –6 13
Humanities 1994 1998 2002 % change

1998–2002 1994–2002
Finnish publications total 886 1,606 1,318 –18 49
Foreign publications total 488 793 841 6 72
* According to publications indexed in the Ministry of Education KOTA database. Data available from 1994 onwards.
The subject category of a small part of the publications is classified as unknown.
In 1998−2002, the number of publications by Finnish researchers increased on average

by 2.3 per cent a year: this was the fifteenth highest figure in the OECD group and the
eighth highest in the EU (Table 5.5). In 1990−1994, the number of publications by Finnish
researchers increased on average by 8.4 per cent a year. At that time Finland ranked
ninth among the OECD countries and fifth in the EU group. In the 1990s the number
of publications from so-called emerging economies and countries with less advanced
research infrastructures showed faster growth than in Finland. Since 1990−1994 when
publishing in the OECD countries showed an average annual growth rate of 3.7 per
cent, the figure has dropped to an annual rate of 0.4 per cent in 1998−2002. Just one
country recorded a faster growth rate in 1998−2002 than in 1990−1994, i.e. Poland.
105
Table 5.5. Overall change in OECD countries’ publication numbers and average
annual rate of change in 1990−1994, 1998−2002 and 1990−2002.
OECD countries 1990 1994 % change Average 1998 2002 % change Average % change Average
in 1990–1994 % change in 1998–2002 % change in 1990–2002 % change
per year per year per year
Australia 13,296 17,054 28 6.4 20,560 21,498 5 1.1 62 4.1

Austria 3,647 4,689 29 6.5 6,492 7,258 12 2.8 99 5.9
Belgium 5,870 7,588 29 6.6 9,508 10,280 8 2.0 75 4.8
Canada 28,979 33,736 16 3.9 32,784 33,523 2 0.6 16 1.2
Czech Republic – 3,279 – – 3,903 4,527 16 3.8 – –
Denmark 4,718 6,251 32 7.3 7,464 7,576 2 0.4 61 4.0
Finland 3,977 5,486 38 8.4 6,637 7,274 10 2.3 83 5.1
France 30,547 39,326 29 6.5 46,303 46,051 –1 –0.1 51 3.5
Germany 43,068 50,729 18 4.2 63,825 64,447 1 0.2 50 3.4
Greece 1,932 3,115 61 12.7 4,283 5,375 25 5.8 178 8.9
Hungary 2,488 2,878 16 3.7 3,512 3,927 12 2.8 58 3.9
Iceland 146 205 40 8.9 312 363 16 3.9 149 7.9
Ireland 1,398 1,830 31 7.0 2,550 2,861 12 2.9 105 6.1
Italy 16,622 23,201 40 8.7 28,958 31,866 10 2.4 92 5.6
Japan 44,182 55,836 26 6.0 67,078 69,290 3 0.8 57 3.8
Luxembourg 36 49 36 8.0 81 94 16 3.8 161 8.3
Mexico 1,547 2,543 64 13.2 4,101 5,213 27 6.2 237 10.6
Netherlands 12,676 16,090 27 6.1 18,425 19,063 3 0.9 50 3.4
New Zealand 2,856 3,447 21 4.8 4,300 4,303 0.1 0.02 51 3.5
Norway 3,072 3,901 27 6.2 4,734 4,981 5 1.3 62 4.1
Poland 5,452 6,512 19 4.5 8,066 10,085 25 5.7 85 5.2
Portugal 839 1,379 64 13.2 2,306 3,597 56 11.8 329 12.8
Slovakia – 1,827 – – 2,011 1,777 –12 –3.0 – –
South Korea 1,594 4,059 155 26.3 9,684 15,705 62 12.8 885 20.9
Spain 9,336 14,479 55 11.6 19,870 23,382 18 4.2 150 7.9
Sweden 10,060 12,144 21 4.8 14,464 14,942 3 0.8 49 3.3
Switzerland 8,191 11,261 37 8.3 13,147 13,320 1 0.3 63 4.1
Turkey 944 2,013 113 20.8 4,057 7,771 92 17.6 723 19.1
United Kingdom 48,441 60,243 24 5.6 67,766 67,478 –0.4 –0.1 39 2.8
United States 223,345 246,629 10 2.5 252,563 253,215 0.3 0.1 13 1.0
European Union* 182,308 226,946 24 5.6 268,127 273,216 2 0.5 50 3.4
OECD* 493,811 571,763 16 3.7 630,465 640,588 2 0.4 30 2.2
* The note is due to the qualities of the NSI database. A joint publication by authors from different countries is counted
as one publication in the statistics for each country. The NSI database eliminates some of this overlap, so the total
number of publications obtained for all EU and OECD countries is lower than the total figures for individual EU countries
or individual OECD countries.
The United States produced the largest number of publications, some 253,200 in 2002,
or almost 40 per cent of all OECD publications (Table 5.6). Other countries with shares
in excess of ten per cent were Japan, the United Kingdom and Germany. Together, these
four countries accounted for 71 per cent of all OECD publications in 2002; in 1998 the
corresponding proportion was 77 per cent. The next highest proportions were recorded
by France (7%) and Canada (5%). The shares of both the United States and Canada
106
Table 5.6. OECD countries’ shares (%) of all scientific publications in OECD countries in 1990−2002.
OECD countries 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Australia 2.69 2.75 2.79 2.88 2.98 3.07 3.12 3.20 3.26 3.30 3.25 3.31 3.36
Austria 0.74 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82 0.90 0.91 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.07 1.14 1.13
Belgium 1.19 1.19 1.24 1.25 1.33 1.38 1.42 1.45 1.51 1.54 1.53 1.55 1.60
Canada 5.87 5.95 6.01 5.97 5.90 5.77 5.67 5.45 5.20 5.29 5.21 5.12 5.23
Czech Republic – – – – 0.57 0.55 0.61 0.60 0.62 0.62 0.63 0.67 0.71
Denmark 0.96 0.97 1.05 1.03 1.09 1.08 1.09 1.12 1.18 1.17 1.20 1.20 1.18
Finland 0.81 0.83 0.87 0.91 0.96 0.96 1.01 1.05 1.05 1.09 1.13 1.15 1.14
France 6.19 6.31 6.62 6.66 6.88 6.91 7.02 7.26 7.34 7.40 7.33 7.32 7.19
Germany 8.72 8.83 8.79 8.72 8.87 9.02 9.30 9.80 10.12 10.07 10.12 10.15 10.06
Greece 0.39 0.45 0.47 0.48 0.54 0.55 0.60 0.63 0.68 0.68 0.72 0.81 0.84
Hungary 0.50 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.52 0.51 0.54 0.56 0.59 0.60 0.63 0.61
Iceland 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06
Ireland 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.36 0.37 0.40 0.40 0.42 0.42 0.45
Italy 3.37 3.56 3.77 3.82 4.06 4.14 4.38 4.44 4.59 4.62 4.69 4.87 4.97
Japan 8.95 9.02 9.58 9.56 9.77 9.79 10.11 10.16 10.64 10.78 10.74 10.86 10.82
Luxembourg 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01
Mexico 0.31 0.33 0.38 0.41 0.44 0.49 0.55 0.59 0.65 0.71 0.73 0.77 0.81
Netherlands 2.57 2.55 2.70 2.76 2.81 2.83 2.87 2.97 2.92 2.87 2.93 2.92 2.98
New Zealand 0.58 0.55 0.56 0.56 0.60 0.60 0.64 0.65 0.68 0.67 0.69 0.67 0.67
Norway 0.62 0.62 0.67 0.66 0.68 0.72 0.72 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.75 0.77 0.78
Poland 1.10 1.10 1.12 1.10 1.14 1.22 1.24 1.21 1.28 1.35 1.41 1.51 1.57
Portugal 0.17 0.18 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.34 0.37 0.45 0.47 0.52 0.56
Slovakia – – – – 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.31 0.32 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.28
South Korea 0.32 0.38 0.46 0.56 0.71 0.90 1.06 1.29 1.54 1.74 1.94 2.26 2.45
Spain 1.89 2.01 2.32 2.43 2.53 2.62 2.83 3.05 3.15 3.29 3.35 3.49 3.65
Sweden 2.04 2.01 2.01 2.10 2.12 2.14 2.24 2.26 2.29 2.31 2.28 2.37 2.33
Switzerland 1.66 1.75 1.84 1.91 1.97 1.93 1.95 2.07 2.09 2.15 2.16 2.08 2.08
Turkey 0.19 0.23 0.26 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.52 0.57 0.64 0.74 0.78 0.93 1.21
United Kingdom 9.81 9.92 10.18 10.20 10.54 10.63 10.84 10.59 10.75 10.85 11.16 10.75 10.53
United States 45.23 45.66 44.58 44.41 43.13 42.88 41.65 41.19 40.06 39.65 39.54 39.59 39.53
EU countries 36.92 37.34 38.27 38.57 39.69 40.07 41.04 41.83 42.53 42.69 42.96 42.90 42.65
OECD publications 493,811 511,364 543,420 541,170 571,763 600,938 607,504 609,624 630,465 638,978 635,246 650,853 640,588
107
have declined during the 1990s and early part of the 2000s. In 2002 Finland accounted
for 1.14 per cent of all OECD publications (1998: 1.05%).
Publication numbers relative to population give some indication of the output of

research relative to the size of the nation. In 1990, Finland had the ninth highest
per capita publication rate in the OECD countries; in 1994 Finland ranked fifth and
in 1998 and 2002 fourth (Table 5.7). Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark were in
relative terms the most productive countries in 1990−2002. However, the number of
publications released is just one measure of scientific activity: not all of that activity is
geared primarily to high visibility on international fora. Publication numbers can be
compared not only to population numbers, but also to such indicators as number of
R&D personnel and GDP. However, the efficiency of different countries’ research systems
cannot be compared simply on the basis of bibliometric analyses, which can only serve
as tentative indicators.
In an examination of total citation numbers and citation shares we need to bear in mind
that the information in the database is complemented each year with data from previous
years. However, on the basis of the total number of citations it is possible to calculate
citation shares for individual countries from the citations received by all publications
in OECD countries8 and then to compare these sets of figures (Table 5.8). In 2002 the
United States accounted for 52 per cent of all citations received by OECD publications.
The next largest shares were recorded for the United Kingdom (13%), Germany (12%)
and Japan (9%). The US share has declined to some extent in 1990−2002. The two
countries showing the strongest growth are South Korea and Turkey.
The number of citations received by Finnish publications as a proportion of all OECD

citations increased from 0.72 per cent in 1990 to 1.21 per cent in 1997. In 1997−2002,
the figure has varied between 1.15 and 1.25. Since 1994 Finland’s share of all OECD
citations has been in excess of one per cent. Finland’s share of OECD citations was 17th
highest in 2002, while the country ranked fifteenth throughout the 1990s.
Figure 5.2 shows how different OECD countries’ shares of all OECD publications and
citations have developed from the early 1990s through to the early 2000s. The figure
indicates for each country the percentage change of these shares between 1990−1992
and 2000−2002. In the countries above the regression line, the increase in the proportion
of citations has on average been faster, in the countries below the line the increase has
been slower than might be assumed on the basis of the change in publication shares
and in comparison with other OECD countries.
There are marked country differences in the trends for publication and citation shares.
Finland belongs to the group of countries where the relative increase in the citation
share has on average been slower than might be presumed on the basis of the trends
in publication shares and in comparison with other OECD countries. In a comparison
with other OECD countries, Finland lies slightly below the regression line. In other
8
Citations may accrue unevenly to publications from different countries. Therefore the country citation shares that
are calculated on the basis of the total counts may change in the future.
108
Table 5.7. Publication numbers in OECD countries per 10,000 population* in 1990,
1994, 1998 and 2002. The countries are rank-ordered according to relative publication
numbers in 2002.
% change
OECD countries 1990 1994 1998 2002
1990–2002
Switzerland 12.2 16.1 18.5 18.4 51
Sweden 11.8 13.8 16.3 16.8 43
Denmark 9.2 12.0 14.1 14.1 54
Finland 8.0 10.8 12.9 14.0 76
Iceland 5.7 7.7 11.4 12.7 122
Netherlands 8.5 10.5 11.7 11.9 40
United Kingdom 8.4 10.3 11.4 11.3 34
New Zealand 8.5 9.6 11.3 11.2 32
Norway 7.2 9.0 10.7 11.0 52
Australia 7.7 9.5 10.9 11.0 42
Canada 10.5 11.6 10.8 10.8 3
Belgium 5.9 7.5 9.3 10.0 70
Austria 4.7 5.8 8.0 8.9 89
United States 8.9 9.5 9.3 8.9 –1
Germany 6.8 6.2 7.8 7.8 15
France 5.3 6.6 7.7 7.6 44
Ireland 4.0 5.1 6.9 7.5 87
Spain 2.4 3.7 5.0 5.8 142
Italy 2.9 4.1 5.0 5.5 88
Japan 3.6 4.5 5.3 5.4 52
Greece 1.9 3.0 4.1 4.9 158
Czech Republic – 3.2 3.8 4.4 –
Hungary 2.4 2.8 3.5 3.9 64
Portugal 0.8 1.4 2.3 3.6 322
South Korea 0.4 0.9 2.1 3.3 792
Slovakia – 3.4 3.7 3.3 –
Poland 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.6 82
Luxembourg 0.9 1.2 1.9 2.1 125
Turkey 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.1 574
Mexico 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 176
European Union 5.2 6.1 7.1 7.2 38
OECD 5.9 5.9 5.7 5.6 –4
* Latest population statistics available for 2001, from the United Kingdom for 2000.
Sources: Institute for Scientific Information, NSI 1981–2002; OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators 2002/2.
words, Finland’s international publishing activity has developed somewhat more

favourably than the international visibility and impact of scientific research activity.
Other countries in this same category include the United Kingdom, Japan, France and
Sweden.
In Spain, Germany and Poland, for instance, the relative increase in the citation
share has on average been faster than one might assume on the basis of the change
in publishing shares and in comparison with other OECD countries. Canada and the
109
Table 5.8. OECD countries’ shares (%) of total citations to OECD publications in 1990−2002.
110
OECD countries 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Australia 2.25 2.36 2.42 2.52 2.64 2.79 2.83 2.81 3.02 3.04 3.06 3.22 3.29
Austria 0.59 0.64 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.84 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.08 1.10 1.19 1.27
Belgium 1.09 1.12 1.23 1.27 1.41 1.48 1.52 1.58 1.59 1.70 1.62 1.73 1.76
Canada 5.45 5.62 5.95 5.91 5.84 5.72 5.89 5.65 5.57 5.51 5.50 5.37 5.61
Czech Republic – – – – 0.26 0.28 0.31 0.32 0.34 0.37 0.40 0.44 0.49
Denmark 1.11 1.14 1.15 1.26 1.27 1.27 1.24 1.35 1.41 1.42 1.45 1.56 1.57
Finland 0.72 0.81 0.88 0.99 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.21 1.15 1.19 1.23 1.25 1.20
France 5.42 5.80 5.98 6.23 6.53 6.56 6.86 7.09 7.32 7.16 7.31 7.49 7.28
Germany 7.42 7.47 7.78 8.27 8.67 8.82 9.53 9.89 10.53 10.77 10.99 11.44 11.92
Greece 0.21 0.22 0.25 0.26 0.29 0.34 0.38 0.38 0.42 0.42 0.52 0.50 0.52
Hungary 0.25 0.30 0.33 0.32 0.33 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.38 0.42 0.44 0.49 0.54
Iceland 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07
Ireland 0.20 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.25 0.24 0.27 0.34 0.36 0.40 0.35 0.37 0.41
Italy 2.67 3.06 3.23 3.38 3.76 3.85 4.14 4.30 4.67 4.72 4.78 5.02 5.03
Japan 6.97 7.12 7.64 7.46 7.73 7.78 8.02 8.38 8.85 9.01 9.24 9.61 8.91
Luxembourg 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Mexico 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.28 0.31 0.34 0.36 0.39 0.44 0.44 0.50
Netherlands 2.81 2.90 3.01 3.17 3.26 3.41 3.36 3.65 3.56 3.64 3.63 3.66 3.69
New Zealand 0.48 0.41 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.53 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.55 0.49 0.54
Norway 0.55 0.54 0.61 0.60 0.62 0.68 0.63 0.70 0.73 0.71 0.74 0.74 0.88
Poland 0.46 0.52 0.52 0.50 0.57 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.70 0.78 0.87 0.95 1.05
Portugal 0.10 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.24 0.27 0.34 0.36 0.46 0.41
Slovakia – – – – 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.16
South Korea 0.16 0.20 0.23 0.29 0.38 0.45 0.56 0.70 0.82 1.02 1.23 1.37 1.40
Spain 1.17 1.27 1.58 1.74 1.92 1.96 2.28 2.43 2.59 2.79 3.03 3.05 3.15
Sweden 2.38 2.46 2.42 2.45 2.50 2.49 2.61 2.63 2.63 2.58 2.59 2.65 2.54
Switzerland 2.19 2.39 2.45 2.60 2.84 2.71 2.79 3.11 3.01 3.09 3.14 3.20 3.18
Turkey 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.21 0.23 0.26 0.29 0.32 0.39 0.38
United Kingdom 10.51 10.41 10.88 10.96 11.16 11.36 11.41 11.73 11.87 11.94 12.36 12.27 13.10
United States 57.13 57.03 56.21 55.51 54.93 54.55 53.70 52.54 51.81 51.23 51.01 51.67 52.41
EU countries 32.98 33.88 35.13 36.21 37.27 37.97 39.04 40.32 41.06 41.59 42.27 42.30 42.54
OECD citations 9,052,018 9,029,875 9,202,559 8,993,915 8,661,669 8,258,648 7,360,730 6,577,657 5,657,170 4,413,746 2,910,123 1,388,938 235,901

United States are the only countries whose shares of all OECD publications and citations
declined during the period under review.
Figure 5.2. OECD countries’ shares of all OECD publications and citations: percentage
change of share from 1990−1992 to 2000−2002. For example, Finland’s share of OECD
publications was 0.8 per cent in 1990−1992 and 1.1 per cent in 2000−2002, i.e. its share
increased by 36 per cent. At the same time the share of citations increased by 52 per
cent (from 0.8% to 1.2%).
Impact factors and relative citation impacts

Impact factor and relative citation impacts provide rough measures of the visibility of
research and its scientific impact. When these two indicators are compared side by side,
the rank order among OECD countries is not affected (Table 5.9). The impact factor
indicates the average annual number of citations received by publications from each
country. The relative citation impact, then, indicates how many per cent more or less
the publications of each country have received in comparison with the average for the
OECD countries (index = 1).
The impact factor for OECD countries showed relatively steady growth during the 1990s
and early 2000s. During the period from 1998 to 2002, the impact factor for the OECD
countries was 4.57, somewhat higher than the figure for the EU countries (4.45). The
six top countries with impact factors higher than five in 1998−2002, were Switzerland,
the United States, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Finland
ranked tenth in the 1988−1992 period and eighth in the 1998−2002 period.
In 1988−1992 there were six OECD countries with a relative citation impact of 1
(corresponding to the average for the OECD countries) or higher. In 1998−2002 there
were 13 countries with an index of one or higher. During this 1998–2002 period
Finland ranked eighth, with four other EU countries ahead of it: the Netherlands,
Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Among the top countries ahead of Finland,
111
Switzerland’s and Sweden’s relative citation impacts have shown hardly any growth.
Finland’s relative citation impact in 1998−2002 was 1.07, i.e. Finnish publications
received seven per cent more citations than publications from the OECD countries on
average.
Table 5.9. Development of OECD countries’ impact factor and relative citation impact
in 1988−1992, 1993−1997 and 1998−2002. The countries are rank-ordered according to
the values for the most recent period.
Relative citation
Impact factora / 1988– 1993– 1998– 1988– 1993– 1998–
impactb /
OECD countries 1992 1997 2002 1992 1997 2002
OECD countries
Switzerland 5.05 5.91 6.67 Switzerland 1.46 1.47 1.46
United States 4.34 5.19 5.93 United States 1.26 1.29 1.30
Netherlands 3.79 4.61 5.64 Netherlands 1.10 1.14 1.23
Denmark 3.58 4.62 5.54 Denmark 1.04 1.15 1.21
Sweden 3.89 4.53 5.14 Sweden 1.13 1.12 1.12
United Kingdom 3.58 4.31 5.09 United Kingdom 1.04 1.07 1.11
Iceland 3.03 4.64 4.92 Iceland 0.88 1.15 1.08
Finland 3.04 4.15 4.89 Finland 0.88 1.03 1.07
Germany 3.06 3.98 4.88 Germany 0.89 0.99 1.07
Belgium 3.20 4.14 4.85 Belgium 0.93 1.03 1.06
Canada 3.03 3.99 4.84 Canada 0.88 0.99 1.06
OECD 3.45 4.03 4.57 OECD 1.00 1.00 1.00
Italy 2.75 3.61 4.56 Italy 0.80 0.90 1.00
France 3.11 3.84 4.55 France 0.90 0.95 1.00
Austria 2.74 3.60 4.50 Austria 0.79 0.89 0.98
European Union 3.07 3.77 4.45 European Union 0.89 0.94 0.97
Norway 2.78 3.39 4.38 Norway 0.81 0.84 0.96
Australia 2.92 3.37 4.24 Australia 0.85 0.84 0.93
Ireland 2.19 2.82 4.06 Ireland 0.63 0.70 0.89
Japan 2.90 3.21 3.84 Japan 0.84 0.80 0.84
Spain 1.94 2.88 3.76 Spain 0.56 0.71 0.82
New Zealand 2.49 3.00 3.57 New Zealand 0.72 0.74 0.78
Luxembourg 0.79 2.24 3.44 Luxembourg 0.23 0.56 0.75
Hungary 1.73 2.60 3.18 Hungary 0.50 0.65 0.70
Portugal 1.81 2.42 3.17 Portugal 0.52 0.60 0.69
Greece 1.67 2.12 2.76 Greece 0.48 0.53 0.60
Czech Republic – 1.52 2.63 Czech Republic – 0.38 0.58
Poland 1.56 2.05 2.53 Poland 0.45 0.51 0.55
Mexico 1.62 1.95 2.46 Mexico 0.47 0.48 0.54
South Korea 1.26 1.63 2.35 South Korea 0.37 0.40 0.51
Slovakia – 1.13 2.21 Slovakia – 0.28 0.48
Turkey 0.98 1.21 1.56 Turkey 0.28 0.30 0.34
a
Impact factor = number of citations by Finnish publications, for example, divided by the number of Finnish publications.
b
Relative citation impact = each country’s impact factor divided by impact factor for OECD countries. For example, the
relative citation impact for Finland in the period 1998–2002 is calculated as follows: 4.89 / 4.57 = 1.07.
112
Table 5.10. OECD countries’ relative citation impact* by major field of science in 1998−2002.
Natural sciences Engineering and Medical sciences Agricultural sciences Social sciences Humanities
technology
1 Switzerland 1.40 Switzerland 1.49 United States 1.29 Luxembourg 3.73 United States 1.15 Greece 2.16
2 United States 1.37 Denmark 1.28 Switzerland 1.26 Netherlands 1.56 Netherlands 1.04 Netherlands 1.56
3 Netherlands 1.19 United States 1.23 Iceland 1.23 Finland (3.) 1.52 Belgium 1.00 New Zealand 1.35
4 United Kingdom 1.18 Netherlands 1.12 Canada 1.21 Denmark 1.47 Canada 0.99 Finland (4.) 1.33
5 Denmark 1.14 Belgium 1.08 Netherlands 1.21 Switzerland 1.34 Italy 0.99 Portugal 1.26
6 Germany 1.06 Germany 1.08 Finland (6.) 1.17 Belgium 1.31 Finland (6.) 0.97 United Kingdom 1.23
7 Sweden 1.04 Sweden 1.07 Denmark 1.14 United Kingdom 1.31 United Kingdom 0.96 United States 1.19
8 Canada 1.02 France 1.07 Belgium 1.13 Sweden 1.23 Switzerland 0.93 Australia 1.17
9 Austria 0.95 United Kingdom 0.98 United Kingdom 1.12 Ireland 1.15 Sweden 0.92 Japan 1.16
10 Belgium 0.95 Austria 0.98 Sweden 1.11 United States 1.13 France 0.85 Turkey 1.14
11 France 0.95 Ireland 0.96 Norway 1.06 France 1.10 New Zealand 0.82 Denmark 1.00
12 Finland (12.) 0.93 Italy 0.95 Italy 1.02 Norway 1.05 Norway 0.81 Hungary 0.94
13 Australia 0.93 Canada 0.94 Australia 0.99 Canada 1.04 Australia 0.80 Canada 0.92
14 Ireland 0.92 Norway 0.94 New Zealand 0.98 Australia 1.00 Hungary 0.80 Belgium 0.82
15 Iceland 0.90 Australia 0.93 France 0.97 Spain 0.97 Germany 0.80 Germany 0.77
16 Italy 0.89 Finland (16.) 0.93 Germany 0.96 Italy 0.96 Denmark 0.77 Sweden 0.75
17 Norway 0.85 Spain 0.91 Ireland 0.94 New Zealand 0.96 Austria 0.73 Norway 0.74
18 Japan 0.80 Hungary 0.91 Austria 0.91 Germany 0.92 Iceland 0.73 Iceland 0.60
19 Spain 0.79 Japan 0.87 Portugal 0.88 Portugal 0.87 Luxembourg 0.67 Ireland 0.59
20 New Zealand 0.74 Czech Republic 0.87 Spain 0.82 Austria 0.83 South Korea 0.65 Italy 0.57
21 Luxembourg 0.69 Portugal 0.82 Luxembourg 0.82 Japan 0.81 Ireland 0.63 Poland 0.57
22 Portugal 0.63 New Zealand 0.73 Hungary 0.78 South Korea 0.78 Portugal 0.63 Switzerland 0.55
23 Greece 0.62 Mexico 0.71 Japan 0.75 Slovakia 0.76 Spain 0.61 Mexico 0.49
24 Hungary 0.61 South Korea 0.71 Czech Republic 0.72 Greece 0.76 Japan 0.58 South Korea 0.47
25 Czech Republic 0.54 Slovakia 0.70 Slovakia 0.67 Iceland 0.75 Poland 0.55 Slovakia 0.44
26 Mexico 0.51 Greece 0.68 Poland 0.65 Poland 0.69 Mexico 0.51 Spain 0.41
27 South Korea 0.50 Iceland 0.64 Mexico 0.58 Mexico 0.67 Turkey 0.48 Austria 0.38
28 Poland 0.50 Poland 0.62 Greece 0.58 Turkey 0.52 Greece 0.45 France 0.36
29 Slovakia 0.46 Luxembourg 0.59 South Korea 0.52 Hungary 0.50 Czech Republic 0.28 Czech Republic 0.31
30 Turkey 0.37 Turkey 0.58 Turkey 0.28 Czech Republic 0.39 Slovakia 0.19 Luxembourg 0.00
European Union 0.96 European Union 0.99 European Union 0.94 European Union 1.07 European Union 0.88 European Union 0.85
* The relative citation impact has been calculated by dividing each country’s impact factor for the major field of science by the corresponding impact factor for the OECD, while the relative
citation impact for the OECD is one. In agricultural sciences, for example, the relative citation impact for Finland is 1.52, which means that agricultural publications produced in Finland
113
have accrued 52 per cent more citations during the period 1998–2002 than agricultural publications in all OECD countries on average.

Contents
Neither the impact factor nor the relative citation impact should be used for purposes
of direct comparisons between different disciplines. What we can do is see how Finland
compares with other OECD countries within different fields of science (Table 5.10).
Although Finland’s shares of OECD countries’ publications and citations are relatively
small, we rank fairly high in a comparison of citation impacts. In the light of this
comparison the Finnish fields of science that performed best in 1998−2002 were the
agricultural sciences, ranking third and receiving 52 per cent more citations than OECD
publications in this field on average. The humanities came fourth in this comparison,
receiving 33 per cent more citations than OECD publications in this field on average.
Finnish medical sciences as well as the social sciences also fared well in this comparison,
both ranking sixth. However, the number of citations received by studies in the social
sciences was three per cent lower than the average for OECD publications. The natural
sciences ranked twelfth, engineering and technology sixteenth. Publications in these
fields received seven per cent less citations than OECD publications in these fields on
average.
5.2 The social impacts of research

This section begins with a discussion of how the social impacts of research have been
described in research on science and technology policy and innovation policy. Following
a general introduction, the text proceeds to look at the technological and economic
impacts of research and its broader impacts on society. Finally, some of the obstacles
and bottlenecks impeding impacts are discussed.
5.2.1 The social impacts, outcomes and impact mechanisms of research

It is commonplace to highlight the technological and economic aspects of the social
impacts of research9, but those impacts can also be considered in a broader sense as
comprising, for instance, health, environmental and cultural effects.
It is important to distinguish between the social effects of research and the outcomes of
research. The results of research include:
• new information that citizens can use in building up their world-view, or that can
serve as a source of technological and social innovations
• new research instruments, methods and techniques that may be taken into use in
industry and in different fields of research
• the knowledge base produced for the assessment of broader social and ecological
impacts
• solutions to complex technological problems
• new spin-off companies
• research skills and competencies (know-how in scientific research) that are
transferred, along with researchers, into industry and the rest of the science
community
• access to expert and information networks through involvement in research.
9
Unless otherwise implied by the context, research refers here primarily to basic research conducted at universities
and research institutes.
114
Contents
The process in which research outcomes unfold into social impacts involve certain
common distinctive features. These impacts materialise through various kinds of
institutions and mechanisms. Their diffusion takes place primarily in social networks
and cooperation. Furthermore, the mobility of researchers, their involvement in
consultancy and counselling, and publishing all contribute to the dissemination of
impacts (Molas-Gallart et al. 2000).
The changing relationship between science and society has given rise to growing
demands upon the assessment of the impacts of research funded from the public purse.
These changes have included (Arnold & Balazs 1998):
• changes in the economic environment of research: globalisation, growing
competition and new technological challenges call for more attention to be paid to
safeguarding the technological and economic impacts of basic research
• the growing costs of research instruments, equipment and other infrastructure
• the general emphasis on management by results, cost-effectiveness and impacts of
public funding
• the growing scarcity of research resources and the expectation that assessments shall
focus not only on areas of strength but also on weaknesses
• the growing role of international funding organisations in the funding of research,
which has given greater weight to the social criteria of impacts.
5.2.2 How have the social impacts of research been

described or assessed?
In the science community’s own practices, the scientific quality of research has
remained the predominant criterion of research assessment. In the business sector,
too, this is still considered an important measure (Arnold & Balazs 1998, Nieminen &
Kaukonen 2001). However, more and more attention is now being paid to the social
dimensions of scientific knowledge. At the same time, research has been discarding its
simplistic models of impact mechanisms and adopting instead more complex models
(Fuller 1988, Arnold & Balazs 1998). These are some of the points that have been raised
in the field of innovation research with regard to the social impacts of research, their
assessment and the criteria of impacts:
• The social impacts of research are not a one-way street but interactive processes.
• Social impacts, impacts mechanisms and outcomes cannot be uniformly assessed in
different fields of research because they all vary across those fields.
• The diffusion of the social impacts of research is not usually a mechanistic process,
but they are mediated through various kinds of application and impact mechanisms.
The cooperation, mutual dependence and joint learning of the different actors
involved is paramount.
• Most impacts of research are of an indirect nature, they take a long time to filter
through and they are difficult to operationalise and measure.
So while virtually all disciplines and fields of research do have both economic and
other social impacts (such as those on welfare), their indirect nature and the long time
spans involved mean it is impossible to provide accurate assessments (e.g. impacts of
different learning processes, impacts of changes in diet habits, impacts of changes
in people’s experiences of safety with more liberal legal regulation, etc.). There are
115
Contents
no straightforward, universal indices that provide a meaningful description of those

impacts (Arnold & Balazs 1998, Teigland 2000).
5.2.3 Technological and economic impacts of research

The impact relationship between research and technology is indirect and interactive.
Technological innovations and technological development take place through the
diffusion of existing knowledge rather than through the generation of new information.
In so far as research which generates new information contributes to the evolution of
new technologies, it will usually be not through basic research, but rather research by
business companies as well as company cooperation (Pavitt 1991, Innovaatiotutkimus…
2003). In some fields (such as information technology, pharmacy, petrochemistry),
publicly funded basic research has also proved to be hugely valuable to companies
(Arnold & Balazs 1998).
Technological development facilitates and contributes to economic growth. Economic

growth is primarily driven not by research, however, but by the adoption of new
technologies from other actors (diffusion, learning and imitation). Both technological
development and economic growth do, though, rest upon the accumulation of human
capital and scientific knowledge (Helo & Hedman 1996). Scientific research is thus
an important background factor for both technological development and economic
growth, even though in the last instance both are explained by other factors.
In order to identify the economic impacts of research, we need information on business

companies, on the impacts of research on regional economies and on the impacts at the
level of the national economy.
Using data collected in business questionnaires, Statistics Finland has described the
impacts of innovation at the business level in 1998−2000 (Table 5.11). According to
their Innovation Survey in 2000, innovation improves the quality of products and
services and broadens the product and service range. Other benefits are either minor
or insignificant. This may be due to the fact that, for whatever reason, the potential
benefits of innovation do not get transferred into the company’s everyday business
Table 5.11. Impacts of innovation at company level (all industries total).
Impacts of Innovation Very significant Significant Minor Not relevant

% % % %
Wider product and service range 13.6 45.1 25.1 16.2
Expanded markets 10.4 38.2 34.0 17.4
Improved quality of products and services 13.9 47.3 24.8 14.0
Improved flexibility in production 6.7 33.5 35.0 24.8
Increased production capacity 6.6 27.0 33.6 32.8
Lowered labour costs per unit produced 7.3 26.0 36.6 30.1
Reduced materials and energy consumption
4.1 14.7 38.9 42.3
per unit produced
Source: Innovaatiotutkimus 2000.
116
In interpreting these results it is important to note that only just over one-third
of innovations in manufacturing and less than one-third of innovations in other
industries are based directly on information received from universities and public
research institutes (Innovaatiotutkimus… 2003). Therefore the estimates in Table
5.11 do not directly represent the benefits that companies reap from basic research at
universities, but rather the benefits of their own innovation. On the other hand, most
of the innovation in the business sector is undertaken by researchers with a university
training. These observations lend support to the impression that the impacts of publicly
funded research at the company level are primarily of an indirect nature.
Both Finnish and international studies have confirmed that universities promote
economic growth and innovations within their area. The economic impacts of
universities at the local level consist mainly of the human capital and the new scientific
knowledge they produce. Furthermore, universities disseminate within their area all
the human capital and scientific knowledge that is brought in from elsewhere. (Helo &
Hedman 1996.)
The regional impacts of university research are intricately interwoven with education
and other university functions as well as with other impact chains. Furthermore, these
impacts are dependent on companies’ decision on where to locate their business, in
which the proximity of a university is just one consideration among many others.
Research has shown that in Finland, the regions of Uusimaa, Oulu, Turku and Pori and
Häme are streets ahead of other regions in terms of their ability to make use of human
capital in production. In these regions the impacts of research on the regional economy
are the most significant. However, there is considerable mobility of human capital from
one educational province to others, at least in industry. In the regions mentioned the
monies invested in universities also have the greatest incentive effect on business R&D
expenditure (Helo & Hedman 1996, Alueellisen innovaatiotoiminnan tila... 2002). The
positive economic effects of universities also emerge clearly in evaluations by third
parties, although these also point at various shortcomings and development needs
(Dahllöf et al. 1998, Goddard et al. 2000).
At the level of the national economy and the innovation system, various indicators
have been applied to describe the technological and economic impacts of research.
In an international comparison, the impacts of Finnish research can be described by
reference to the indicators shown in Table 5.12 (for the limitations of this comparison,
see Benchmarking S&T... 2002).
On most indicators Finland compares very favourably indeed, both in terms of its
current situation and especially in terms of the pace of development during the
latter half of the 1990s. The biggest challenges are included in the third category
(impacts of the knowledge-based economy on competitiveness), particularly in
the development of knowledge-intensive services. There also remain significant
development needs in the commercialisation of technology. In spite of these
challenges and development needs, Finnish research appears to have significant and
positive economic impacts.
117
Contents
Table 5.12. Impacts of Finnish R&D in an international comparison.
Finland in 2000 EU average Finland’s ranking Finland’s ranking among EU

in 2000 among EU countries countries in 1995–2000
in 2000 on the basis of growth rate
Technological performance
* no. of patents, EPO / million pop. 283 139 2 8
* no. of patents, USTPO / million pop. 130 74 4 6
Success of technology
commercialisation
* world market share of exports
0.89 9 2
of high-tech products (%)
* export:import ratio of technical
0.08 11 2
knowledge and services (%/GDP)
Impacts of knowledge-based economy
on competitiveness
* value added of high-tech
9.99 7.77 3 1
production (%/total production)
* employment in high-tech
7.22 7.60 5 2
production (%/total labour force)
* value added of knowledge-intensive
11.17 32.92 12 2
services (%/total production)
* employment in knowledge-intensive
37.93 32.31 6 15
services (%/total labour force)
Sources: Towards a European Research Area. Science, Technology and Innovation. Key Figures 2002; Third European
Report on Science & Technology Indicators 2003.
5.2.4 Mechanisms promoting the economic impacts of research and

their problems
Networking, cooperation and joint learning

The processes in which innovations unfold and in which they are commercialised, involve
certain features that are tied to time and place. A study based on extensive materials
(some 2,400 innovations) shows that new scientific breakthroughs and technologies are
of key significance especially in the development of complex innovations. These include
innovations that profoundly change existing modes of activity. In this context research
cooperation between business companies and universities has immediate relevance as
a foundation for new innovations. Public support, a financially healthy business sector
and large company size all contribute to strengthening the foundation of complex
innovations that requires long-term investment. Radical innovations, for their part,
usually come from new and small companies. The way that public support works
in practice and the conditions under which innovations and the commercialisation
succeed or fail, are still poorly understood. (Tanayama 2002.)
One of the arenas that provides a useful illustration of the diffusion of research impacts
through research cooperation is that of drug development. Technological change (in
the shape of genetic engineering) is leading to a reorganisation of drug development
into a network of small, highly specialised companies in which research and product
development are closely interwoven. The emerging business models are based upon a
splitting up of the value chain of the drug development process into viable business
118
concepts that are carried out by closely collaborating organisations. A drug development
network is created involving research groups engaged in basic research at universities,
drug development companies, service organisations, technology companies as well as
marketing businesses, or traditional pharmaceuticals companies (Kivisaari et al. 2001,
Tulkki et al. 2001). An example of a drug development project organised in the form of
a network is provided by the following Hormos Medical Oy project aimed at developing
a drug for male urinary dysfunction (Kivisaari et al. 2001).
Cooperation and networking in drug development
The project was inspired by the studies of a research group at the University of Turku in the role of the female
hormone in the male organism. A group of experts at the major pharmaceuticals producer Orion took an interest in
the studies of this group and in 1991 Orion began to finance their research. The research group was studying several
of Orion’s products, but they soon focused their attention on a few key drugs. This research effort at the university
would not have been possible without Orion’s support. Orion decided to discontinue its funding in 1995, and the final
report was written in 1996. Project management was taken over by Hormos Medical Oy. Tekes began funding the
project in 1997 and continued to support it for three years: Tekes funds were used to finance clinical patient studies.
In 2000, the project was continued with the company’s own funding, and the drug proceeded to the clinical stage.
Since the patient trials, the drug development company has been looking for international partners that could take
over production, marketing, distribution and further development. It is crucial that it finds partners so that it can
commercialise its research results. At this stage everything hinges on the company’s licensing plans: in order to get
the drug into the marketplace as planned in 2005, they need to succeed with licensing.
The original idea for the project came from university sources. New information about the mechanisms at work in
the disease was produced in basic research. Leaning on that information, the drug development company’s job was
to develop and produce a new drug and to show that the drug did what it was supposed to do. Since the company
did not have the necessary multidisciplinary research and documentation know-how in-house, it purchased the
research and other services from outside contractors. Several service companies were involved in the network, the
majority of which worked in connection with universities. The drug development company worked closely both with
the service companies and with the research group at the university.
Although there are many reasons for changing the business concepts that promote
cooperation and networking among the actors involved, the main reason has to do
with new gene technologies. With these technologies, the critical innovation stage has
moved very close to basic research. The utilisation of new technologies requires new
models of collaboration and new ways of organising business. Overall the concept is not
yet ready and properly structured. In the example described above, the different parties
also had divergent expectations. For instance, it was considered somewhat problematic
that the rules of the game were not entirely clear. (Kivisaari et al. 2001.)
Although Finland generally provides a good infrastructure and environment for

innovations (Georghiou et al. 2003), organisations producing knowledge-intensive
services (e.g. measurements, reporting, training and consultancy services) have been
singled out as a weakness in the Finnish innovation system (The Impact... 2002). There
have been improvements and advances, though, and Finland is actively involved in the
OECD development project on Knowledge Intensive Service Activities, for instance. New
service concepts have been developed and networking has been promoted for instance
through the Ministry of the Interior’s centre of expertise programme and technology
centres. In this way cooperation and networking as well as the economies of production
have also involved a regional dimension.
119
Networking and cooperation also make it easier to take into account the needs of
research and technology end-users. There are examples where the technologies
produced have remained underutilised or completely unused because planning
has failed to take account of the needs and expectations of end-users (Miettinen
2002). The following example of a development project in process management and
control describes the possibilities that are offered by the development of user-oriented
technologies (Kovalainen 2002).
Electronic diary for process control and management
Insufficient communication about process control and management may lead to quality defects or even stoppages
or production shutdowns the costs of which in a paper mill, for instance, may run up to 20,000 euros an hour.
Empirical studies have shown that one of the key conditions for effective process control is the ability to remember
earlier problems and experiences. In practice, this information has a tendency to be lost. Traditional tools of process
control (folder diaries) are one of the storage places of information. However, these tools do not support interactive
learning, nor are they available for use in environments beyond the single workplace.
In this case example, the research and development process started out from a practical problem. Working closely
with the end-users of information, the research team joined forces with the company in question to develop and
commercialise an electronic diary for process control purposes. In all, the development process lasted seven years.
During the course of the process the key needs for communication and information dissemination were identified
in the paper and energy industry, and a software application supporting the relevant functions was developed from
concept to product. The diary is now in active use for instance in production reporting within a paper manufacturing
corporation. User statistics indicate that the electronic diary has become the most widely used intranet application
in the different production units. As well as promoting the organisation’s collective memory and learning, the diary
increased communication and exchange of information related to key events during the shift, which is particularly
important in the event of malfunctions. Follow-up studies in 2004 will allow for firmer conclusions to be drawn about
the impacts of the changes on the corporation’s productivity and the generalisability of the results.
Spin-off companies
Where networking and collaboration have not sufficed to turn research results into
commercial, marketable products, research may have been organised into a business
format. Fitting together the divergent cultures of research and business has proved
particularly challenging in the university environment.
Opportunities and challenges of commercialisation in universities
Juha Tuunainen, University of Helsinki
Commercial application of university research is not always easy; witness the efforts of the research team under
Professor Eija Pehu in the field of applied plant biotechnology in 1990–2000. Their aim was to integrate the three
main elements of their work: the breeding of agricultural plants, the development of new research methods and the
production of high-level scientific knowledge. Since the research group was working closely both with international
research teams and with plant breeders, they were exceptionally well placed to act as a bridge between academic
research and the commercial application of research results (Tuunainen 2001). Even though the group had good
success in commercialising its research results – it led to the founding of Finland’s first ever business venture in plant
biotechnology – the process of commercialisation was far from unproblematic. There were difficulties with patenting
the research results, the critical attitude of European consumers towards GM foods and with drawing the dividing
line between private business and academic work.
120
Funding bodies and the launch of a biotech company. In the field of biotechnology, business is one of the key
mechanisms through which research results can be transferred from university to wider use in society. In our case
example, the establishment of a spin-off company was the net effect of several different factors. The foundation
was provided by the research group’s application-driven research programme that was funded by the Academy
of Finland. This programme produced scientific innovations that were protected by patents. Having secured
funding from the National Technology Agency Tekes, the research group then extended its research programme.
A key condition with regard to starting the company was that all Tekes-funded projects are required to have
concrete cooperation with the business sector: this gave greater solidity to the burgeoning relations with business
companies. In the last instance it was the investment and expert assistance provided by the National Research and
Development Fund Sitra that made possible the start-up of the company, allowing the research group to move from
the university into the world of business.
Patenting research results. Prior to the launch of the company, in the mid-1990s, the research group produced
several research results with potential commercial application. They decided to protect some of these results (a
virus-resistant potato and a transgenic form of turnip rape) together with Helsinki University Licensing (HUL). As
HUL undertook to cover the costs of patenting, ownership of the patents was transferred from the research group
to HUL. When a few years later the group decided to set up a company, it was not entirely clear on what conditions
the patents held by HUL could be released to that company: the two companies found themselves in competition,
which threatened the commercialisation of the research results. After protracted negotiations it was agreed that
the researchers’ company would market the innovation related to the virus-resistant potato (Tuunainen 2002), while
the transgenic form of turnip rape would remain in HUL ownership. This case gives cause to consider the question
of how to fit together divergent economic interests without throwing into jeopardy the practical application of
innovations.
Critical attitude of consumers towards plant biotechnology. Having patented a virus-resistant potato, the research
group continued to develop the innovation into a commercial product together with a Danish plant breeding
company: the aim was to produce commercially marketable virus-resistant potato varieties. The research went
very well and the results were promising. However, in spite of the encouraging start, the Danish company decided
to withdraw from the project in the late 1990s. At the same time it discontinued its whole transgenic potato breeding
programme. Clearly, it was worried by the critical attitude of the European Union and European consumers towards
foods produced by plant biotechnology methods. In spite of high hopes, there were no markets in Europe for a
transgenic potato variety (Tuunainen 2002).
The dividing line between business and academic research. When the research group founded its company in 1998,
it was still working at the University of Helsinki. At this point the group had not yet decided to leave the university, but
it tried to fit together its academic work and the biotechnology business. This led to many awkward problems: How
to divide the Professor’s working hours between two essentially different operations, i.e. business and teaching at
university? On what conditions can the company use the research equipment and materials acquired with public
project funding? Can the company and the academic research group share the same facilities? In more general
terms, this case gives cause to consider the question of how the university can meet its increasingly diverse tasks
and responsibilities: How can it simultaneously improve researcher training, develop its first and higher degree
programmes, publish internationally and commercialise research results? On the basis of this case study it seems
that at least in small departments that have limited staff resources, it is extremely difficult to reconcile these tasks
(Tuunainen 2003).
REFERENCES
Tuunainen, Juha. 2001. ”Constructing Objects and Transforming Experimental Systems.” Perspectives on Science
9: 78–105.
––– 2002. “Reconsidering the Mode 2 and the Triple Helix: A Critical Comment Based on a Case Study.” Science
Studies 15: 36–58.
––– 2003. “On the Possibility of a Research Group – Firm Hybrid Entity.” Social Studies of Science 33, in press.
This case example highlights some of the cultural, political, ethical, juridical and
administrative problems that are involved in fitting together the public and the private
in the university context. It also illustrates some of the new challenges that are related
to the position of science and modern technology in society. As yet, the discussion on
121
Contents
these challenges has not received sufficient weight (Miettinen & Väliverronen 1999),
but it has been largely overshadowed by the more technically-minded debate on the
rules of the game. Apart from debate and rules, another requirement is sensitivity to
trends of change.
5.2.5 The political, regional, organisational and cultural impacts

of research
Research may impact human action either by providing, directly or indirectly, a tool
for resolving a problem; or by influencing deliberations and judgement. Cultural and
social research can also be expected to have cultural impacts, providing building blocks
for world-views and supporting the personal growth and development of citizens on
various dimensions (Lehtisalo 2002). It follows from the nature of impacts that the
social impacts of research need to be studied in the context of the processes in which
they appear. (Molas-Gallart et al. 2000.)
In the following case example (Table 5.13) the original description of impacts, compiled
exclusively for the field of health research (Koskela 1998), is used as a more general
Table 5.13. How the social impacts of research unfold in an interactive field involving
multiple actors.
Elements of impact as events Content of events Participants in event

1. new discovery a situation triggering a new researchers, innovators
(e.g. a substance causes discovery has emerged, basic
cancer or some factor causes research creates new information
social problems)
2. demonstration of the existence research researchers
of a health hazard or social
problem
3. communication about publishing research results, researchers, events organisers,
the existence of the hazard organising scientific meetings, communication officers, science
or problem publishing news, popularisation, popularisers, information specialists
compiling and organising information at libraries
4. calls to remove the hazard communication about research researchers, administrators,
or problem results, administrative measures, communication officers, labour
defending interests, legislation, protection officers, interest
controlling labour protection, organisations, other organisations,
influencing public opinion MPs, customers
5. exploring measures aimed at research, measurements, planning, researchers, measurement
removing hazard or problem technical solutions, implementation specialists, planning officers,
engineers, implementors
6. communication about training, publishing, making training staff, publishers, information
the prospects of removing products, making methods products, specialists, communication officers
the hazard or problem communication
7. meeting demands, i.e. measures by employers, employees’ employers, occupational health and
implementing changes at experiences, controlling labour labour protection people, employees,
shopfloor level protection at shopfloor level, authorities
(workplace etc.) measures taken by authorities
8. demonstrating improved health research, compiling statistics researchers, statisticians, publishers,
or satisfactory solution of social on absence from work, illness or financial administrators
problem, i.e. demonstrating accidents, compiling profit and loss
impact statements
Source: Koskela 1998.
122
framework for studying the social impacts of research. The description is applicable
to situations where the social impacts of research, in order to materialise, require an
understanding of the social problems or their underlying causes as well as a concerted
effort in society to bring these problems under control. The purpose of the description
is not to demonstrate that the social impacts of research develop in a linear process,
but rather it illustrates the way in which those impacts tie in with numerous mutually
dependent elements (1–7) and cooperation among actors. These elements may appear
side by side, there may be breaks between them, long time lags and feedback processes.
The need for interdisciplinary cooperation emerges as a challenge for research impacts
early on in the process, for instance in demonstrating the existence of a social problem
or a health hazard (element 2). The following example illustrates a case of successful
cooperation between a methods science (statistics) and basic science during the early
stages of the impact process. Furthermore, the example demonstrates the possibilities
and needs for cooperation between different actors, the pursuit of scientific and social
impacts in the same process (new areas of research and methods, public health benefits)
and the risk factors involved in the unfolding of the impact (the short-term nature of
project work, the concentration of expertise, the boundary line between science and
non-science).
The nature of multidisciplinary research in modelling infectious diseases
Erika Mattila, University of Helsinki
INFEMAT, a multidisciplinary research project for modelling infectious diseases was launched at the initiative of
the National Public Health Institute (KTL) in 1994. The purpose was to set up a new, multidisciplinary research
programme that would produce new tools and know-how for designing vaccination programmes and for predicting
the spread of infections. KTL was joined in the effort by the Rolf Nevanlinna Institute (RNI) from the University of
Helsinki, and Helsinki University of Technology (HUT). Each of the three partners had their own objectives for
cooperation: RNI began to set up its own research area in the field of biometrics, HUT worked on strengthening its
know-how in visual programming and simulation methods, and KTL strengthened its know-how needed for designing
vaccination programmes. The aim of the project was to build individually based simulation models that predict the
spread of infections at population level and to plan vaccination programmes.
Establishing a multidisciplinary research tradition

The project was characteristically a multidisciplinary effort: the researchers involved in the project had received their
training in various different disciplines: mathematics, statistics, medicine and computer science. At the time that the
project was launched there was no other corresponding programme in Finland, but it was based on an international
example. The phenomenon modelled is extremely challenging and therefore requires a multidisciplinary approach:
the infected person who is carrying the bacterium is often asymptomatic, the rare instances where the disease does
break out are difficult, and neither infection nor having the disease guarantees immunity. When this phenomenon
is described using mathematical models, we need to apply both mathematical and statistical tools and information
technology in order to produce useful overall picture.
How was the multidisciplinary approach built up in practice? First of all, from early on the researchers took active
part in seminars which involved reading the literature on modelling and introducing their own research. The group
was visited by foreign scientists, some of whom became long-standing partners in cooperation. The researchers also
wrote joint articles: during the process of writing up their research they had to explain to participating colleagues the
premises of their work and the methods they had employed. Initially the group had some problems getting its results
published. A major medical journal once replied: Is this modelling really science?
The problems formulated for the research were also shaped and influenced by the multidisciplinary approach: in
order to find a satisfactory solution the researchers brought together their expertise in the modelling project.
123
Genuinely multidisciplinary results were preceded by cooperation during which medical researchers had to
familiarise themselves with the basics of statistical modelling and simulation, while statistics and IT experts studied
the epidemiology of the bacterium that was modelled. This was an important period of personal learning for the
researchers involved.
Construction and diffusion of expertise

Fitting together different kinds of premises and vantage-points is a slow and awkward process, particularly in
project-based research. However, the importance of cooperation is clearly seen in the fact that some members
of the research group continue to work together even though they have moved on to new jobs and funding for the
project has ended. The personification of expertise presents a challenge to the applicability of research results. Only
the researchers involved in the project are familiar with modelling and its possibilities with regard to application: it is
difficult to transfer expertise that is tied to individuals.
Nonetheless KTL remains very much interested in the potential application of modelling. During the INFEMAT
project three doctoral theses were completed in a field that had previously not been researched very intensively in
Finland. The researchers who took part in the project have either continued their research at KTL in the modelling of
different infections, or they have moved on to positions of expertise in other research organisations. Through various
joint projects, research in modelling infectious disease and the related expertise has also become embedded in
international research networks. Know-how is thus applied in the modelling of current epidemiological problems and
as a tool of vaccination design and counselling.
The easiest way to illustrate the interconnectedness of health effects with the political
impacts of research is from the vantage-point of the fourth element in Table 5.13 (calls
for removing the health hazard). This includes providing information about research
results, articulation of interests, civic debate, swaying public opinion, legislative work
as well as administering and controlling compliance with legal regulations. Among
the disciplines whose contribution will be needed to help eliminate the health hazards
are (applied) ethics, political science and legislation research. In a sense, these fields
of research serve as mirrors of society vis-à-vis political decision-makers. They should
reflect upon, organise and question the direction and the ways in which society is being
steered, weigh and assess activities in society and produce information about the state
of society at each moment in time.
As the situation stands today, the social impacts of the fields of research mentioned above
cannot be considered satisfactory, never mind their political impacts (Hertzberg 2000, Tala
2001, Lampinen 2002). However, opinions vary as to the political impacts of research, the
problems involved, their causes, and the ways in which they should be rectified.
It is rarely that research has the effect of improving health (see element eight in Table
5.13) unless it also has political as well as regional and organisational impacts. In order
that the results of social and health research and, say, environmental research can
have an impact on society, a system will often be required that provides for the regional
and local organisation of services, that controls businesses and other communities and
that also works together with them as well as with local residents. This system conveys
information, for instance, about the possibilities of eliminating a health hazard (sixth
element), controls the response to the demand (seventh element) and takes part in
demonstrating impacts by collecting information in connection with its control and
service function (eighth element).
The following case example describes the social impacts of information produced
by environmental sciences as well as the dependence of all activities in society upon
124
the factual information produced by environmental research. At the same time, the
description goes to show how those impacts evolve over a long period of time, the
need for cooperation between different actors and the fact that the new information
produced by research (the first element in the process) is a necessary condition for
creating effective demands for the elimination of problems (fourth element) and for
monitoring and controlling the response to these demands (seventh element).
Water protection and related research
Mikael Hildén, Juha Kämäri, Seppo Rekolainen; Finnish Environment Institute
Practical water protection and research in this field are closely interwoven with each other in Finland. The University
of Helsinki established a professorship in limnology the same year that the Water Act took effect in 1962. The new
legislation required information on the state of water system and on factors impacting its quality. At the same time,
increasing public awareness meant that issues of water protection took on increasing social significance as well.
Initially the main focus was upon emissions from residential communities and major industrial installations and the
impacts of those emissions. Nonetheless, the time lag from research to practical implementation was still quite long.
A good example is provided by emission and production trends in the pulp and paper industry: throughout the 1960s
emissions increased in almost direct proportion to production (see Figure below).
It was not until the early 1970s that things began to change, both as a result of technology changes and as result
of active measures of water protection. Water protection studies provided the main impetus for reducing levels
of biological oxygen demand and for developing new reduction techniques. Likewise, it was not until the 1970s
that significant advances were seen in the treatment of community waste water: with phosphorus effluents, the
efficiency of purification rose from around 25 per cent to more than 80 per cent within the space of about ten years.
Today, the figure is over 90 per cent. Progress has been slower with nitrogen effluents, although in the past few years
it has been speeding up.
One of the keys to successful emission reduction has been close interaction between the concerned parties,
which has promoted the use of the latest knowledge available. This interaction has been channelled through water
protection programmes, for instance, in which research knowledge has been organised into practical applications.
Various interest groups have taken part in the discussions on these target programmes. The first programme was
published by the National Fund for Research and Development Sitra in 1970. The National Board of Waters then set
up a programme in 1974, the Ministry of the Environment followed suit in 1988 and 1998. In addition, the Ministry
of the Environment launched in 2002 Finland’s Programme for the Protection of the Baltic Sea. These programmes
125
have recognised the current state of affairs and set targets that have been cited in the application of legislation. The
Academy of Finland launched the Baltic Sea Research Programme (BIREME, 2003–2005) in 2002.
As levels of industry and community emissions have continued to drop, agriculture has come to account for an ever
greater proportion of overall nutrient discharge volumes. The first research results pointing in this direction were
completed in the late 1970s. Research on the methods and need to reduce emission loads gathered momentum in
the late 1980s, particularly through the MAVERO project (Rekolainen et al. 1992). The research results were put
to immediate use both for purposes of informational guidance as well as in various administrative contexts; one
example is the Environment programme for rural areas (Ministry of the Environment 1992). In the absence of relevant
legislation, the application of research results to practical water protection has been a much slower process. It is
only since Finland’s membership of the European Union and the agricultural environment programme which this
entailed that tools have been made available for implementing methods of reducing discharge levels (see Palva et
al. 2001).
Research is set to become even more closely integrated with practical water pollution control than it is today. The
EU Water Framework Directive presupposes that the aims and means of water protection are chosen by reference
to research and that research is consulted more extensively in monitoring water quality.
References
Palva, R., Rankinen, K., Granlund, K., Grönroos, J., Nikander, A. & Rekolainen, S. 2001. Maatalouden ympäristötuen
toimenpiteiden toteutuminen ja vaikutukset vesistökuormitukseen vuosina 1995–1999. MYTVAS-projektin
loppuraportti. Finnish Environment 478, 92 p.
Rekolainen, S., Kauppi, L. & Turtola, E. 1992. Maatalous ja vesien tila. MAVEROn loppuraportti. Luonnonvarainneuvosto.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Luonnonvarajulkaisuja 15. 61p.
Ministry of the Environment 1992. Maaseudun ympäristöohjelma. Työryhmän mietintö 1992: 68. Helsinki.
The social impacts of research in the humanities are often cultural by nature. In this
case the kind of problem-solving process illustrated above can provide only a limited
description of these impacts. The cultural impacts of research are manifested, for
example, in people’s ability (or inability) to recognise the foundations of their world-
view, in how they understand the times in which they live, in their ability to define their
own local, regional and global identity and in their ability to orientate to the factors
determining the boundary conditions for human activity. These impacts take a long
time to filter through, and they mainly affect people’s judgements rather than provide a
basis for actually resolving problems (Molas-Gallart et al. 2000). If the cultural impacts
of research are examined simply in terms of economic benefits, that is bound to give a
distorted picture of their nature.
The following case example describes how the results of language technology research
at the University of Helsinki Department of General Linguistics gradually unfolded into
social impacts.
The unfolding of the social impacts of research involves simultaneous and overlapping
impacts from various different disciplines and fields of research. In order to properly
understand these impacts it is necessary to examine these disciplines and fields of
research as interactive processes whose purpose is to provide the actors involved in
that process with skills and competencies for orientation and action (understanding the
situation, objectives, means, etc.).
126
Contents
Language technology research in a social analysis
Tarja Knuuttila, University of Helsinki
The Department of General Linguistics at the University of Helsinki has been a major pioneer in language technology
research not only in Finland but internationally. Research in this field got under way at the Department in the
early 1980s, when (in spite of its technological orientation) the work was still pure basic research. Since then the
situation has radically changed: with the breakthrough of PCs, data networks and information technology, language
technology has become an integral part of everyday life. Language technology research at the University of Helsinki
Department of General Linguistics has gained recognition mainly for two of its innovations, viz. two-level morphology
and constraint grammar. These tools allow for an analysis, at word level, of the morphology and surface syntax of
written text. This method of sentence analysis is needed not only for purposes of word processing, but also for much
more complex applications of language technology, such as speech recognition, where it can be used as a module.
The most obvious way to approach the social impact of research in language technology is through commercial
applications. Staff at the Helsinki Department of General Linguistics have indeed started two separate language
technology companies that are taking advantage of research carried out at the Department. However, an exclusive
focus on these spin-off companies would give a somewhat distorted and rather superficial image of how research
at the Department ties in with other areas of society. For instance, the Helsinki Department of General Linguistics
has been involved in setting up and maintaining the University of Helsinki Language Corpus Server, which contains
electronic text materials in more than 50 languages. It also provides language related computer services and
software for linguists and corpus researchers. In addition, the Department of General Linguistics has been involved
in starting up a national network of language technology teaching, and it has taken part in EU and Tekes programmes
where it has had cooperation not only with academic but business partners as well. The impacts of these kinds of
projects are generally indirect, unpredictable and can only be ascertained over a longer period of time – certainly
beyond the duration of the projects themselves. Participation in different kinds of projects may also promote
scientific research itself. One interviewee who is engaged in more traditional linguistic research, had this to say
about the utility of the language technology projects at the Department: “new ideas and things that are based on new
types of implementation, they require free association between different perspectives, different traditions. When the
things we do differ from each other as widely as possible, that will give you completely new kinds of ideas.”
In the examples above, the social impacts of the results of health research upon
occupational health and the impacts of environmental research on the state of the
environment do not unfold in and of themselves, but through the collaboration
of different fields of research and actors within those fields. The end results can be
described as the welfare or environmental effects of research. In order that the process
can develop smoothly, there must be good cooperation between different fields of
research, a sufficiently long-term effort to establish the results and an appropriate
period of analysis.
5.2.6 Social innovations

The unfolding of research impacts is also restricted and steered by changes within
the science institution itself. By the seventeenth century the ideal of scientific inquiry,
in all disciplines, was the pursuit of theoretical knowledge, universal laws and
regularities that stood apart from the realm of practice. As science has continued to
focus on unearthing universal laws, the practical context, the integration of theoretical
knowledge with the needs and problems of everyday life, has remained something of a
dead zone for science; some have gone so far as to call this the blind spot of our culture
(Virkkala 1994, Toulmin 1998). The accent on the significance of social innovations
is an indication of the appearance of the problem in society’s practices (Knowledge...
2003, Soete 2003). The creative integration of the scientific knowledge and technologies
127
Contents
produced with societal needs interpreted through values remains the key challenge that
provides direction for the effort at social impacts (von Wright 1987).
Given the complexity and diversity of social innovations it is extremely difficult to

provide an exhaustive definition of them, and there is no universal agreement on
existing definitions either. Social innovations may consist of new forms of organisation,
new modes of control and regulation or ways of life which bring more effective solutions
to problems and which have sufficient respect so that they can be imitated and/or
institutionalised (Schienstock 1999).
Social innovations can be grouped into broader categories. The following classification
does not propose to be an exhaustive description of the field of social innovations.
Social innovations have been understood in several ways:
1) They have been regarded as crucial to the competitiveness and productivity of the
national economy (Alueellisen innovaatiotoiminnan tila... 2002).
2) They have been defined as the process in which “knowledge, skills and expertise are
interwoven into good cycles” (Social Capital… 2003). The aims of this interweaving
may range from the immediate growth of economic potential to welfare and the
“economy of happiness”.
3) Social innovations have been understood as new ways of thinking, regulation
ideologies and methods, which support social governance.
Although the need for and foundation of social innovations are built, in the last instance,
in civil society, individual organisations and in workplace practices, social innovations
can be developed and they can be shaped by means of science and education policy
and other social policy (The Impact… 2002). Social innovations require a new way of
perceiving the links between knowledge, technologies and practical problems as well as
an ability creatively to link these together. For this reason the most important measures,
at all levels, are those that directly or indirectly promote learning and un-learning the
formation of creative and inspiring environments for work and other activities, that
encourage people to question practices they have adopted and create other conditions
for learning and creativity (Lehtisalo 2002, Negroponte 2003). Research in this area is
slowly gathering momentum in Finland, too. One example is the Research Programme
on Social Capital and Networks of Trust launched by the Academy of Finland in 2003.
5.2.7 The social impacts of research: obstacles and bottlenecks

Research results do not have the desired effects upon legal regulation or upon social
and political decision-making unless they are conveyed through to the decision-makers.
As yet we do not have a very clear understanding of the role of research in terms of
how it could and should seek to influence decision-making (Tala 2001, Antikainen et
al. 2002, Lampinen 2002). The bottlenecks impeding social impacts of research from
getting through have also been traced back to problems occurring in the most concrete
application environments for knowledge (Koskela 1998). In addition, the low level of
participation by customers and service users in research and development processes
as well as the inadequate involvement of different interest groups and citizens in
procedures of foresight and evaluation may mean that the social impacts of research
remain rather modest (Eerola & Väyrynen 2002).
128
Lack of knowledge is partly responsible for the presence of obstacles that should be
open to influence. In the absence of a proper understanding of the impacts of research
and their obstacles, it is also impossible to predict them or to take them into account
(Koskela 1998, Tanayama 2002).
A further problem that has been identified with regard to the impacts of research has to
do with shortcomings in the rules governing universities’ outside activities (Kivisaari et
al. 2001), the lack of institutional coherence due to the sheer number of organisations
(Kuisma 1998) and the uncertainties and open questions surrounding academic
entrepreneurship in Finnish society (Nyyssölä 1997).
Economic factors are amongst the most significant obstacles to innovation in business
companies (Table 5.14). As for intraorganisational factors, lack of competent staff is
identified as a bottleneck in around one-third of all companies. Other factors, such as
inflexible legislation and the lack of customer interest in innovations, are less significant
bottlenecks as far as companies are concerned. The scarcity of innovation in the
business sector is primarily explained by the fact that it is not felt new innovations are
needed, either because existing ones are considered adequate or because of reasons that
have to do with the market situation. In no more than just over 20 per cent of all cases
is it felt that the lack of innovation is due to impeding factors (Innovaatiotutkimus…
2003). Indeed, in the effort to strengthen the general preconditions for innovation,
attention should be paid not only to business companies’ concrete funding and other
similar problems, but also to their strategic assessments of business opportunities and
possibilities of influencing those assessments.
Table 5.14. Factors impeding innovation in business companies: businesses engaged

in innovation in 1998−2000 by company size.
Manufacturing Other industries

Staff number Staff number
Total 10–49 50–249 250- Total 10–49 50–249 250-
% % % % % % % %
Economic factors
Economic risk
33.8 31.7 33.6 45.2 33.2 34.1 29.4 38.0
considered too great
Costs too great 38.2 39.8 34.5 38.2 40.8 38.9 47.2 36.2
Lack of suitable
20.0 23.3 15.5 13.6 17.6 18.0 17.2 14.2
funding sources
Internal factors
Organisational rigidities 17.6 17.4 15.0 24.5 22.6 21.7 25.9 20.9
Lack of competent staff 35.1 34.5 33.3 42.4 37.5 33.6 46.6 45.7
Lack of knowledge
28.9 31.4 25.2 23.9 22.6 19.2 31.9 24.1
about technology
Lack of knowledge
23.4 21.4 26.7 26.9 28.3 27.3 31.3 27.7
about markets
Other factors
Inflexible regulation 7.1 7.5 6.2 7.1 7.9 8.4 8.2 1.3
Low customer interest
13.5 13.8 12.7 13.6 15.5 15.0 18.0 10.9
in innovations
Source: Innovaatiotutkimus 2000.
129
The environment in which social impacts take place is of a high quality and in many
respects competitive10. However, not only in Finland but internationally, too, advances
in science and technology have been so rapid that governments have been unable
to keep track of the new opportunities opened up by technology or to monitor the
reactions of the general public (May 2001). Our understanding of what constitutes
an ideal environment for research impacts is also incomplete. The impacts of rapid
changes can only been seen in the future. (Tomperi 2001, Benchmarking the Promotion
of RTD culture... 2002.)
10
The European Innovation Scoreboard 2002, for instance, shows that Finland has the highest proportion of people
with an academic education; the highest proportion of people working in high-tech companies; and the highest
level of business sector investment in R&D. See also, e.g., The Global Information Technology Report 2002–2003
(Dutta et al. 2003), where Finland’s competencies come out on top (Networking Readiness Index Ranking) and
Benchmarking the Promotion of RTD culture... 2002 and The Impact... 2002. According to Castells and Himanen
(2001), it seems that the Finnish welfare state is a crucial factor in terms of guaranteeing the stable growth of the
new economy.
130
Contents
References
Alueellisen innovaatiotoiminnan tila, merkitys ja kehityshaasteet Suomessa. Esiselvitys
(2002). Tulevaisuusvaliokunta, Teknologian arviointeja 13, Eduskunnan julkaisu 2/
2002.
Antikainen, Janne, Virpi Hirvensalo & Vesa Kanninen (2002). Kaupunkitutkimusta

kaupunkipolitiikan tueksi. Suomen Akatemian kaupunkitutkimusohjelmassa mukana olleiden
tutkimushankkeiden keskeisimmät tulokset kaupunkipolitiikkaan soveltamisen näkökulmasta.
Sisäasiainministeriö, alueiden ja hallinnon kehittämisosasto, Helsinki.
Arnold, Erik & Katalin Balazs (1998). Methods in the Evaluation of Publicly Funded Basic
Research. A Review for OECD. Technopolis, Brighton.
Benchmarking S&T Productivity (STP). Benchmarking National Research Policies (2002). Final
report of the expert group, June 2002. European Commission, DG Research, Brussels.
Benchmarking the Promotion of RTD Culture and Public Understanding of Science (PUS).
Benchmarking National Research Policies (2002). Report from the Expert group, July 2002.
European Commission, DG Research, Brussels.
Castells, Manuel & Pekka Himanen (2001). Suomen tietoyhteiskuntamalli. Sitran

julkaisusarja 242.
Dahllöf, Urban, John Goddard, Jussi Huttunen, Chris O´Brien, Ola Roman & Ilkka
Virtanen (1998). Towards the Responsive University. The Regional Role of Eastern
Finland Universities. Publications of Higher Education Evaluation Council 8: 1998.
Dutta, Soumitra, Bruno Lanvin & Fiona Paua (2003; eds.). The Global Information
Technology Report 2002–2003. Readiness for the Networked World. Oxford University Press,
New York.
Eerola, Annele & Erja Väyrynen (2002). Teknologian ennakointi- ja arviointikäytäntöjen

kehittäminen eurooppalaisten kokemusten pohjalta. VTT tiedotteita 2174.
European Innovation Scoreboard 2002 (2002). Cordis Focus 19 – December 2002.
Fuller, Steve (1988). Social Epistemology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Georghiou, Luke, Keith Smith, Otto Toivanen & Pekka Ylä-Anttila (2003). Evaluation
of the Finnish Innovation Support System. Ministry of Trade and Industry, Finland.
Publications 5/2003.
Goddard, John, Ingrid Moses, Ulrich Teichler, Ilkka Virtanen & Peter West (2000).
External Engagement and Institutional Adjustment. An Evaluation of the University of
Turku. Publications of Higher Education Evaluation Council 3: 2000.
131
Helo, Tuomo & Juha Hedman (1996). Korkeakoulujen tuotokset tuotantopanoksena.
Alueellinen ja tehdasteollisuuden toimialoittainen tarkastelu. Turun yliopisto, Koulutus-
sosiologian tutkimuskeskuksen raportteja 37.
Hertzberg, Lars (2000). Voiko etiikkaa soveltaa? Niin & Näin 4, 54–62.
The Impact of RTD on Competitiveness and Employment (IRCE). Benchmarking National R&D
Policies (2002). STRATA-ETAN Expert Working Group, Final Report, June 2002. European
Commission, DG Research, Brussels.
Innovaatiotutkimus 2000 (2003). Statistics Finland, Science, Technology and Research,

2002: 2.
Kivisaari, Sirkku, Sami Kortelainen, Mikko Mäkinen & Niilo Saranummi (2001). Kohti
uusia liiketoimintamalleja hyvinvointiteollisuudessa. VTT, Teknologian tutkimuksen
ryhmä, Työpapereita 59/01.

Koskela, Aarni (1998). Innovaatioita ja vaikuttavuutta tutkimustuloksia soveltamalla

– kokemuksia tutkijan, tutkimusyhteisön ja yrityksen mukanaolosta. Työterveyslaitos,
Helsinki.
Kovalainen, Mikko (2002). Computer Mediated Organizational Memory for Process

Control. Moving CSCW Research from an Idea to a Product. University of Jyväskylä,
Jyväskylä Studies in Computing 18.
Kuisma, Mika (1998). Teknologian siirron ja kaupallistamisen nykytilanne Suomessa.

VTT, Teknologian tutkimuksen ryhmä. Työpapereita 34: 1998.
Lampinen, Osmo (2002). Yhteiskuntatieteellisen tutkimuksen asema hallinnossa ja

päätöksenteossa. Tiedepolitiikka 2/02, 15–21.
Lehtisalo, Liekki (2002). Tieto, oppiminen ja sivistys. Avauksia ihmisen vuosisataan. WSOY,
Helsinki.
Main Science and Technology Indicators 2002/2. Database (2002). OECD, Paris.
May, Robert (2001). Tiede ja politiikka: tosiasiat ja arvot järjestykseen. Puheenvuoro

Tieteen päivillä 2001. In Rydman, Jan (ed.): Tiede ja elämä. Tieteen päivät 2001, 15–22.
Tieteellisten seurain valtuuskunta, Helsinki.
Miettinen, Reijo (2002). National Innovation System. Scientific Concept or Political Rhetoric.
Edita, Helsinki.
132
Miettinen, Reijo & Esa Väliverronen (1999). In science and technology we trust: on the
public understanding of science in Finland. In Miettinen, Reijo (ed.): Biotechnology and
Public understanding of Science. Proceedings of the UK-Nordic co-operative seminar
Helsinki October 25–27, 1998. Publications of the Academy of Finland 3/99, 11–22.
Molas-Gallart, Jordi, Puay Tang & Susie Morrow (2000). Assessing the non-academic
impact of grant-funded socio-economic research: results from a pilot study. Research
Evaluation 3, 171–182.
National Science Indicators on Diskette (1981–2002). Institute for Scientific Information,

Philadelphia, PA.
Negroponte, Nicholas (2003). Creating a Culture of Ideas. What sparks the ideas that
beget new technologies? Technology Review, 34–35.
Nieminen, Mika & Erkki Kaukonen (2001). Universities and R&D networking in a
knowledge-based economy. A glance at Finnish developments. Sitra Reports Series 11.
Nyyssölä, Kari (1997). Akateeminen yrittäjyys ja sen esteet. In Nyyssölä, Kari &
Taina Saarinen (eds.): Näkökulmia korkeakoulujen tuloksellisuuteen. Turun yliopisto,
Koulutussosiologian tutkimuskeskuksen raportteja 41, 101–118.
Pavitt, Keith (1991). What makes basic research economically useful? Research Policy 20:
2, 109–119.
Schienstock, Gerd (1999). Transformation and Learning: A New Perspective on National

Innovation Systems. In Schienstock, G. & O. Kuusi (eds.): Transformations Towards a
Learning Economy. The Challenge for the Finnish Innovation System. Sitra Publications
213, 9–56.
Social Capital and Networks of Trust. Research Programme Memorandum (2003). Academy
of Finland, Helsinki.
Soete, Luc (2003). The Challenge of Social Innovations to Science and Technology
Policy. Paper presented at the ProACT steering group’s annual meeting in Helsinki on
6 Feb 2003.
Tala, Jyrki (2001). Lakien vaikutukset. Lakiuudistusten tavoitteet ja niiden toteutuminen

lainsäädäntöteoreettisessa tarkastelussa. OPTL:n julkaisuja 177/2001.
Tanayama, Tanja (2002). Empirical analysis of processes underlying various

technological innovations. VTT Technology Studies, VTT publications 463.
Teigland, Jon (2000). Impact Assessments as Policy and Learning Instrument. University
of Roskilde, Department of Environment, Technology and Social Studies, VF-rapport 13/00.
133
Tomperi, Tuukka (2001). Transhumanismi eli ihmisen ylittämisestä. Kommentteja
keskusteluun ihmisen ja koneen suhteesta. Niin & Näin 1, 15–22.
Toulmin, Stephen (1998). Kosmopolis. Kuinka uusi aika hukkasi humanismin perinnön.
WSOY, Juva.
Towards a European Research Area. Science, Technology and Innovation. Key Figures 2002
(2002). European Commission, Brussels.
Tulkki, Pasi, Anu Järvensivu & Anu Lyytinen (Coordinated by Gerd Schienstock) (2001).
The emergence of Finnish Life Sciences industries. Sitra Reports series 12.
Virkkala, Vilkko (1994). Luova ongelmanratkaisu. Tiedon hankinta ja yhdistely toimiviksi

kokonaisuuksiksi. Kirjoittaja, Helsinki.
von Wright, Georg Henrik (1987). Tiede ja ihmisjärki. Suunnistusyritys, Keuruu.
134
Contents
6 Conclusions
High-quality scientific research is the bedrock of the research and innovation system.
In the Finnish research and innovation system, the business sector has played a major
role in both funding and conducting research. Approximately one-quarter of R&D in
Finland today is funded from the public purse. This must not be allowed to drop any
lower. Adequate public funding must be secured in order to maintain a balanced
structure of funding for our research system.
It is important for Finland’s future that there are enough talented young people who
are interested in researcher training and a career in research. At all levels of education,
key areas of development include science education for children and young people
that encourages critical thinking; creative learning environments; as well as support
for closer interaction between teachers and students. Continuing efforts are needed
to evaluate and develop the Finnish education system, researcher training and
graduate schools. Graduate schools should invest in international networking, teaching
in foreign languages should be more readily available, and the number of foreign
students recruited in graduate schools should be increased. Support is also needed for
doctoral training outside the graduate school system. It is important that there remain
different routes to the doctorate and that new, alternative pathways are created. In the
development of research and researcher training environments, the differences between
disciplines and fields of research must be taken into account.
There has been a determined and consistent effort in Finland to develop the research
career, and most of the recommendations made in the 1997 research career strategy
have been put into practice. A new research career strategy needs to be drafted that
takes into account both the needs of researchers and the development needs thrown up
by internationalisation in different fields of research. In particular, more effort needs
to be invested in creating a horizon of meaningful goals; in removing the obstacles in
the research career; and in maintaining and strengthening the competitiveness of the
research career. All this must be a concerted effort between funding bodies, universities,
research institutes, business and industry and the rest of society. It is essential that different
administrative branches cooperate so that the social obstacles to a career in research can
be removed and so that the mobility of Finnish and foreign researchers can be facilitated.
The quality of research can be further enhanced by recruiting competent R&D

personnel. One of the areas that needs to be developed is the recruitment of researchers
at PhD level in both the private and public sector. Today only less than three per cent
of R&D personnel in the business sector have a PhD. People with a researcher training
have the important advantage of possessing significant international skills and
competencies as well as networks of cooperation that they have built up while working
in an international research environment.
A concerted intersectoral effort is needed to facilitate the mobility of people with a

PhD between research jobs and other expert and managerial positions. Doctoral
students and researchers must be given the opportunity to work in positions of expertise
in government or the business sector. On the other hand, people working in public
135
administration or business and industry should have more flexible options to upgrade
their expertise by taking doctoral degree programmes. Fixed-term appointments
for doctoral students and newly graduated PhDs in the business sector, and fixed-
term university appointments for researchers working in business, are a good way of
promoting genuine interaction and networking between academic research and business
and industry. This also makes for more effective use and application of research results.
Continuing efforts are needed to develop the work and operations of universities so that
a balanced relationship can be maintained between their responsibilities in research and
education, on the one hand, and their regional and national societal service functions,
on the other. In these efforts it is important to take into account the needs deriving from
universities’ profiles and strategic emphases. The sensitivity of universities to identify
and fend off structures and practices that threaten their balanced development shall be
supported by securing sufficiently long-term and broadly-based direction, evaluation
and funding. In developing universities’ funding structure, attention must be paid to the
ratio between core budget funding and external funding, as well as to the continuity of
funding from outside sources. In so far as these factors are in proper balance, competitive
funding will ensure a sustained or improved quality of work.
It is essential for Finland to try to steer and influence the work of international science
and technology organisations. There are Finns in key positions of influence, but not
enough. Active initiatives and cooperation within the European Union and work to
build up the European Research Area must be continued. The Academy of Finland has
been actively involved in discussions on the formation of a European Research Council
and taken, in principle, a positive stance. In the context of Nordic cooperation, the main
focus is on measures aimed at increasing the competitiveness and exposure of Nordic
research, these measures being based on the quality of research and open competition.
Bilateral and multilateral agreements provide important platforms for cooperation
particularly with countries outside the European Union. Existing agreements should be
so revised that they better serve the needs of programme-based cooperation as well as
other development needs in research.
Various kinds of programmes are designed and organised to coordinate research

around a certain theme or question. For reasons of regeneration and renewal, though,
it is important that the diversity of research is maintained as well. Risks must also
be taken. Programme concepts need to be clarified by analysing the strengths and
weaknesses of programmes in different environments. Programmes must be adjusted
and fitted together with other tools of science policy. Further steps are needed to improve
programme strategies and evaluation strategies. Work to develop different types of
programmes (research and technology programmes, cluster programmes, centre of
excellence programmes) and their evaluation has already produced important synergy
benefits, but systematic cooperation between programme funding bodies, researchers
and end-users can further add to those benefits.
The aims of research evaluation are usually related to enhancing the quality of
operations or research, empowering the actors involved or increasing their self-
understanding. It is important that the different objectives are reconciled and that
the diversity of evaluation criteria employed is secured so that the various parties
136
can retain their confidence in the legitimacy and validity of evaluation. The benefits
gained from evaluation must always be weighed against the costs involved and
against the obligations and costs incurred to the objects of evaluation. There have
been improvements both with regard to the knowledge base and statistics, but there
are still definite shortcomings. These shortcomings must be systematically addressed.
Practices of participatory evaluation and development-oriented evaluation need to be
strengthened and improved.
Science policy objectives with regard to the quality and international visibility of
publishing have been met reasonably well. In several fields of science and research,
Finnish research now enjoys more exposure than before. For instance, articles published
by Finnish university researchers in international peer-reviewed series increased in all
major fields of science in 1998–2002. Although Finland accounts for only a relatively small
proportion of the publications and citations of all OECD countries, we compare favourably
in an international examination of impact factors. On the basis of the indicators used
it is not possible to draw more than tentative conclusions about the quantitative and
qualitative development of research. The qualitative development of scientific research
in Finland is discussed in more detail in the Research Councils’ reports.
The social impacts of basic research are many and varied. For the most part they
are of an indirect nature and take different amounts of time to come through. The
technological and economic impacts of research are the easiest to detect, and they are
based upon the broader entity that is made up of technological, economic and socio-
cultural impacts. Case examples make it clear that research in different fields has
very different and varied social impacts upon society. These impacts can effectively be
enhanced by means of cooperation and networking. The maintenance of welfare requires
an ability to organise research creatively so that society’s needs can be conceptualised
and predicted and so that the social and technological innovations which meet those
needs can be produced. The balanced development of the different components of
the Finnish innovation system requires a closer and clearer understanding of the
interdependencies between the different impacts of research. The distinctive nature
of these impacts must be taken into account when they are evaluated. Urgent steps
of national and international cooperation are needed to develop approaches to and
methods of evaluating the social impacts of research.
Research and its operating environment are changing. In this environment of constant
change, it is a major challenge indeed to provide research with the infrastructure,
facilities and resources it needs. The most important challenge of all is to secure
the quality of research, which depends among other things on the know-how and
competence of research personnel as well as on the science policy pursued. In order to
make sure that researchers have a high enough level of skills and competencies, it is
crucial that there is enough high-quality researcher training. Risks have to be taken,
among other reasons in order to ensure the renewal and regeneration of research.
Competitive research funding is crucial to sustaining and improving the quality of
research and must be secured. High-quality research and the sensible allocation of
resources must be supported by an anticipatory science policy approach. As soon as
decision-makers, funding bodies and research organisations have done their own share
and got the foundations in place, research can be expected to produce social impacts.
137
Contents
Appendix 1. Description of the National Science

Indicators database
This review has made use of the National Science Indicators (NSI) database that is
maintained by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). It contains publication
and citation data for more than 170 countries in 1981−2002, broken down by field
of research. It indexes some 5,500 scientific journals in the natural sciences and
engineering and technology as well as 1,800 social science journals and 1,200 journals
in the arts and humanities. All the journals indexed are peer-reviewed.
NSI classifies all scientific articles, reviews, notes and conference proceedings as articles.
The database comprises a total of more than 13 million scientific articles from a period
spanning 22 years. In around 106,800 of these articles, at least one of the authors is
Finnish.
The articles are classified into different fields of research according to the scientific
journals in which they have been published. However, articles appearing in
multidisciplinary science journals (such as Science and Nature) are separately assigned
to the most appropriate field of research. The discipline classification for scientific
journals is based upon the Current Contents publications that the ISI has produced for
purposes of describing the contents of these journals. The data for the NSI database are
compiled from separate Current Contents publications. For this reason the journals that
are classified under more than one Current Contents publication – and by the same
token the scientific articles published in those journals – will be classified in more than
one discipline category in the database.
The NSI database has two classification systems: the standard version comprises 24 fields
of research and the deluxe version 105. The categories of the deluxe version correspond
to the classifications of the Current Contents publications. The standard version, on the
other hand, combines some of the Current Contents categories. Appendix Table 1 shows
how the categories of the standard version of the NSI database have been fitted together
with the six major fields of science used by the OECD. The classification has been
complemented with the categories from the deluxe version because the humanities, for
instance, are only represented in the deluxe version.
138
Appendix Table 1. Correspondence between OECD major fields of science and the
classification used in the NSI database. Categorisation is based mainly on the standard
version.
OECD major fields of science NSI database classification

Natural sciences Biology & Biochemistry
Chemistry
Computer Science
Ecology / Environment
Geosciences
Mathematics
Microbiology
Molecular Biology & Genetics
Physics
Plant & Animal Science
Space Science
Engineering and technology Engineering
Materials Science
Medical sciences Clinical Medicine
Immunology
Neurosciences & Behavior
Pharmacology
Psychiatry (Deluxe)
Agricultural sciences Agricultural Sciences
Social sciences Economics & Business
Education
Law
Psychology (Deluxe)
Social Sciences, general
Humanities Archaeology (Deluxe)
Art & Architecture (Deluxe)
Classical Studies (Deluxe)
General (Deluxe)
History (Deluxe)
Language & Linguistics (Deluxe)
Literature (Deluxe)
Performing Arts (Deluxe)
Philosophy (Deluxe)
Religion & Theology (Deluxe)
139
Contents
Gender in the Finnish research system

Hannele Kurki
Academy of Finland
Women have been involved in doing science and research for as long as people have
observed and studied the world around them. However, it was not until the latter
half of the nineteenth century that women’s career prospects in science and research
began to improve, following the removal of the formal obstacles to their education at
university level. Now, just over one hundred years on, women account for the majority
of university students in Finland, and soon they will account for one-half of all PhDs
awarded.
Why is it so important for women to be involved in the research community, alongside

men? The most radical response says that the predominance of men in science and
research and particularly their gatekeeper role largely determines the orientations of
science and even the choices made within individual disciplines. In a more neutral
vein, we might say that the promotion of gender equality is an important goal and
value in its own right. From this vantage-point, the argument is that neither physical
gender differences nor any alleged intellectual differences, nor indeed any differences
in the position of men and women in the process of social reproduction, offer any valid
reason as to why women could not be researchers and scientists just as well as men
(Stolte-Heiskanen et al. 1991, Zuckerman et al. 1991, Acker 1992, Caplan 1993, Fox
Keller 1995). More recently, a new argument has been raised that refers to national
competitiveness: we need to have more women researchers in order to make sure that
the “innovation system” has access to the best talent.
How, then, have women’s career prospects changed in Finnish science and research
over the past few decades? I will be addressing this question here in the light of the
KOTA database that is maintained by the Ministry of Education, studying gender in
the Finnish research system and its different disciplines and comparing the situation
in Finland with that in other European countries. Among the tools I will be using are
two indicators I have extracted from the KOTA database. The first of these I call the
PhD graduation indicator: this describes the numbers proceeding to take the PhD as a
proportion of all graduates completing a higher university degree. In other words, the
PhD graduation indicator relates the number of people going on to take their PhD to
those completing a first degree, i.e. to the total number of potential PhD candidates, by
comparing a certain cohort of PhD graduates with the cohort of those taking their first
degree five years previously. The amount of time it takes to complete the PhD varies
quite widely in different fields of study, but for the present purposes the interval from
first degree to PhD is set at five years, which is the most typical value for the whole
dataset. The PhD graduation indicator depends, on the one hand, on the resources
available for researcher training and on the number of job vacancies within the
research system; and on the other hand, on how much respect the PhD commands in
the job market of that particular field. In medicine, for instance, many doctoral theses
are motivated by ambitions of promotion within the hospital institution; without a
PhD that would be virtually impossible. Likewise, in the humanities and social sciences
140
many PhD graduates have no ambitions of a career in science and research; for some
researching a doctoral thesis is more like a pet hobby.
The second indicator I have describes the proportion of women who go on to take the
doctorate relative to the corresponding proportion of men. I use this gender indicator of
PhD graduation to study how evenly PhD graduates are divided by gender by comparing
the gender breakdown of PhD graduates with the gender breakdown of those
completing first degrees, i.e. by dividing women’s PhD graduation indicator by men’s
PhD graduation indicator. In other words, the indicator value is 1 if the number of
women as a proportion of PhD graduates in the age cohort is the same as their number
as a proportion of those completing first degrees five years previously. Indicator value 1
describes a situation where women who have completed a first degree are equally keen
to continue their studies as men and where the researcher training system is gender-
neutral, and further where the job markets are not gendered in such a way as to affect
the opportunities of women and men to continue their studies. This indicator provides
a useful tool for monitoring changes in the gender balance in postgraduate education:
the low (or high) proportion of women among PhD graduates may be due to the field
in question being one where the number of women recruited is lower (or higher) than
the number of men.
The KOTA database provides gendered data on university degrees from 1989 onwards.
For both indicators I have chosen two points of measurement that I will be comparing,
i.e. 1996 and 2001.
A closer analysis of women’s careers in research would require not only quantitative
but also qualitative materials, such as those collected through interviews; this is indeed
the direction in which recent academic research on women’s position in science and
research has been moving (Malina et al. 1999, Husu 2001, Glover 2002). However, even
statistical materials can shed important light on the development of women’s research
careers and provide at least a tentative answer to the question as to whether there are
any inherent, structural biases in society, in the science community, in science policy
or research funding that prevent or hinder women’s entry into and advancement in
research careers. The statistical data also throw up interesting challenges for qualitative
research.
From equality to competitiveness

A decade ago the main emphasis in the debate on women and research was still firmly
on the promotion of gender equality as a European human rights tradition (see e.g. Barr
& Birke 1998, Rose 1999, Delamont 2002), although at the same time there was also the
goal of making visible women’s work and women’s action more generally, which tied
in closely with the rise of new women’s studies in the United States and Europe. Since
around the mid-1990s, a new line of argumentation has been emerging alongside the
equality discourse which emphasises the more effective use of women’s talents in the
best interests of the national economy. From this intellectual resources perspective, it is
stressed that the social and economic investments made in women’s education have not
been put to the best possible use, but significant resources of human capital are lying
idle. This line of argumentation has it that scientific research is an integral part of the
141
innovation system, and that the efficiency of that system is crucial to economic success,
competitiveness and welfare.
The theme of women and research occupies a place of special importance in the
current science policy debate, particularly within the context of the EU. It lies at
the junction of two major European issues of debate: how to succeed in the face of
stiffening global competition, and how to strengthen the foundations of national
knowledge and know-how. The communication “Women and science: mobilising
women to enrich European research” was the first ever document from the EU
Commission that set the explicit target of promoting women’s position in European
science and research and markedly increasing women’s involvement in the fifth
framework programme (the general minimum target of 40 per cent). Furthermore
the Commission wanted to increase the amount of research undertaken by women,
to support research on women and to promote research aimed at improving women’s
situation (EU 1999). Several projects were launched to get this off the ground,
including the report by the European Technology Network on “Science policies in
the European Union. Promoting excellence through mainstreaming gender equality”
(EU 2000), which has since become a canonical text in this field. In addition civil
servants and experts from Member States formed a working group that has since
become known as the Helsinki Group (because its founding meeting was held during
Finland’s EU Presidency).
At its Lisbon Summit in March 2000, the European Union set itself the target of
becoming, by 2010, the world’s most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based
economy. As far as economic growth and innovation are concerned, consensus has it
is that the most critical factor is having access to staff with a high level of education.
For purposes of promoting the European Research Area (ERA), the Union is committed
to increasing the amount of research resources as well as the numbers admitted to
researcher training. A further aim is to increase the number of young researchers as
well as women researchers. The underrepresentation of women, the Commission says,
presents a serious obstacle to the full-scale implementation of the ERA because “this
represents an unacceptable and unaffordable waste of human resources -- [and] the
underrepresentation of women in science compared with their representation in society
induces a distortion between science and society at a moment where it is of utmost
importance to increase confidence in science” (EU 2001a, 3). Launched in 2002, the
action plan “Science and Society” is in turn an integral part of the ERA strategy and a
tool aimed at reinforcing the area, highlighting the promotion of gender equality under
a separate item (EU 2001b, EU 2002a, EU 2002b).
The position of women researchers is a cause of growing concern in ongoing efforts to

safeguard the diversity and the reproduction of European knowledge and know-how.
This applies most particularly to the skills and competencies needed in the information
society and to the need to widen the recruitment base to higher education. In Finland,
the Science and Technology Policy Council has suggested that for these purposes it is
important to get girls to take an interest in mathematical subjects, particularly since
girls account for 60 per cent of all senior secondary students in the country but only
three in ten of them do the longer maths course, compared to more than five in ten
among boys (Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland 2003).
142
The requirement of competitiveness now extends to the future role of universities as
well. In its communication “The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge”,
the EU Commission takes a broad view on universities and studies them through
the “dynamics of innovation” (EU 2003a). The report addresses questions related to
women’s careers in research, but pays hardly any attention at all to the problems
of the future. One of the future threats is that the research system will become
increasingly polarised by gender (EU 2003b), with men being recruited into
industrial R&D positions and women into universities. Even now, women are severely
underrepresented in private sector R&D – which is understandable in view of the low
level of interest women have shown in engineering studies. However private business
finances the bulk of research and development work: in the EU the average is 56 per
cent, in Finland 70 per cent (EU 2002c).
Higher education, PhD graduation and gender
Higher university degrees
Table 1. Higher university degrees (Master’s degrees) by gender in different fields of

study in 1989−1991 and 1999−2001 (excluding literature and the arts).
Field of study Women Men Total

1989- 1999- 1991- 1989- 1999- 1991- 1989- 1999- 1991-
1991 2001 2001 1991 2001 2001 1991 2001 2001
no. no. change no. no. change no. no. change
% % %
Theology 184 271 47 211 174 –18 395 445 13
Humanities 2,678 3,912 46 676 934 38 3,354 4,846 44
Educational sciences 2,434 3,676 51 1,074 733 –32 3,508 4,409 26
Sport sciences 87 115 32 113 106 –6 200 221 11
Social sciences 1,422 2,390 68 924 1,102 19 2,346 3,492 49
Psychology 336 477 42 93 77 –17 429 554 29
Health sciences 421 837 99 20 65 225 441 902 105
Law 571 778 36 663 690 4 1,234 1,468 19
Economics 1,679 2,229 33 1,654 2,098 27 3,333 4,327 30
Natural sciences 1,195 2,099 76 1,292 1,999 55 2,487 4,098 65
Agriculture and forestry 360 473 31 424 370 –13 784 843 8
Engineering 816 1,405 72 3,563 5,340 50 4,379 6,745 54
Medicine 864 702 –19 474 417 –12 1,338 1,119 –16
Dentistry 247 99 –60 97 40 –59 344 139 –60
Veterinary medicine 97 107 10 25 14 –44 122 121 –1
Pharmacy 158 217 37 50 57 14 208 274 32
Total 13,549 19,787 46 11,353 14,216 25 24,902 34,003 37
Women accounted for the majority of all higher university degrees awarded for the first
time in 1987. The overall number of university degrees has shown strong growth in
1991−2001, rising by 36.5 per cent. This is largely attributable to the marked increase in
the number of degrees completed by women, up by 46 per cent. The trend is explained
143
by the continued growth of university enrolment rather than by any dramatic changes
in graduation times or dropout rates, for instance.
In 1990 the number of university students in Finland stood at 112,921, in 2001 the figure
was 162,939. Underlying this increase is the growing demand in the information society
for people with a higher education: national training programmes have been launched
in an effort to meet the shortfall of such people. Indeed IT training has increased
markedly since 1986. The clear decrease seen in the number of degrees in medicine and
nursing science is explained by the lower enrolment in medical and dental education
in the early 1990s, following a government decision in 1994.
The proportion of women students has increased in all fields of study except medicine
and dentistry, where women have traditionally accounted for a large proportion of
all higher university degrees. In addition, the proportion of women has grown in
those fields where the absolute number of degrees completed by men has sharply
declined: theology, educational science, psychology, agriculture and forestry, and
veterinary medicine. There are many female-dominated fields where the proportion of
women has increased from 79 to as high as 97 per cent; these include the humanities,
education, psychology, health sciences, veterinary medicine and pharmacy. The
classification by fields of study reveals just one “male bastion”, i.e. that of engineering.
The proportion of women graduating from engineering faculties remains at a modest
21 per cent, and even within this category distributions are uneven, for instance in the
field of chemical technology. Nonetheless the proportion of women in this growth field
has continued to increase in pace with their share of new students (19.3% in 1990 and
21.7% in 2002).
The picture that emerges of Finland from international comparisons of education is one
of relative gender equality (OECD 2002, Eurostat 2003). In Finland women in the age
bracket 25−64 have completed more tertiary degrees (36% women and 29% men) and
more higher university degrees than men (16% women and 13% men). Lower degrees
also include post-secondary degrees at lower than polytechnic level. Higher degrees,
then, consist of higher or lower university degrees as well as polytechnic degrees.
Women in Finland account for a larger proportion of tertiary degrees than in any other
EU country, and their share of higher degrees is around the average for the European
Union. In the EU member states 21 per cent of women have completed a tertiary degree,
15 per cent have completed a higher academic degree.
The number of women as a proportion of university students and graduates has

steadily increased both in Finland and elsewhere. In Finland the proportion of women
has shown consistent growth since the mid-1970s, both among post-secondary, higher
vocational and academic graduates.
In Finland the most popular fields of higher education among women are medicine
and nursing science, which in 2000 accounted for one-third of all academic degrees
completed by women, and the social sciences, accounting for just over one-quarter;
together these two fields of study represented 58 per cent of women’s degrees. The most
popular fields of study among Finnish men were engineering (46%) and social sciences
(19%).
144
In the EU countries, too, social sciences (33%) and medicine and nursing science (20%)
are the most popular fields of study among women. Among men the most popular
fields in the EU are social sciences (30%) and engineering (26%).
The breakdown of women’s first degrees at tertiary level by field of study varies widely
across the European Union. In Ireland and Italy, for instance, over half of the first
degrees taken by women are in the natural sciences, mathematics and data processing.
In Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, the figures for these fields are the lowest,
standing at around 30 per cent. Engineering studies are very popular in Portugal,
which has the highest figure in the EU at 35 per cent, compared to the lowest in the
Netherlands at 13 per cent. In Finland the number of degrees awarded in the natural
sciences and engineering as a proportion of all first degrees completed by women is
roughly around the average for the EU (EU 2003b, 12−13).
In Finland engineering and the natural sciences accounted for the largest proportion of
degrees completed by men in the whole of the European Union, and the number was
also one of the highest in the OECD: in 1998 the figure in Finland was 32 per cent and in
the OECD 24 per cent (OECD 2002). In Finland women’s share of all degrees completed
in these fields of study was one of the lowest in the OECD (20.3%), but around the
average for the EU (20.4%).
In the light of these statistical sources it would seem that the fields of study favoured in
Finland are more clearly gender-differentiated than they are in the EU on average. In
spite of all the major problems involved in these kinds of direct statistical comparisons,
I would certainly consider this difference significant.
At the same time then as the number of women in Finland who continue to higher
education is showing strong growth, there are indications of dual trends among different
fields of study: On the one hand, segregation seems to be gathering momentum, i.e.
different fields of study are increasingly gendered as “men’s and women’s” fields. On the
other hand, there are indications that more and more women are now entering fields
of study that formerly were male-dominated or that used to be more or less gender-
neutral. For instance, women today account for the majority (52% in 2002) of all
those completing the degree of Master of Laws, whereas in 1975 their share of all these
graduates was no more than one-third.
PhD graduates
The number of PhDs awarded in Finland has increased even more than the number
of all university degrees. The value of the PhD graduation indicator (the number of
PhDs awarded divided by the numbers completing a first degree five years previously)
increased from 10.2 to 11.7 per cent, i.e. by 15 per cent during the period under review
in 1996−2001. The growth in the number of PhDs ties in with various university and
science policy reforms in the 1990s, most notably the increase in public research
funding and the conscious emphasis on researcher training (including the launch of the
graduate school system), the introduction of management by results in universities and
the consequent increase in steering and control. Stiffening competition in the labour
market, for instance in public sector research institutes and for positions of expertise,
145
Table 2. PhDs awarded to men and women in different fields of study in 1989−1991
and 1999−2001 (excluding literature and the arts).

1989- 1999- 1991- 1989- 1999- 1991- 1989- 1999- 1991-
1991 2001 2001 1991 2001 2001 1991 2001 2001
no. no. change no. no. change no. no. change
% % %
Theology 5 17 240 27 46 70 32 63 97
Humanities 54 160 196 69 162 135 123 322 162
Educational sciences 19 122 542 23 72 213 42 194 362
Sport sciences 4 4 0 0 13 – 4 17 325
Social sciences 26 123 373 77 144 87 103 267 159
Psychology 14 26 86 15 18 20 29 44 52
Health sciences 17 89 424 2 10 400 19 99 421
Law 4 10 150 13 28 115 17 38 124
Economics 13 59 354 32 124 288 45 183 307
Natural sciences 108 308 185 258 441 71 366 749 105
Agriculture and forestry 20 63 215 42 78 86 62 141 127
Engineering 31 110 255 190 460 142 221 570 158
Medicine 142 434 206 272 324 19 414 758 83
Dentistry 8 33 313 9 8 –11 17 41 141
Veterinary medicine 6 13 117 7 5 –29 13 18 38
Pharmacy 13 28 115 16 16 0 29 44 52
Total 484 1,599 230 1,052 1,949 85 1,536 3,548 131
and the slowdown of growth and recruitment in the private sector have increased the
supply of people with an academic education (Asplund 2000, Sitra 2000).
Women proceed to take the PhD far less often than men: for women the value of the
PhD graduation indicator in 2001 was 9.3 per cent, while the corresponding figure for
men was 14.8 per cent. Nonetheless women are rapidly catching up.
The gender indicator of PhD graduation provides another interesting angle on how PhD
graduates are divided by gender by relating the gender distribution of PhD graduates to
the gender distribution of those completing a first degree. In this analysis PhD graduation
among women increased by 17 per cent to 63 per cent over the five-year period from 1995
to 2000. In 2000−2002, women accounted for 46 per cent of all PhD graduates. This is
a marked change indeed when we bear in mind the low proportion of women over the
past decades: in the 1940s through to the 1970s, women accounted for no more than an
average 13 per cent of all PhD graduates. It was not until the 1990s that the number of
women as a proportion of PhD graduates began to increase (Husso 2002, Table 1).
Since the fraction of women taking the PhD is smaller than the fraction taking first
degrees, we do not find female-dominated fields at the PhD level to the same extent
as in the analysis of first degrees. The only fields where women account for more than
80 per cent are health sciences and dentistry. Indeed the most interesting point here
146
Table 3. PhD graduation indicatora by field of study and gender in Finland in 1996
and 2001.

Ind1996b Ind2001c Ind1996b Ind2001c Ind1996b Ind2001c
% % % % % %
Theology 3 7 14 22 9 14
Humanities 4 5 18 19 7 8
Educational sciences 3 4 5 8 3 5
Sport sciences 6 4 7 10 7 7
Social sciences 5 7 14 13 8 9
Psychology 4 7 29 20 10 10
Health sciences 9 12 55 45 11 13
Law 1 2 3 5 2 3
Economics 2 3 4 7 3 5
Natural sciences 17 18 28 27 23 23
Agriculture and forestry 8 12 14 17 11 15
Engineering 8 9 10 10 9 10
Medicine 36 49 60 66 45 55
Dentistry 8 13 22 9 12 12
Veterinary medicine 4 12 20 26 7 15
Pharmacy 15 17 22 40 16 21
Average 7 9 14 15 10 12
a The PhD graduation indicator describes the percentage of graduates in different fields of study who have taken the
doctorate during the selected year, i.e. the indicator relates the number of PhD graduates to the number who have taken
a first university degree. In the original material the trends for 1991–2001 are examined as three-year sliding averages.
b Ind1996 = PhDs awarded in 1996 relative to higher university degrees in 1991.
c Ind2001 = PhDs awarded in 2001 relative to higher university degrees in 1996.
is to identify the fields in which women’s PhD graduation, i.e. the value of the PhD
graduation indicator compared to men is the highest.
The only field of study where women proceed more often than men to take the doctorate,
is that of dentistry. It is surprising to see that in the field of engineering, where women are
clearly underrepresented, they nonetheless proceed to take the PhD almost equally often
as men when compared to their share of all Master of Science in Technology and Master
of Science in Architecture degrees. In other natural sciences and disciplines applying
natural science, women have been relatively keen to continue to postgraduate studies.
By contrast in the fields I have called female-dominated (the humanities, education,
psychology, health science, veterinary medicine and pharmacy), women’s PhD activity
is remarkably low or at least lower than average. It seems then that even in female-
dominated fields of study, women are more inclined than men to orientate to such jobs
where it is harder to continue with one’s studies while working and where a PhD is not
considered a special asset. In female-dominated fields women account for a larger than
average share of teaching staff responsible for supervision, so one might assume that
in these fields women would be encouraged to continue with their postgraduate studies
and recruited into research teams at least to the same extent as men.
147
Table 4. Gender indicator of PhD graduationa by field of study in Finland in 1996 and
2001.
Field of study W share of W share of M share of M share of W PhD W PhD

higher univ doctorates higher univ doctorates grad ind grad ind
degrees 1999–2001 degrees 1999–2001 1996b 2001c
1995–1997 1995–1997
% % % %
Theology 52 27 48 72 0.24 0.34
Humanities 79 50 21 52 0.21 0.26
Educational sciences 79 63 21 40 0.54 0.44
Sport sciences 45 24 55 67 0.81 0.37
Social sciences 63 46 37 55 0.33 0.51
Psychology 81 59 19 44 0.14 0.34
Health sciences 97 90 3 11 0.16 0.26
Law 52 26 48 72 0.46 0.32
Economics 51 32 49 66 0.41 0.46
Natural sciences 51 41 49 61 0.63 0.68
Agriculture and forestry 52 45 48 54 0.61 0.73
Engineering 21 19 79 82 0.80 0.92
Medicine 64 57 36 43 0.61 0.74
Dentistry 75 80 25 28 0.36 1.40
Veterinary medicine 85 72 15 35 0.21 0.47
Pharmacy 81 64 19 44 0.66 0.42
Average 57 45 43 56 0.54 0.63
a The gender indicator of PhD graduation describes how evenly the genders are represented among PhD graduates by
relating the gender breakdown of PhD graduates to the gender breakdown of first university degree graduates, i.e.
by dividing women’s PhD graduation indicator by the corresponding indicator for men. The indicator value is 1 if the
fraction of women among PhD graduates in the age cohort is the same as their fraction among those completing a first
university degree five years previously. The figures for higher university degrees and doctorates are three-year sliding
averages.
b Women’s PhD graduation indicator is compared to the corresponding indicator for men (PhDs 1996 / higher university
degrees 1991).
c Women’s PhD graduation indicator is compared to the corresponding indicator for men (PhDs 2001 / higher university
degrees 1996).
The classification by fields of study includes three minor “occupational” fields where
PhD graduation has been markedly lower (3–5%) than in other fields of study:
education, law, and economics and business administration. No doubt a more detailed
classification would reveal other similar fields as well (see Räty 1991). Education is
a female-dominated field, but in the two other fields the gender breakdown in first
degrees completed has been more or less balanced.
The other extreme is represented by medicine: here the value of the PhD graduation
indicator for women is 49 per cent and for men as high as 66 per cent. It is clear
that in this field, first degrees merely serve to guarantee entry into the occupation;
career advancement, at least in the central university sector, invariably requires a
PhD. In spite of the high proportion of medical students who proceed to postgraduate
studies, women’s PhD graduation rate (74%) relative to men is only slightly higher
than average. The decision to lower the numbers enrolled into medical education will
148
probably reduce the number of PhDs completed in this field, but it is unlikely we will
see any change in the rate of PhD graduation. In the field of dentistry women have the
highest PhD graduation indicator (140%).
The high value of the PhD graduation indicator in the natural sciences (among men
27 per cent and among women 18 per cent, even though large numbers of students are
recruited into the school system and industry) is probably indicative first and foremost
of the value of the PhD in the expert labour market (the public sector with research
institutes etc.). Perhaps another explanation is that a substantial proportion of PhDs
researched at graduate schools is in the field of the natural sciences and engineering.
For instance, during the first four-year term of graduate schools in 1995−1999, almost
half (46%) of all graduates represented these fields (Ministry of Education 2000).
The number of PhDs awarded in the Nordic countries each year has almost doubled
during the 1990s. In 2001 women accounted for around 40 per cent of all PhDs, more
than 1.5 times more than in 1990. Finland (this comparison excludes Iceland on
account of its small numbers) recorded the highest proportion for women in 2001, when
the figure stood at 45 per cent. The proportion of women PhDs was much higher than
in the other Nordic countries, particularly in the fields of medicine and nursing science
as well in the social sciences (Nordbal 2003).
Table 5. Distribution of women PhD graduates by broad field of study in the EU

countries in 2000 (per cent).
Country Natural Engin- Medi- Educa- Human- Agri- Social Others Total
sci- eering cine tional ities culture sci-
ences and sci- & vet- ences
health ences erinary
% % % % % % % % %
Austria 20.1 10.0 3.1 10.2 15.4 6.3 33.8 1.1 100
Belgium 46.2 5.9 20.3 0.5 10.3 5.1 11.5 0.3 100
Denmark 18.2 11.7 34.2 0.0 14.8 11.1 9.7 0.3 100
Finland 15.7 8.3 25.8 11.7 14.0 2.4 20.5 1.7 100
France 44.2 5.7 7.4 1.4 21.6 0.3 18.9 0.5 100
Germany 21.7 3.0 43.1 2.0 11.8 5.1 12.6 0.7 100
Ireland 49.6 5.9 11.4 0.8 19.9 1.3 11.0 0.0 100
Italy 19.1 13.4 27.1 0.0 17.1 6.3 17.0 0.0 100
Netherlands 15.8 7.3 33.3 0.0 10.5 8.2 24.9 0.0 100
Portugal 21.2 10.6 7.4 6.9 12.3 2.4 31.4 7.7 100
Spain 29.3 3.6 22.9 4.5 13.7 4.0 20.3 1.8 100
Sweden 21.2 16.5 36.1 3.9 7.1 3.8 11.2 0.2 100
United Kingdom 35.9 8.1 19.3 4.7 14.3 2.9 14.2 0.6 100
EU 15 28.1 6.5 26.9 3.0 14.3 4.0 16.4 0.9 100
EU 15: Estimate, excluding Greece and Luxembourg. Data for Belgium (Flemish and French) combined.
Data for Denmark, France and Italy from 1999.
Source: EU 2003b (Eurostat, New Cronos database).
Relative to population, Finland had the EU’s second highest number of new PhDs in
2000 after Sweden (EU 2002c). In all EU countries women accounted for 39 per cent
149
of PhDs awarded. In Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, women PhDs
showed a stronger orientation to medicine and nursing science than in the other EU
countries. In Finland women’s share of all PhDs completed in the natural sciences was
the lowest in the EU countries, whereas the figure for technical and scientific fields was
higher than the average for the EU (EU 2003b).
Women and men in Finland do not differ significantly in terms of the age at which
they take their PhDs. In 2001, the average age of PhD graduation was 38 years;
for women the figure was 38.7 years, for men 37.4 years (Nordbal 2003). Similar
results came out of analyses conducted at the Academy of Finland using Statistics
Finland materials on age of graduation among those taking the PhD in 1987−1998
(Academy of Finland 2000, Appendix Tables 4e−f). On the one hand the fraction of
PhD graduates aged under 30 has increased in both men and women, but on the
other hand the fraction of those graduating at 45 or over has also grown. The age of
graduation among women has clearly come down: in 1987−1989 the age group 30−34
accounted for 20 per cent of the total, in 1996−1998 for almost 30 per cent. In men the
age at PhD graduation has remained almost unchanged throughout the period under
review (with around 30% of male PhD graduates representing the age group 30−34).
In other words, the majority of women and men PhD graduates now represent the
same age group.
Women in universities and as beneficiaries of research funding
Universities
The number of university teaching and research posts has increased by over one-third
during the past ten years. This is primarily explained by the sharp increase in the
number of university personnel who are paid from outside sources. In 1990−2002, the
fraction of women among university office holders has increased quite noticeably from
32 per cent to 45 per cent. When the proportion of women professors (21.2% in 2002)
is compared to the proportion of women taking the PhD ten years previously (31% in
1992), we find a ”loss” of 11 percentage points. The situation has deteriorated to some
extent compared to the previous decade (women accounted for 13.1% of all professors
in 1990, and for 20% of PhD graduates in 1980).
In the natural sciences and engineering no more than eight per cent of all professors
in Finland are women, and this figure has not grown at all over the past ten years. The
share of women is highest among professors in the humanities (31%) and the social
sciences (23%) as well as in medicine and nursing science (21%) (Statistics Finland
2000).
In relative terms the number of women is highest in multidisciplinary universities:

Helsinki, Turku, Tampere, Kuopio and Lapland, where women account for over one-
half of all staff in R&D positions. Women account for no more than one-fifth of staff
in universities of technology and in schools of commerce and business administration,
with the exception of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration
where 36 per cent of all professors are women (KOTA 2003). In 2001 women accounted
for 44 per cent of all research staff in the university sector.
150
There is no marked gender difference in the age of professors. The main determinant
is the general age structure among university office holders in the discipline, i.e. in
engineering the professors are the youngest and in the humanities the oldest. (Statistics
Finland 2000).
A recent survey of public sector salaries and wages revealed that women professors’
monthly earnings are 335 euros less than the earnings of male professors (Statistics
Finland 2002). The results of an inquiry by the Finnish Union of University Professors
points in the same direction: their figures indicated a monthly wage gap of 258 euros
in favour of men. The differences are explained by the breakdown of men and women
between different disciplines, by differences in the rate of separate remunerations and
by the higher proportion of women than men in the A26 wage band (Acatiimi 2003).
In the European Union, some 11 per cent of all professors in 1999 were women. The
latest figures for EU member states indicate some improvement in the situation, with
the proportion of women rising to 15 per cent in 2000. However, the figures still vary
widely, from six per cent in the Netherlands to 19 per cent in Finland and Portugal
(Eurostat 2002, EU 2003c, EU 2003d, latest comparable data for the EU member states
for 2000, data for Portugal from 1999).
The share of women among senior university researchers is increasing, but slowly,
especially in view of women’s increasing numbers in researcher training. One reason
lies in the relatively slow turnover of professors: annually the turnover rate is no more
than around five per cent. However, that figure is set rise quite substantially in the
near future as the babyboom generation begins to approach retirement age. Recent
studies have shown that the practice of appointing professors by invitation and/or the
increase in the number of fixed-term professorships have had an adverse impact on the
recruitment of women. Less professors are now appointed by invitation than before, but
especially in engineering faculties it is still quite common (Yliopistotieto 2001, see also
Academy of Finland 1998). The system has been said to favour personal relationships
and the tailoring of professorships according to suitable candidates. It also waives the
requirement of gender equity legislation that the merits of all applicants to the same
post shall be compared. Overall the invitational system does nothing to dismantle
prevailing traditions, such as the dominant position of men in senior university posts
(Academy of Finland 1998, Husu 2001).
Academy of Finland
Academy of Finland research posts and positions as well as research funding are
important academic career avenues. Women’s position in research funding has
improved, for during the period from 1997 to 2002 the number of women appointed
to different Academy research posts has clearly exceeded their proportion among the
applicants (Academy of Finland 2003a). At year-end 2002, 51 per cent of postdoctoral
researchers, 33 per cent of Academy Research Fellows and 29 per cent of Academy
Professors were women.
The period after PhD graduation, during which one gains the qualifications required for
a career in research, is crucially important to the future of that career. For more than ten
151
years now the number of women among researchers in charge of Academy projects, as
well as their number among applicants for project funding, has remained at well below
one-third (this is based on figures for Academy funding open for general application).
In the case of research programmes, which represent one of the most important forms
of targeted Academy funding, women account for around 25 per cent of researchers
in charge (Hakala et al. 2003, Academy of Finland 2003b). In both types of funding
the number of women in senior positions is slightly higher than their fraction among
university professors. In 2000−2002, projects with a woman in charge had two-thirds
women researchers; in projects with men in charge, men and women researchers were
more or less evenly represented. Research projects run by women were primarily in such
fields where women have the strongest representation among university researchers.
The Finnish centre of excellence programme involves 26 units appointed for the period
from 2000 to 2005 and a further 16 units appointed for the period from 2002 to 2007.
Among these 42 units, 16 per cent are under female management, and women account
for 18 per cent of group leaders. The proportion of women among unit directors is
slightly higher in the 2000−2005 centre of excellence programme (19%) than in the
2002−2007 programme (13%) (Academy of Finland 2003c). Biosciences have a very
strong presence in the first of these programmes, and in these fields women account for
a considerable proportion of new PhD graduates. In both programmes the number of
women as a proportion of directors and group leaders is relatively small when compared
with the fraction of women among professors in the natural sciences (21%) and even
engineering (9%), or with the fraction of women among Academy Professors (29%).
When the proportion of women among recipients of Academy research funding is

compared with the number of women professors, it is no exaggeration to say that
women fare very well indeed in the competition for research funding. This was also the
conclusion of a recent evaluation commissioned by the Academy of women’s studies
(Academy of Finland 2002). The result is quite logical in view of how the academic career
usually unfolds: active researchers who have not managed to secure a professorship will
continue their research with a view to gaining additional qualifications. On the other
hand, given the small proportion of women who are in charge of centres of excellence
in research, there is perhaps reason to ask whether the selective policy of research
funding and the allocation of most funds to large successful research teams (which are
usually run by men), merely shifts the problem of women’s underrepresentation among
funding applicants to a new level. Even if the number of women scholars holding
research posts could be increased, a significant part of research funds are channelled
through such procedures in which women represent the minority among applicants as
well.
Some case studies have been done to address the problems relating to women’s
recruitment into postgraduate training and selection into research (e.g. Cockburn 1987
and 1990, Conefrey 1997, Hopkins 1999, see also the Academy’s equality inquiry among
research institutes and centres of excellence published in 1998). One of the structural
imbalances within the science community, it is argued, is represented by the scientific
laboratory which is said to constitute a men’s world whose culture and discursive
practices appear to many women students as cold and even hostile (Conefrey 1997,
Ylijoki 1998). Another important issue is the everyday reality of the science community
152
that is enveloped in an atmosphere of stiffening competition and total dedication to
research. Cockburn goes so far as to argue that women do not always feel at home in
the world of science and research and its hierarchic career structures. On average, there
is no doubt that it is extremely difficult to fit together the requirements of a family life,
i.e. having children and providing care, with long working hours; and in practice this
still remains much harder for women than for men (see e.g. the results of the Finnish
equality barometer for 1998, 2001: Melkas 1998, 2001).
Is the position of women in science and research improving?

It was not until the 1990s that the proportion of women proceeding to the take the doctorate
began to show more marked growth in Finland. This is probably not so much due to the
rising number of women in gatekeeper or other top positions in science and research,
but rather to the significant increase in researcher training and to the professionalisation
of that training, and further to a conscious effort to give women the same chance as
men. There is no question that we will continue to see all relevant indicators of women’s
position in science and research continue to strengthen in the future.
When women’s rate of PhD graduation is compared to the rate for men, we find fewer
female-dominated fields at the PhD level than in the case of first degrees. Surprisingly,
women proceed to the doctorate in engineering sciences almost as often as men when
compared to their share of first degrees completed in engineering. However, in fields
where the proportion of women among those completing first degrees is very high,
women’s rate of PhD graduation is markedly lower than that of men. Indeed it seems
that in fields of study that have highly efficient mechanisms of postgraduate training,
women proceed to take the doctorate almost as often as men.
The KOTA database is drawn up on the basis of data for individual fields of study, and
this is the most detailed centralised source available on specific disciplines. However,
for the purposes of this review I did look more closely at a few fields of study (basing
my choices on data from previous decades; see Räty 1991) in the light of data obtained
from different universities. The key questions relating to the development of women’s
research careers were clearly crystallised in the disciplines of engineering, mathematics
and history. As only a small number of women with a first degree are recruited into
engineering studies, their success in the world of science shows no decisive difference
compared to men. Although half of all those taking the Master’s degree in mathematics
are women, their share among PhD graduates remains very small. History is a
humanities field with large numbers of women students and a growing proportion of
women among those taking a first degree and even the doctorate, but exceptionally
few women are recruited to professorships. Does the male predominance among
science gatekeepers and professors suffice to explain the small number of women?
Both in mathematics and history, most women who take the Master’s degree are
looking forward to become teachers. If the purpose is to increase the number of women
researchers, the very minimum requirement is that women who have taken a first
degree are encouraged to continue their studies.
One factor that complicates women’s entry into and advancement in research is the
set of values that prevails in the science community: this is a world that very much
153
emphasises youth and efficiency. Do the small differences in terms of how family life is
prioritised in the fiercely competitive world of science lead to decisive differences between
competent people? Even though we might not even want to have a situation where the
numbers of women and men are exactly the same, it is important and indeed necessary
for reasons of gender equality and maintaining and raising the quality standards of
research that all obstacles in researcher training as well as in the science community
are recognised and ultimately removed.
154
Contents
References
Academy of Finland (1998). Women in Academia. Report of the working group appointed by
the Academy of Finland. Publications of the Academy of Finland 3/98.
Academy of Finland (2000). Naisten tutkijanuran seurantatyöryhmän muistio 29.2.2000.

Sisäinen muistio, Suomen Akatemia.
Academy of Finland (2002). Women´s Studies and Gender Research in Finland. Evaluation
Report. Publications of the Academy of Finland 8/02.
Academy of Finland (2003a). Suomen Akatemian toimintakertomus ja tilinpäätöslaskelmat

1.1.2002-31.12.2003. Suomen Akatemia.
Academy of Finland (2003b). Focus database, reports on the gender of responsible

project leaders and person-years worked in projects by gender, 17 June 2003.
Academy of Finland (2003c). Data on the gender of directors and group leaders of
centres of excellence received from the Academy of Finland centre of excellence group,
16 May and 17 June 2003.
Acatiimi (2003). Naiset Professoriliiton palkkakyselyssä. Acatiimi: toukokuu 2003, 11-

14.
Acker, Joan (1992). Gendering organizational theory. In Gendering Organizational

Analysis. Albert J. Mills & Peta Tancred (eds.). Newbury Park, London and New Delhi.
Asplund, Rita (ed.) (2000). Public R&D funding, technological competitiveness, productivity,
and job creation. ETLA Sarja B 168 Series, Helsinki.
Barr, Jean & Lynda Birke (1998). Common Science? Women, Science and Knowledge.
Indiana University Press.
Caplan, Paula (1993). Lifting a Ton of Feathers. A Woman’s Guide to Surviving in the
Academic World. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Buffalo and London.
Cockburn, Cynthia (1987). Two Track Training: Sex inequalities and the YTS. Macmillan,
London.
Cockburn, Cynthia (1990). Men’s power in organizations: ‘equal opportunities’

interveness. In Men, Masculinities and Social Theory. Jeff Hearn & David Morgan (eds.).
Unwin Hyman, London.
Conefrey, T. (1997). Gender, Culture and Authority in a University Life Science

Laboratory. Discourse & Society 8/3, 313-340.
Delamont, Sara (2002). Hypatia’s Revenge?: Feminist Perspectives in S&T. Social Studies
of Science 32: 1, 167-174.
155
EU (1999). Women and science: mobilising women to enrich European research. Brussels:
CEC. COM (1999)76 final.
EU (2000). Science policies in the European Union. Promoting excellence through mainstreaming
gender equality. A Report from the ETAN Expert Working Group on Women and Science.
European Communities, 2000.
EU (2001a). Women and science: the gender dimension as a leverage for reforming science.
Brussels, CEC. SEC (2001)771 of 15 May 2001.
EU (2001b). Council Resolution on science and society and on women in science of 26 June
2001. Brussels, CEC. OJ C 199, p. 1 of 14.7.2001.
EU (2002a). Science and Society. Action Plan. European Commission, 2002.
EU (2002b). National Policies on Women and Science in Europe. The Helsinki Group on
Women and Science. Brussels, Directorate-General for Research/RTD-C5−Women &
Science.
EU (2002c). Key Figures 2002. Towards a European Research Area. Science, Technology
and Innovation. European Commission, 2002.
EU (2003a). The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge. Communication from
the Commission. Brussels, CEC. COM (2003)58 final.
EU (2003b). Women in industrial research. A wake up call for European industry. A report to
the European Commission from the High Level Expert Group on Women in Industrial
Research for strategic analysis of specific science and technology policy issues (STRATA).
European Communities, 2003.
EU (2003c). Third European Report on Science & Technology Indicators 2003. Towards a
Knowledge-based Economy. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research −
K- Knowledge-based economy and society; K3 –Competitiveness, economic analysis and
indicators, 2003.
EU (2003d). She Figures 2003. Manuscript August 2003. Women and Science unit, DG
Research, Unit C5.
Eurostat (2002). Women in public research in Europe. Statistics in focus. Research and
development, theme 9 − MM/2001.
Eurostat (2003). Women in EU. 8 March 2003: International Women’s Day. Eurostat
news release, 27/2003.
Fox Keller, Evelyn (1995). The Origin, History, and Politics of the Subject Called ”Gender
and Science”: A First Person Account. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies.
Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, Trevor Pinch (eds.). Published in
cooperation with the Society for Social Studies of Science. Sage Publication.
156
Glover, Judith (2002). Women and Scientific Employment. Current Perspectives from the
UK. Science Studies 1, 29−45.
Hakala, Johanna, Leena Ahrio, Erkki Kaukonen & Mika Nieminen (2003).
Tutkimusohjelmien anatomia. Suomen Akatemian tutkimusohjelmat hankejohtajien ja
koordinaattorien silmin. Suomen Akatemian julkaisuja 1/03.
Hopkins, Nancy (1999). MIT and Gender Bias: Following Up on Victory. The Chronicle
of Higher Education Colloquy 1999. <http://chronicle.com/colloquy/99/genderbias/
background.htm>.

Education seminar on ”Challenges and opportunities of the research career”. Helsinki
22.11.2002.
Husu, Liisa (2001). Sexism, Support and Survival in Academia. Academic Women and Hidden
Discrimination in Finland. Social psychological studies 6, Helsinki.
Malina, Danusia, Sian Maslin−Prothero & L. Morley (1999). Surviving the academy:
feminist perspectives. Studies in Higher Education 24, 263−265.
Melkas, Tuula (1998). Tasa-arvobarometri 1998. Tilastokeskus & Tasa-arvoasiain

neuvottelukunta, Elinolot 1998: 1, Sukupuolten tasa-arvo.
Melkas, Tuula (2001). Tasa-arvobarometri 2001. Tilastokeskus & Tasa-arvoasiain

neuvottelukunta, Elinolot 2001: 1, Sukupuolten tasa-arvo.
Ministry of Education (2000). The Graduate School System in Finland. Survey of Functioning,
Results and Efficiency by 2000. Ministry of Education, Espoo.
Nordbal (2003). Statistics on awarded doctoral degrees and doctoral students in the
Nordic and Baltic countries. <http://www.nifu.no/nordbal/nb.html>.
OECD (2002). Education at a Glance. OECD Indicators 2002. OECD, Paris.
Rose, Hilary (1999). Hypatia’s daughters: why are there so few? Proceedings of the
conference ‘Women and Science’, Brussels, April 28−29. European Communities, 1999.
Räty, Teuvo (1991). Naisten näkyvyys tieteessä paranemassa? Naistutkimustiedote 3:

10−30.
Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland (2003). Knowledge, Innovation and
Internationalisation. Helsinki.
157
Sihvola, Juha (1998). Toivon vuosituhat. Eurooppalainen ihmiskuva ja suomalaisen
yhteiskunnan tulevaisuus. Atena Kustannus Oy, Jyväskylä.
Sitra (2000). Assessment of the additional appropriation for research. Sitra Reports series 2.
Statistics Finland (1998). Koulutus Suomessa. Koulutus 1998: 1, Helsinki.
Statistics Finland (2000). Yliopistosektorin tutkimus- ja kehittämistoiminta. (Separate data

supplied to the Academy of Finland on research personnel by age group, discipline,
position and gender.)
Statistics Finland (2001). Science and Technology in Finland 2000. Science, Technology
and Research 2001: 2, Helsinki.
Statistics Finland (2002). Palkat, julkinen sektori 20.6.2002.

<http://statfin.stat.fi/statweb/>.
Statistics Finland (2003). Tutkimus ja kehittämistoiminta 2001. Science, Technology and

Research 2002: 3, Helsinki.
Stolte-Heiskanen, Veronica & Feride Acar, Nora Ananieva, Dorothea Gaudart (1991;
eds.). Women in Science. Token Women or Gender Equality. Berg, Oxford and New York.
Ylijoki, Oili-Helena (1998). Akateemiset heimokulttuurit ja noviisien sosialisaatio.

Vastapaino, Tampere.
Yliopistotieto (2001). Naisten osuus yliopistojen professorinimityksistä on kasvanut.

Yliopistotieto 2/2001, 61-63.
Zuckerman, Harriet, Jonathan R. Cole & John T. Bruer (1991; eds.). The Outer Circle:
Women in the Scientific Community. W.W. Norton & Co, New York and London.
158
Contents
The impact of social research
Jorma Sipilä
University of Tampere
“…almost all evaluation of socio-economic effects is actually evaluation of economic effects....

Equally, most efforts in impact evaluation focus on ‘hard’ science and technology, leaving the
social sciences and humanities largely unexplored.” (Arnold 2001, 26.)
This piece of writing begins where Erik Arnold ends. Although policymakers today are
firm believers in research, it is clear to be seen that their belief only extends to certain
kinds of research. Mainstream politics and administration are positively in love with
research that produces marketable innovations and that promotes economic growth.
The utility of social and cultural research, on the other hand, needs to be separately
proved and demonstrated.
I shall begin by considering how social research can have an impact upon society. Who
needs social research, how and where are its impacts seen? I then proceed to discuss the
measurement of impacts. My main focus is on social research, but much of what I say
also applies to cultural research, and more broadly to the letters and arts.
Good times
The emphasis in western politics today on economic and technological issues goes to
show that ours is an exceptional era. The political preoccupation with the economy
and with technology suggests implicitly that in all other respects, our society and its
institutions are in perfect order. Thus, quite an astonishing degree of social stability
and confidence in public and private institutions has been achieved. Ironically: history
really has ended when the only noteworthy social issue is the accumulation of wealth
and when the completion of markets as a result of globalisation is considered an
adequate response to that issue.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), though, it seems that history is not entirely complete
and ready. September 2001 provided a cruel lesson that the road to globalisation is
littered with seemingly unresolvable political and cultural conflicts, at the same time
as modern technology is making violence so easy that even the best security systems
cannot prevent it. The fanciful notion of the end of history does not stand up to the
international test. There are hardly very many people in Africa or South America who
can share the experience of stability and confidence in social institutions, and most
women in the world still have an uphill battle to fight in order to secure their basic
human rights.
Even here in Finland, at the very core of stability, we can hardly describe ours as a
model country of sustainable social development. There is a growing sense of insecurity
in many areas of society: the number of child welfare cases is continuing to rise,
the substance abuse problem is spreading, organised crime increasing, the prison
population growing, and there is more permanent poverty than before. In addition to
159
these social problems, we have a host of structural problems to contend with, such as
unemployment and labour market instability. And what is even more serious: the low
birth rate and the ageing of the population mean that the very process of demographic
reproduction is called into question. At stake is nothing less than the continuity of our
culture and society.
The history of the western world attests to the excellence of the market as a steering
instrument. However, the market is not in a position to secure the continuity of culture
and society because it does not produce the most important production force of all, i.e.
people. Neither does the state produce or raise children. Both the market and the state
are dependent on what individuals decide to do, on their informal solutions (Jessop
2002, 10−54). The continuity of society is based upon different processes and principles
being mixed and matched in a way that is beyond the control of any centre or system.
This is why plain continuity presents such a lasting challenge for research.
The three dimensions of governance

One of the key tasks for social research is to secure the continuity of society’s basic
functions. Baltic history 1940–1990 provides an excellent lesson on the significance of
governance – on just how much can be lost and how quickly it all happens when society
is no longer in control of itself. Societies that in many ways were so similar to Finland
fell into economic and social decline at the same time as their neighbour in the north
proceeded to develop into a Scandinavian welfare state. The effects of totalitarianism,
corruption and the collapse of social morality will continue to be felt in the Baltic states
long after their revolutions.
The failure of the Soviet system was fundamentally due to a lack of commitment and
courage to study one’s own society and the human individual as a social agent. The
power elite did not want to engage in serious debate on the systems’ and processes’
weaknesses and shortcomings, never mind listen to any criticisms. There was no real
interest in understanding foreign cultures, no real effort to create the conditions for
international trade. In spite of its high standards of scientific research and in spite
of the political commitment to developing technology and the economy, the system
collapsed.
The first dimension of governance is to establish the expertise required by the continuity
of society in political decision-making and administration. The idea of an innovation
system can be applied not only to technology. Societies are immensely complex
systems whose elements and processes are tied together through several different
interdependencies. These interdependencies and different possibilities of alliance will
only increase with globalisation, and societies will have to make existential choices (see
e.g. Jessop 2002).
In order that we can understand how societies and their subsystems work and in order
that we can make changes that have more benefits than drawbacks, we need to research
these societies and the relationships between their subsystems. Social research is one of
the main tools for purposes of training political and administrative experts who are
capable of analysing social phenomena from different vantage-points and testing ideas
160
without conducting experiments with human subjects. Not only the standard of research
but also its coverage is important here (Sipilä 1998): it is important that phenomena
are studied regardless of their associations with theoretically interesting, international
research (Allardt 1999, 36). The university has a crucial role to play in building links
between research and expertise. In Scandinavia and Europe more generally, the link
between the public sector and the academic world works unusually well.
The second dimension of governance is the production of civic understanding. In

democracy, the goals of society are set and determined by the individual citizen – the
essence of political activity lies in the experience and understanding of that citizen.
People certainly have got their basics right: research results have indicated time and
again that the things which matter most to people are such simple and great matters as
birth and death, love and caring, friendship and solidarity, health and wisdom, peace
and security. However, in this complex world none of these ideals can be translated
into serious political objectives unless people are able to acquire information, to think
independently and to justify their arguments to one another. Access to research that is
independent of those in power is crucially important to the development of perceptive,
critical, communicating individuals.
I am not sure whether it is proper today in a discussion of the impact of science

and research to make any mention of classical discourses on the value of knowing
and understanding or to their positive contribution to the development of human
personality (Symes et al. 1999, 427–428). Somehow I sense that in this day and age, it
is more appropriate to highlight the way that social research among ordinary citizens
also produces a pure and genuine pleasure of discovery. Oili-Helena Ylijoki (2002,
60) made the exciting finding that social science students derived the meaning and
motivation for their studies not from the prospects of future employment, but rather
from what they were studying and from the time they spent as students: “social science
students lived in the present tense”.
The third dimension of governance consists in creating an acceptable social order

by means of thorough-going dialogue and debate. Politics plays a decisive role in
determining the future of citizens, especially during hard times, when not only political
leaders and experts but citizens need to show a great deal of wisdom and moral
maturity. In this situation it is important to understand how different activities tie
in with one another, what kinds of ideas, identities and interests different population
groups share in common, how things are done elsewhere and why. Society needs a
sustainable social order, and that cannot be established without living politics and
culture. In the absence of such a social order, society will not be able to concentrate on
any long-term development effort even within the economic realm.
A reminder is in order about the role of social research in maintaining the democratic
system. “At least in the twentieth century we have seen that wherever democracy has
been curtailed and an authoritarian regime installed in power, teaching and research
in the social sciences have immediately been suspended at universities and research
institutes”, Erik Allardt (1999, 44–45) points out. No one can surely forget the role of
the free media in this connection. Journalism alone is not enough, though. To do more
than just present mundane observations and populist criticism, journalists need to have
161
access to the descriptions, concepts and analyses produced in a long-term research
effort.
The specific nature of impact in the letters and arts

It is well known that the social sciences and the natural sciences have different
strengths. Bent Flyvbjerg (2001, 25−65) describes the difference by pointing out that
the natural sciences aim to explain phenomena by presenting accurate, universal,
systematic, abstract and predictive theories. The social sciences, by contrast, have the
special task of addressing such questions as 1) where are we heading, 2) is that desirable
and 3) what should be done? Finally, we also need to ask: to whom does this apply and
who stands to benefit?
In order that it can shape its own future, society needs an endless string of innovations
so that its different subsystems (e.g. technology, economy, administration, education,
politics) can keep up with the changes taking place in other subsystems. Just as the
diffusion of technological innovations, the diffusion of social innovations is based
primarily on borrowing. Borrowing has long historical roots, for instance European
princes borrowed poor relief innovations from one another as early as the Middle Ages.
However, it is much harder to borrow and apply social innovations in another society
than it is to borrow technological innovations.
The specificity of information about society does not lie in its contextuality. We find the
exact same element of contextuality in the natural sciences: for example, the trajectory
of a cannon ball will vary with changes in air pressure, humidity, temperature or gravity.
Some people suffer side effects from a certain medical drug, others do not. Context is
always anchored to time and place. However, the contextuality of cultural phenomena
is particularly problematic from the point of view of generalisability in that even the
elements that the context includes are hard to define. They change together with people
and cultures. For instance, the criteria we apply in Finland today to assess the social or
public good are very different from what they were in the depths of recession.
The difficulty of grasping the context comes from the fact that research on society
and culture is concerned with phenomena governed by human consciousness. A brief
example: Let us assume that Lisa says something to Matt and that Matt, in response,
does something. From this we cannot, however, draw the inference that the same
sentence always elicits the same response. If one or the other of the two persons were
different or if the scene took place at a different time or in a different environment,
it would be bold to assume that the sentence would elicit the same response. Besides,
Matt himself may decide to respond this way on some occasions and that way on
others.
The capacity of our object of study for independent reflection and decision-making and
the variability of the context obviously make it much harder for us to find laws and
to use them to steer the process of change. In principle we should not look upon this
difficulty as a problem, but rather as the essence of human richness and the democratic
way of life: it is precisely the impossibility of centralised control that protects people
against abuse and totalitarian systems.
162
The difficulty of finding laws and the difficulty of control does not mean that social
processes are random. Human activity, especially in groups and organisations, is highly
predictable, even if it may not be possible exhaustively to determine the motives of
individual decisions. Another source of stability is that changes in societies and cultures
usually are slow processes: from the situation today we can pretty reliably predict the
situation of the immediate future. In principle, forecasting social processes shares much
in common with forecasting the weather – even in the sense that storms that move
rapidly from one country to another may suddenly also develop in societies.
It is a notoriously difficult business to ascertain the impacts of social research, mainly

because those impacts are usually of an indirect nature and are largely mediated by
publicity. It is very rarely we can record instances of such direct influences whereby
President Urho Kekkonen, upon reading Erik Allardt’s theory of the pressure of
conformity and Antti Eskola’s analysis of social conflicts, decided to do something that
had a lasting impact on Finnish political history. In most cases social research will bring
to light new aspects of the state of society (most typically problems), provide the people
debating the problem with new concepts and draw attention to connections between
phenomena that are impossible for the lay observer to see. Active opinion leaders take
onboard the results of research from the public realm and live amongst them like fish in
water. Yet it is still possible that they are just as unaware of the backgrounds of the ideas
they have picked up as fish are unaware of the chemical composition of water.
Measuring impact
Measurement of the impacts of social research is complicated by two main factors:
first, the indirect nature of those impacts and second, the pronounced contextuality of
research.
It is of course difficult to measure indirect impacts, but not impossible. Much of

what could have been done has still not been tried. Just as the standard of national
technological research can be assessed using such indirect macro-level indicators as
the volume of hi-tech industry as a proportion of total manufacturing and its exports,
the same approach can be applied to social research. If public administration is
uncorrupted and if citizens are happy with the police, the army, the school system,
health care and social security, then the fundamental purposes of social research have
largely been met.
Contextuality is, even in principle, a more difficult issue for the measurement of
impact. Social research is profoundly contextual because it is not only its data that
are contextual, but also its theoretical and methodological perspectives. There are
numerous different theoretical and methodological schools, and there is no need nor
indeed any point in trying to eradicate their differences: they reflect the different views
of different communities, institutions and political trends, and so they should. As a
result, views vary on what counts as good and relevant research. But that is not all;
the contextuality of research also extends to the composition of the audience. A lucid
theory and an advanced methodology do not yet suffice as criteria for good research,
but the relevance of research must always and in each case also be considered from the
point of view of the community for whom the report has been written.
163
The contextuality of research does not detract from its international value, on the
contrary: different contexts create a useful setting for comparisons that support
analyses of the permanence and variability of phenomena. Internationalism is in itself
a source of inspiration, but it can also be a problem for a small country like Finland
where it may even affect the conditions for carving out a career in research (Hakala
2002, 25–29). Cultural imperialism is rife in the study of culture and society, and the
researcher whose work is focused on a small country is by default little more than an
interesting curiosity. Researchers who want to gain a more visible presence on the major
arenas of their speciality will often have to turn their attentions away from studying
their own society.
All this complicates the international evaluation of research and undermines its
consistency. Research into society does not take internationalism for granted in the
same way as the study of semi-conductors, for instance (see Hakala 2002, 24), but it
is burdened by problems related to the contextuality of research and to differences in
the premises of evaluation. It is sometimes difficult to appreciate the relevance of a
certain line of research from outside the community concerned, and reviewers following
different paradigms often disagree in their views of what is good and important
research. People from different countries will often disagree in their assessments as well,
and therefore centres of excellence that all agree are so valuable and important are
never found in social research.
I have argued above that it is first and foremost the object of study itself that needs
research into society, i.e. the citizens and the rulers of the society whose cultural and
historical context the researcher understands. Research is always conducted not only for
other researchers and for the bodies funding the research, but also for ordinary citizens.
For this reason the results of research must also be reported to ordinary people in a way
that they can readily understand, via forums that they ordinarily follow.
The impacts of social research can of course be measured in terms of the relative prestige
of publication venues and international impact figures. Often it also is useful to have
international panels to conduct evaluations. However, if all evaluation is based upon
these means that best lend themselves to the natural sciences, that is bound to yield
to a very narrow understanding of the impacts of social research and render useless
a crucial function of social research. We must not allow the methods of evaluation to
begin to steer the development of science and research and force certain areas of study
to assume forms that are out of character with the genre.
Domestic impact indicators are needed for purposes of assessing research in culture
and society. A domestic citation index would be a small but important step in this
direction. Writing for popular publications and media participation more generally
are an integral and important part of the domestic impact of research. In the letters
and arts, this must be recognised as a genuine asset. Assessments of effectiveness must
also understand that social research requires different forms of publication than the
natural sciences. Context-sensitive research that needs to justify its approaches will
often have to present a lot of text before it can proceed to deal with its research data.
This is why books and extensive articles in edited volumes are a much more useful form
of publication in social research than is generally the case in the natural sciences.
164
To conclude this analysis, though, the point that needs to be stressed is that social
research does not constitute a single, homogenous world. That its objects are capable
of independent reflection and that its inquiries are intensely contextual, do not apply
to the same extent to all lines of research. Good examples of exceptions include
methodological research as well as studies that apply specialised quantitative methods,
such as demographic research. Economics is sometimes mentioned as an example of a
social science that comes close to the natural sciences and provides explanations of the
“second degree”. In this case economic constructs that people have created are taken as
given facts that can be studied independently of the context (Flyvbjerg 2001, 43−46).
Social science as a methodological tool

In the discussion above I have mainly concentrated on the genre of social research
that is geared to supporting the continuity of society. However, social sciences are
often used for more instrumental purposes as well, in which case the researcher serves
the subsystems of society (market economy, health care) in close collaboration with
scholars specialising in such areas as trade and commerce, technology or the health
sciences, for instance. Contract research is surprisingly common in the social sciences.
Other disciplines need the strong traditions of these sciences above all in analysing and
contextualising human behaviour and opinions.
Indeed research on culture and society can be used for instance in addressing questions
related to the use of commodities: are innovations considered to have use value, how
can people be encouraged to buy different products, how are they used, how do people
perceive their use, why are they not used and what do people do with them when they
no longer need them? Research that crosses the boundaries of the natural sciences
becomes all the more relevant the more complex the technical systems become and the
more often they require bringing together technical tools and services.
The impact of this kind of research is seen in demand levels; in the extent to which
social scientists are integrated into research teams dominated by other disciplines, in
the volume of commissioned research. Impact assessment in this field is facilitated by
the fact that market organisations and health care organisations, for instance, are
surprisingly similar across different countries. Indeed good research in these fields often
gets published on international fora. This is clearly seen when we look at the special
role that Finnish health sociologists occupy in international citation indices when
compared to other sociologists.
In conclusion
Information has only limited significance as a societal objective. The more the flood
of information in the world has grown, the more acute has become the shortage of
understanding, sound argumentation, sharp thinking. We cannot expect a great future
only to grow out of good research in different fields; we also need to know how to make
good use of that research. We need to assess where a particular piece of research has
significance, where it is applicable and relevant. For purposes of practical application,
we must know how to piece together the endless fragments of results from separate
studies. And what is most important, but also most difficult of all, we must all have
165
the wisdom to sift through the research results according to their human use value.
A substantial part of our lives remains beyond the understanding produced by the
market and the natural sciences.
The fundamental reason for doing social and cultural research is that people would not
be available for projects that might harm themselves or other people who are important
to them – so that they could defend their interests in the long run, against all kinds of
organised power. But that is not all – research has a dual function – research in these
fields is also done for the reason that if the rulers want to rule well and righteously, they
need to have access to the knowledge and understanding that that requires. At best,
research into culture and society is an angry war against stupidity.
So what exactly should be done? It is time now to take seriously research published on domestic
scientific fora at least in the letters and arts and to develop appropriate citation indices. Impact
factors should also be determined for domestic scientific journals.
166
Contents
References
Allardt, Erik (1999). Yhteiskuntatieteet yhteiskunnassa ja yliopistossa. In Lahtinen,
M. (ed.): Yhteiskunta ja yhteiskuntatieteet. Tampereen yliopiston yhteiskuntatieteellisen
tiedekunnan juhlakirja, 29−46. Tampere University Press, Tampere.
Arnold, Erik (2001). Can we measure the socio-economic effects of basic science? Contribution
to an Academy of Finland Seminar. 12 November 2001. Technopolis.
Flyvbjerg, Bent (2001). Making social science matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can
succeed again. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hakala, Johanna (2002). Internationalisation of research – necessity, duty or waste of

time? Academic cultures and profiles of internationalisation. VEST 15: 1, 7−32.
Jessop, Bob (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Polity, Cambridge.
Sipilä, Jorma (1998). Yhteiskuntatieteiden asema suomalaisessa tiedepolitiikassa.

Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 63: 3, 257−260.
Symes, C., D. Boud, J. McIntyre, N. Solomon & M. Tennant (1999). Working knowledge:
universities and ’real world’ education. In Forrester, K. et al. (eds.): Researching work and
learning, 426−434. University of Leeds, Leeds.
Ylijoki, Oili-Helena (2002). Yliopisto-opiskelun hyveet ja paheet. In Ahola, S. & J.

Välimaa (eds.): Heimoja, hengenviljelyä ja hallintoa. Korkeakoulututkimuksen vuosikirja
2002. Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä.
167
168
Contents
The social impact of research and

knowledge application as seen from
the vantage point of centres of excellence
Timo Kolu
Academy of Finland
1 The impact of research and the roles of centres of excellence

The impact of science and research is a cultural characteristic that ties in closely with
the objectives of research. Generally, science is about producing new understanding
and information. This, however, is too simplistic a vantage point for purposes of
unravelling the role and impact of science in modern society. A distinction has been
proposed between three types of research according to its basic interests: technical or
natural scientific, hermeneutic and critical (see Habermas 2002). Research grounded
in different kinds of interests is related to the society around in different ways. The
social impacts of science appear at different levels of reality and the mechanisms of
those impacts vary. These differences mean that the results of research have different
roles in society. Research into the structure of the atomic nucleus has different effects
from studies of Judean-Christian texts. The predominant impact paradigm has been
concerned with the control of nature by means of technology.
Large numbers of centre of excellence programmes are currently underway all over
the world, with widely differing concerns and orientations. All these programmes have
at least some science and technology policy objectives, aiming to promote various
goals by improving knowledge and know-how. Most of them have the aim of boosting
national competitiveness by strengthening the basic structures of knowledge and
know-how. Internationally, the field is diverse, and some of the programmes attach
more importance to the element of new know-how rather than that of knowledge
(see Malkamäki et al. 2001). One of the distinctive features of the Finnish centre of
excellence programme is that it is emphatically oriented to high-quality basic research,
including technological research. The main objective of the programme is to raise
the standard of research work in different disciplines and to reach the cutting edge of
international science.
The disciplines represented in the Academy’s programme reflect the changes that
were seen in the allocation of science funding during the 1990s. Over the past decade
investment in the natural sciences and medicine has increased by some ten percentage
points. Compared to the other Nordic countries as well as Germany, Japan and the
United States, this has been quite a exceptional turn (OECD 1997, OECD 2001). The
humanities and social sciences have been underrepresented in the Finnish centre
of excellence programme, partly because of their preoccupation with questions of
national importance.
169
Contents
2 Defining the social impact of research

Sociologists first began to talk about the transformation of industrial societies into
information societies in the 1970s (Bell 1974). Since then, information has continued to
become more and more important in society as well as in the discussions and debates
on the development of the economy and welfare in modern societies. This change has
also prompted a reassessment of the role of academic research and universities. In
Finland the development has culminated in proposals by the Ministry of Education
that universities be assigned a third function: that of exercising a social impact
(Opetusministeriö 2002).
The social impact of scientific research can be taken to refer to the ways in which research
work and its results change a certain social practice, ways of thinking or ways of doing
things. Changes in social practices are always reciprocal (Giddens 1984). This applies
to the social impact of research: it consists in interaction. Social impacts are created
when knowledge and know-how are integrated, through a process of change, as part of
a new way of thinking, a new practice or product. Reciprocity and the emphasis on
practice changes are crucial in the analysis of the impacts of science. Those impacts are
created in networks of new knowledge production and application. Social practices are
transformed by interpretations and artefacts developed in practical contexts (cf. Tuomi
2002). The diversity of impacts can best be understood from the vantage point of the
diversity of reality and the diversity of research interests. Understanding, criticism and
reality control have different impacts on social processes.
The linear model of innovation has dominated thinking about the social impacts of
science, soon after the Second World War at least until the late 1960s (Guston 1999). It
was assumed that new information generated in basic research is the ultimate reason
among other things for impacts appearing in the shape of technological innovations.
Research into science and innovations has shown, however, that this relationship is
not quite as straightforward as that. True, science has shaped and changed practices,
but on the other hand practical problems have also influenced the development of
basic research (e.g. Stokes 1997). Even when changes grow out of science and research,
the rest of society needs to be receptive enough so that the results of science can be
transferred into practice (see Boaz & Hayden 2002). In the absence of good practical
receptors, even the best scientific ideas will not lead to practical change. It is this that
lies behind the new emphasis upon the impact function: a new understanding of how
the social impacts of science and research evolve. Those impacts do not develop in and
of themselves, but as a result of active interaction.
Table 1 helps to understand the diversity of the social impacts of science and research.
The impact of academic research unfolds in a process of interaction among different
key sectors of society.
The table does not propose to be exhaustive, but simply provides a few examples of the
factors on which scientific research can have an impact in society. The social impacts
of science and research appear at several different levels. Research cultures and their
views and ways of going about things, shape and influence society as new competence
holders move to the service of other sectors in society. New scientific innovations serve as
170
Table 1. Sectors of science impacts in society.
Knowledge producers Knowledge users

University sector – academic basic research Scientific teaching
– oriented basic research – practical training for research and
development (training for researchers
and experts)
Other public sector Sectoral research Public administration and services
– oriented basic research – developing knowledge base
– applied knowledge production for political processes
– product and process development – interpretation of laws
and agreements
– public economy
– public radio and television
Business and – applied R&D in businesses, – users of knowledge-intensive
industry product and process development intermediate and final products
– critical journalism – media
Third sector – critical social debate Civic organisations, everyday actors
– civic discussion and debate
– change of everyday consciousness
and local cultures
the platform for the development of new modes of action and new technologies. Science
institutions, universities and research institutes are an integral part of the innovation
system whose relations of interaction and modes of action for their part influence the
opportunities for exploiting research results.
Scope of the survey

Modern science covers virtually every aspect of human life. In ontological terms it
covers multiple different levels, from the basic structures of the physical world to cultural
artefacts. Science, as a societal institution, is committed to values and activities that are
considered important in modern society, such as advancing human understanding,
developing world-views and national identities, understanding the relationship
between humans and the animate nature, promoting welfare, developing technology
and economic activities. Indeed, broadly understood, the impact of science refers to the
way that research promotes these important values.
The 26 units appointed to the national centre of excellence programme in 2000−2005

represent a broad spectrum of academic disciplines. Most of them are university
research units, but a couple of units based at research institutes are also included.
The programme comprises units from the fields of physics, chemistry, the biosciences,
ecology, medicine, neuroresearch, engineering and cultural and social research.
Given the breadth of its coverage, the programme can also be expected to have wide-
ranging social impacts. The discussion below weighs the social impact of Finnish
centres of excellence in research in relation to the values outlined above. The analysis
is based on interviews conducted with the directors of centres of excellence during
the spring and summer of 2002. One of the themes covered in these interviews was
the applicability of research knowledge and cooperation with end-users of that
knowledge.
171
Contents
The analysis is qualitative in nature. Its aim is to identify different types of social impact
and to describe the ways in which research units have sought to increase the social
impact of the work they do. This, it is hoped, should help to broaden and diversify
the somewhat narrow perspective that currently prevails in the discussion on social
impacts. According to Erik Arnold, evaluations of socio-economic effects have tended
largely to focus on economic effects and on “hard” science and technology (Arnold
2001). Such a limited view on the social impacts of science does little justice to the many
different ways in which research exercises its influence in society.1
3 Types of social impact
3.1 The cultural and social impact of research – changes in culture,

working life and education
Cultural impact refers to the development of new interpretations and understanding
about everyday activities. Socio-cultural impacts find expression among other things
in changes in values, ways of thinking, norm systems, institutions and ideo-political
structures in societies. These constitute the core of social innovations. Social innovations
are reforms related to the above changes that can be established as social practice.
Academia has been a major force of social impact in Finland ever since the country
gained independence in 1917. Many of the names and figures who have shaped Finnish
culture and ways of thinking have been learned men of the university (Ihamuotila
2002). Prominent opinion leaders in society have often had a background in cultural
and social research. According to Erik Allardt, the university intelligentsia continues to
take an active part in the debate on social justice and on the development of culture
and enlightenment, drawing upon the skills of grounded argumentation. Natural
scientists, Allardt goes on, have been less interested than their colleagues in culture
and society to participate, even though there have been plenty of topical issues where
their high-level contribution would have been appreciated. Indeed many of the burning
problems for all humanity are such that natural scientists could give an immensely
valuable contribution to critical debate.
The most immediate cultural and social impacts can be expected of centres of excellence
that focus in their research on culture and society. In these fields it is often hard to draw
a firm boundary line between research knowledge and its social impacts, and the way
in which researchers see this relationship depends upon the epistemic views they have
adopted. Indeed, many consider the whole distinction between basic scientific research
and applied studies as artificial. Professor of the Year 2003, Simo Knuuttila echoes an
opinion that is quite widely held among researchers in this field: “Everything we write
in the Finnish language has social impact.” Professor Knuuttila wants to promote a
culture of knowledge, to challenge self-evident truths and to clarify thinking. The
maintenance of a culture of knowledge, social skills and moral consciousness is easily
1
The training of experts is not covered in this discussion, in spite of its importance as a form of social impact. In
Finland, the importance attached to this training function is clearly reflected in the provisions of the university act
according to which higher education based on free research is the primary function of universities. Furthermore, one
of the key measures of university performance is the level of doctoral output.
172
considered a matter of course. On the other hand, it is easy to see that if these structures
have collapsed, none of this is easy to create. Professor Knuuttila also points out that
the social impact of the humanities has received only scant attention because it is hard
to find appropriate economic indicators (Helsingin Sanomat 11, Jan 2003). Although
some aspects of reality cannot be quantified, that does not make them unreal. Perhaps
the provocative views of Professor Knuuttila need some toning down: Every text or every
speech that persuades people to question matters of course and to think or behave in a
new way, has a cultural impact.
The Centre of Excellence Programme 2000−2005 includes five units that represent the
human and cultural sciences: the Research Unit on the Formation of Early Jewish and
Christian Ideology under the direction of Heikki Räisänen; Ancient and Medieval Greek
Documents, Archives and Libraries under Jaakko Frösen; the Research Unit for Variation
and Change in English under Terttu Nevalainen, formerly Matti Rissanen; the Center
for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research under Yrjö Engeström; and The
Human Development and Its Risk Factors Centre under Lea Pulkkinen. Research at these
units covers all knowledge interests, although the main emphasis is upon hermeneutic
and critical interests of research.
The historico-critical Bible research represented by Professor Heikki Räisänen and

antiquity research represented by Professor Jaakko Frösen are both concerned with the
deep structures of Finnish and Western culture. Historico-critical research is ideo-critical,
it calls into question and historicises the Judean-Christian beliefs embedded in the
deep structure of culture. Research influences the debate on values through its critical
evaluation of tradition. The involvement of scientists in the debate on Christian beliefs
helps to make this a less dogmatic affair; the recent debate on new legislation that paved
the way to same-gender partnerships provides a useful illustration. Finnish translations
of recently unearthed texts have given the general public direct access to formerly
unknown scriptures on the early formation of Judean and Christian tradition.
The study of antiquity is aimed at preserving our shared cultural heritage. Part of this
work involves producing objects of permanent value that will be kept and displayed at
museums for future generations. Information has been made available to the general
public in various different ways. Some projects have been in the position to organise
trips. The Petra exhibition that was staged in 2002 together with the Amos Anderson
museum was largely based on research conducted by the unit under Jaakko Frösen,
its expertise and the unit’s close contacts with museums in the Middle East. Historical
discoveries can sometimes be quite touching even for people living in the modern world.
“All research in the humanities involves a human element: people’s joys and sorrows
tend to remain the same even though the technology around may change” (Frösen). The
exhibition used various means to bring to life the everyday world of people in antiquity,
from displays of archaeological finds and photographic exhibitions of the research area
to modern multimedia. In this day and age when various shallow visions of the end of
history seem to have quite a considerable following, a closer understanding of the man
of antiquity helps us to gain a clearer picture of the historical nature of the problems
we are facing in the world today. Antiquity research on the Middle East might also be
able to bring closer the parties to today’s ongoing conflict by drawing attention to the
common cultural roots of the different population groups in this area.
173
Understandably, social impact is not among the priority concerns in the humanities
research conducted at the Research Unit for Variation and Change in English under
Professor Terttu Nevalainen – although the unit is extremely active in training English
language experts, i.e. new teachers. The approaches developed at the unit also have
an impact on the development of the language of communication. In the future, the
IT tools developed for research purposes will prove useful in the production of new
dictionaries.
The impacts of the three units discussed above are all focused on language and the
ideological world. By contrast the work that is done at the Human Development and
Its Risk Factors Centre and at the Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work
Research has more immediate impacts on social action. Researchers at these units are
concerned with important processes of interaction and institutions, working life and
education.
At the Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research, the social impact
of research is built into the research process itself. The theoretical problems addressed
in research are closely integrated with the processes of change in the organisations with
which the centre is collaborating or that they are studying. These changes are not made
up, but implemented in “experimental” projects. Research materials and results are
fed back into the target organisations for further deliberation. These projects that focus
on practical changes in organisations also produce materials for further theoretical
analysis of the problems concerned. Long-standing cooperation with the target
organisations provides a sound foundation for continuous development both in the
realm of research and practice. Indeed the unit has extensive links of cooperation with
various organisations in working life. The unit also has a separate steering group with
experts representing different areas working together to identify current and relevant
research questions.
The difference between the units working under Professor Engeström and Professor
Pulkkinen well illustrates the diversity of human research. The approach of action
research and its relationship to knowledge may be described as oriented basic research:
it explores the practical problems of organisations and on the basis of its findings
seeks to resolve those problems. In this approach, practical impact is intrinsic to the
methodology of research.
Human Development and Its Risk Factors represents a more objectivist approach that
is closer akin to the natural sciences. In Stokes’ (1997) terminology, this line of work
may be described as academic basic research. It has spanned a very long period of
time; the subjects have by now been followed for decades. The objectivist approach
leads to a different relationship to practice: research projects and practical development
projects are more clearly demarcated from one another. The unit’s social impact is well
characterised by the same arguments that were used by the European Federation of
Psychologists’ Associations upon announcing its decision to award the Aristotle Prize
2003 to Professor Lea Pulkkinen. Most importantly, reference was made to her life-
long research on questions of personality and social psychology which bring science
and profession together in a unique way. Another factor mentioned by the selection
committee was the active involvement of Professor Pulkkinen in practical and political
174
Contents
discussion, decision-making and educational reforms as well as in the development of

new practices for supporting children in daycare and at school. According to Professor
Pulkkinen, “institutions of applied research and science communication need to be
developed with a view to bringing academic research closer to the world of practice and
to facilitating the transfer of scientific results into practice.”
3.2 Interactions between culture and nature – the impacts of ecology

on administration and politics
Ecology is a natural science that through its object of study ties in closely with societal
phenomena. Ecology is concerned to study the animate nature, the adaptation of
organisms to their environment: it lies in-between the physical world and the world
of consciousness and culture. Ecologists approach nature in terms of ecosystems
constituted of animate and inanimate nature. These natural systems are to an ever
greater extent influenced by human activity. Ecology helps people to understand the
impacts of their actions upon the natural environment. The social impact of ecology is
thus of an inverted sort: the discipline helps people become aware of the impact that
their actions have had and are continuing to have upon the environment. A positive
type of impact is that this information can be used to control and remove the adverse
effects that human activity causes to natural systems. In other words, people can use
ecological knowledge to achieve their goals, without causing harm to the natural
environment. Natural scientific and critical knowledge interests are most typically
combined in applied ecology.
The Academy’s centre of excellence programme includes three units in the field of
ecology, viz. the Metapopulation Research Group at the University of Helsinki, the
Evolutionary Ecology Research Unit at the University of Jyväskylä and the Forest
Ecology and Management Research Unit at the University of Joensuu.
The relationship between research at ecology units and practice is well captured in the
statement by Professor Ilkka Hanski, who points out that “in keeping with the nature
of our unit we continue to engage in basic research, but the dividing line between
what is basic research and what is applied research is no longer as clearcut as it used
to be”. The relationship between basic research and applied knowledge production is
differently weighted in different ecology units. The Metapopulation Research Group
is concerned to study changes in the living environment, often the fragmentation of
living environments. Drawing upon their research findings, biologists can offer sound
assessments of what they believe has happened. The increasing significance of applied
knowledge is seen in the fact that the unit is nowadays funded by both the Ministry of
the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
As well as engaging in basic research, the Evolutionary Ecology Research Unit runs
applied projects in the biology of nature conservation: these, according to Rauno
Alatalo, are concerned with the impacts of changes upon natural restoration. For
example, the unit has joined forces with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to study
the use of controlled forest fires in the protection of endangered species; and with the
Central Finland Regional Environment Centre to support a project aimed at obtaining
new conservation habitats for the whitebacked woodpecker. There have been at least
175
Contents
two kinds of problems in practical cooperation. First of all, the information produced
in research has no immediate economic value, nor do end-users and political decision-
makers like it. Secondly, people at the application end of the chain expect simply to be
handed ready-made information packages rather than being prepared to spend time
and effort to find out about the complex problems of restoration. Application requires
effective knowledge management and a sense of proportion, and that in turn can only
be achieved through in-depth understanding.
Forest management, drawing upon the support of forestry research, has always been an
important part of the national economy in Finland. The Forest Ecology and Management
Research Unit led by Seppo Kellomäki, shows a stronger orientation to practical application
than the former two centres of excellence. Basic and applied research is carried out within
the same projects. One of the areas requiring basic research is that of modelling. As well
as providing access to timber, the integration of the ecological perspective with forest use
would help to conserve carbon and nutrient reserves. EU projects are focused on themes
that are important to the EU. Involvement in a number of such projects has been an
important way for the unit to increase the impacts of its work. Questions of restoration are
also on the research agenda at the Forest Ecology and Management Research Unit, which
in this area works closely with the Finnish Forest and Park Service, the forest industry
and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The development of forest management
methods, such as controlled forest fires, has benefited numerous endangered species, and
some projects have found species that it was thought had already been lost. Cooperation
with end-users is important for purposes of identifying research needs and fresh
perspectives: practice throws questions at researchers that they do not necessarily have to
consider at all in the context of academic work.
The Forest Ecology and Management Research Unit has close contacts with applied
research institutes, the Finnish Environment Institute, the Forest Research Institute,
Agrifood Finland and regional environment centres. Research cooperation with these
institutes is designed first and foremost to support agriculture and forestry as well as
game management. For Metsäteho, a private company providing R&D services related
to wood procurement and wood production, the unit has produced research models for
purposes of determining the impacts of forest management on the nitrogen and carbon
cycle and optimising forest use.
Other ways in which ecology can have a practical impact is through the training
of experts who are capable of practical application; participation in committees
concerned with environmental protection; consultation; and different kinds of science
popularisation.
3.3 Promoting human welfare through research – how basic research can
help to improve people’s health
Human welfare can be defined from the vantage point of need satisfaction: people need
to have that whose absence causes them to feel unwell (von Wright 1985). People feel
well in so far as they can satisfy their essential needs and achieve the goals they have
set for themselves. Research can promote the welfare of individuals or larger groups of
people. Welfare or well-being is a highly complex, multilayered concept. The promotion
176
of welfare may concern factors that have to do with people’s standard of living and
quality of life, or factors that are often described as individual self-realisation.2 Finnish
indicators of sustainable development regard acting capacity as an even more important
measure of quality of life than health. The social impact of the research units discussed
above might also be considered in the broader context of welfare: in the last instance
the impact they are seeking to exercise is aimed at promoting people’s social and
individual welfare. Most typically, the promotion of welfare or well-being is associated
with health research. There are two main reasons for this. First, health is considered an
important value whose promotion is considered desirable and worthy of public support.
Welfare thus becomes identified with health. Secondly, health research does not involve
the same kind of conflicts of interest as research into poverty, for example. Health is
unequivocally considered to promote human welfare and well-being. Although poverty
is widely regarded as deplorable, there are still political ideologies that consciously de-
emphasise the adverse effects of poverty on welfare.
Six research units in the Academy’s centre of excellence programme have included
health promotion among their long-term goals: the Cancer Biology Research
Programme under the direction of Professor Kari Alitalo, the Finnish Disease Genes
Research Unit headed by Professor Leena Peltonen-Palotie, the Cell Traffic Research Unit
headed by Professor Sirpa Jalkanen, the Collagen Research Unit headed by Professor
Taina Pihlajaniemi, the Molecular Neurobiology Programme headed by Professor
Heikki Rauvala, and the Biomaterials Research Group headed by Professor Pertti
Törmälä are all concerned to study problems that in one way or another are associated
with health promotion. All units recognise the practical significance of the research
they are doing, but they differ in terms of how far they allow that to influence and steer
their work. In all cases that work may best be described as oriented or use-inspired basic
research, grounded as it is in a more or less clear understanding of its beneficial health
effects. But even though it is use-inspired, this is still basic research: research problems
are formulated with a view to gaining a deeper understanding of biological processes
and mechanisms. Any practical benefits that come out of the research are a bonus, it is
not specifically geared to producing such benefits. The unit working under the direction
of Professor Törmälä differs from all others in that it is specifically aimed at practical
application. In terms of its knowledge interests, the research at these units leans towards
the natural sciences and engineering.
There are two critical conditions that any research aimed at promoting health and
welfare needs to meet in order to have a practical impact, that is to have good
clinical cooperation or to work closely with companies engaged in the development
of pharmaceutical and health technologies. Without such cooperation, the impacts of
basic research are bound to remain insignificant, or at the very least these impacts will
be spread out over a much longer time span.
Scientists in Finland are in a unique position internationally in that national legislation

allows them to use existing patient materials for research purposes. In the United
States, for instance, legislation prohibits the use of such patient materials and registers.
2
Erik Allardt’s studies on the dimensions of welfare in the early 1970s remain a useful source on the empirical breadth
of welfare
177
Furthermore, patients in Finland have strong faith in the integrity of scientists and
generally take a positive attitude towards the use of patient data for purposes of health
promotion. A good, confidential relationship with patients is crucial to the success of
clinical research. One of the factors that has certainly contributed to public confidence
is the Nordic health care system which emphasises the importance of joint responsibility
and the common good: people believe that by consenting to release information, they
will be doing what is in the best interests of everyone, including themselves. The more
closely private interests are involved in health research, the more critical is the factor
of public confidence and access to information. Good collaboration between academic
research and clinical research has been the third success factor in Finnish health
research: close cooperation engenders fruitful dialogue between basic research and
clinical studies.
In oriented basic research, ideas and initiatives for research flow from basic research
towards clinical research and the other way round. For instance, computation
models that are used in the analysis of gene profiles that lie behind asthma or
hyperlipidaemias, have immediate clinical application as well. On the other hand,
many specific projects in disease genes have grown out of the clinician’s curiosity. In the
field of graft technology, surgical know-how is an important part of the development of
new materials and technologies. Innovations inspired by basic research typically lead
to new practices of care and treatment that are based upon new technologies; it is very
rarely that they affect existing treatments. Clinical cooperation among different units
covers a broad range: disease-related genetic heritage, cancer diseases, cartilage and
bone diseases, muscle and heart diseases and various grafts are among the areas where
there is ongoing cooperation, or where such cooperation is expected soon to start up.
Neurological diseases come close to the scope of the neuroscience unit, but as yet there
is no direct clinical cooperation in this field.
Another important channel for welfare effects is collaboration with the private business
sector, both existing firms and new spin-offs. In their collaboration with business
enterprises, research units are keen on to emphasise the importance of maintaining
a clear division of labour. It is also important to recognise that research units and
business companies have different interests, which in turn means that the people
working in the two sectors need different skills and competencies. Scientists believe it
makes most sense for them to concentrate on what they do best, i.e. research. They
are keen to set themselves apart from product development in the business sector. Fee-
based research services for the development of new gene tests, for instance, are not
considered part of the duties of centres of excellence. Legislation, standardisation and
testing related to pharmaceutical development do not fit in with the profile of units
aiming at new knowledge innovations: this requires the right kind of people with the
right kind of expertise. Scientists feel that their own know-how and expertise is wasted
in standardisation work, on the other hand they feel that the translation of innovations
into commercial products requires a different kind of expertise that requires a special
commitment.
It is crucially important for fruitful cooperation that the business partners have a high
level of know-how and expertise: they must understand and appreciate what research
is about and closely follow the latest trends in research so they can identify its true
178
Contents
application potential. Indeed several units have close contacts with business partners
who are doing just that: constantly monitoring the research that is done at the centres
of excellence and trying to see which parts of that work carry the potential of useful
application and patenting. These parts they will then use in the development of new
drugs, tests, implants and other applications.
Some lines of work at the centres of excellence have led to the establishment of spin-off
companies with which the centres continue to work closely. The most recent example is
a business called Geneos, a company with a staff of three who are working to develop
diagnostic methods for asthma and certain other genetic lung diseases and, in the
longer term, receptor-targeted drugs aimed at preventing the onset of those diseases.
For purposes of patenting their research results, the centres have also used the services
of Licentia Ltd., a joint venture of the University of Helsinki and Helsinki University of
Technology that is aimed at the commercial application of university research.
All the units described here feel that the research they are doing has direct relevance
to the promotion of human health. They have different emphases on the two criteria
mentioned above, and they also differ in terms of the way that the social impacts of
their research are created. On the one hand this has to do with how much weight the
centres of excellence place upon clinical cooperation, and on the other hand with how
closely they structure their research around the problems of the discipline. Clinical
cooperation is important to all units with the exception of molecular neurobiology,
which also stresses the importance of orienting to problems identified within the
discipline. Professor Törmälä’s unit shows the strongest practical orientation and
commitment to clinical cooperation.
3.4 Technological impact of research – human curiosity and

practical problem-solving
Technological impacts are most typically associated with research in the natural
sciences and engineering. The model of linear innovation impacts in research derives
from the relationship between these two fields of study: knowledge produced by physical
research allows for better technological control of the material reality. Although this is a
mechanistic and simplistic image, it describes the situation in the practical development
of high technology. Technology is a tool used for purposes of controlling reality, and
the development of generic technologies requires an ever deeper understanding of the
workings of nature.
The social impacts of most centres of excellence appointed for the 2000−2005 term
are primarily of a technological nature. Three of these units: the Research Group for
Computational Material Physics, the Low Temperature Laboratory at Helsinki University
of Technology and the Research Unit for Nuclear and Material Physics at the University
of Jyväskylä Department of Physics, are primarily engaged in basic physics research.
Basic biology research is carried out by the Helsinki Bioenergetics Research Group, the
Structural Virology Research Group, and the Plant Molecular Biology and Forest Trees
Biotechnology Research Unit. The first of these groups has interfaces primarily with
basic physics research rather than applied fields; the latter two believe that knowledge
application has growing significance and devote much of their attention to looking
179
into the potential applications of basic research results. The Process Chemistry Research
Group at Åbo Akademi University brings together theoretical and technical know-
how in chemistry. The Neural Networks Research Unit, the Signal Processing Research
Group and the Institute of Hydraulics and Automation are engaged in different fields of
technological research. The Industrial Biotechnology Group at VTT Finland shows the
strongest orientation to practical application among these centres of excellence.
All physics research groups are keen to stress that the work they do represents basic
research. The main focus is upon problems that stem from the field of research; practical
application is not overlooked but it does not determine where the spotlight is turned.
Nonetheless all the units have cooperation that is geared to creating new applications,
although that cooperation assumes very different forms. In their collaborative projects
the research units focus most of their attention on basic research. Some of the outputs
from basic research such as computation software and patents have had more or less
immediate industrial application.
One important channel of social impact is to allow people who are involved in practical
application to attend project steering groups and project meetings. Many of the issues
raised as discussed at these meetings are of immediate interest to end-users as well.
Impacts here depend not so much upon publications as upon informal contacts. These
units have worked closely with many hi-tech companies, in some instances they have
even arranged joint scientific seminars.
Spin-off companies have emerged from two different centres. The best known of these
is a company that spun off from the Low Temperature Laboratory to develop MEG
equipment: employing a staff of 25, the company was later taken over by an American
outfit. At the spin-off stage there was very close collaboration between the research team
and the centre of excellence, in fact a couple of product development engineers for the
company were employed at the centre. The know-how that was built up in the course
of developing MRI equipment led to the start-up of a medium-sized industrial company
that by now has also been taken over by the foreign competitor. At Jyväskylä, a spin-off
company has been created around thermometers that can be used for measurements
at nanolevel. There is broad cooperation among others with the paper industry, space
industry, electronics industry and the pharmaceutical sector.
For physics units then, cooperation with the business sector presents no problem. In
their joint projects the research units are well able to maintain their own research profile
within the confines of the prevailing division of labour. However, the risks are certainly
appreciated and there is ongoing debate on how the centres of excellence could bolster
their impact without losing their scientific integrity. Collaboration between the Low
Temperature Laboratory at Helsinki University of Technology and VTT Finland provides
a good model of cooperation.
According to Professor Mikko Paalanen, Director of the Low Temperature Laboratory, it is

important for any university-based research group to follow its own indigenous research
ideas; it needs to have its own research identity. That identity is thrown into serious
jeopardy if the research group begins to ask topics from outsiders. By doing research
commissioned by clients, the centre will lose its way and the development of research
180
will come to a grinding halt. The basic research unit is separated from Finnish industry
by quite some distance. VTT Finland specialises in industrial cooperation and has had
impressive success for instance in the development of brain research equipment. In
these prototype projects VTT has been involved in developing new products for business
companies, including sensors and examination rooms for brain imaging equipment.
It is difficult for researchers to know exactly what kind of equipment consumers need.
There has to be some division of labour in this regard as well. Basic researchers cannot
do everything themselves, but they need a partner with whom they can exchange ideas
in a fruitful dialogue.
“If we come up with something new in our basic nanoelectronics research, it is

their job to look at potential applications in industrial instruments: they will know
whether these low temperature detectors can be used in industry. I’m sure this is the
right way to go for both us, we don’t have to try to get into industry, VTT will tell
us straight out what will work and what won’t. [They are] a really sophisticated lot.
Sweden doesn’t have anything comparable to the VTT, Germany has the Fraunhofer
Institute. On the other hand this helps us to cut the number of unnecessary applied
projects.” (Professor Paalanen)
Basic biosciences research shares some of the same problems of technological impact
as basic physics research: these problems have to do with how the knowledge gleaned
from basic research is put to use, with maintaining the scientific integrity of research.
For basic biology research, an additional challenge is that it ties in so closely with
medicine. All medical research is driven by the practical goal of finding a cure
for human diseases. This, however, is the point where the world-views of natural
scientists and medical scientists diverge: “For the natural scientist, man is one creature
among others. Medicine, for the natural scientist, always appears as an application
of biology”, Dennis Bamford says. According to Professor Bamford, the task of
application must be delegated to other, business actors. This is not something the
research unit should do, even though it can offer its help. You need to have separate
people to work on development. The research unit headed by Professor Bamford
have patented some of their findings that have prompted the creation of a spin-off
company specialising in RNA technology based on viral research. The purpose is to
combine enzymes that can be used in RNA manipulation, to find combinations that
have potential application. The company would need an extra injection of personnel
and funding resources in order to gain added impact. There is a shortage of venture
capitalists.
The use and manipulation of the structure of animate creatures brings ethical
questions to the surface. Scientists in the United States, for instance, have greater
latitude than their European colleagues to develop and use genetically modified or
GM plants: researchers here are more constrained in the development, patenting
and application of new technologies. Nonetheless patents have been awarded, some
have even been sold to other countries. Researchers at the Plant Molecular Biology
Research Unit consider it a real risk that new knowledge originating in Europe escapes
in the form of patents to such countries as the United States or China, which have
less restrictive applications policies. There is, however, business cooperation in the
Nordic countries as well as in the context of EU projects that is promoting the use of
181
genetic information. Cooperation on the domestic scene is very much hampered by
the scarcity of business partners as large numbers of companies have closed down.
The forest industry keeps a close eye on progress, but does not get directly involved
in research projects. Some expert consultancy is provided in the public sector in
environmental and GM issues.
For units engaged in what may be described as basic technological research, business
cooperation assumes a rather different form. Here, technological impact is an in-built
part of research: every project always starts out from the question of what practical
use this research will have. A key criterion of research is whether it will have practical
benefit, whether it will bring improvement to whatever the study is about. This means
there is always a yardstick even for theoretical research. The themes of research are
chosen on the basis of practical problems; in many cases there is some industrial or
social motive for research. Models that do not to contribute to improved technical control
of phenomena are not considered important, nor are the results of such development
efforts usually even published. According to Professor Mikko Hupa, their research does
not uncover new laws of nature, but very often it will be concerned to unravel complex
phenomena that are closely interwoven with one another. Research helps to establish
better control over those phenomena. Such is the technical complexity of these problems
that even the industrial competitors may be involved in the same project. Solutions to
those problems will pave the way to development, which together with commercial
application is an arena for open competition among business companies.
Research units are generally very careful to maintain a strict boundary line between
their own research and practical application. They very rarely engage in commercial
research. A distinction is typically made between prototype and product development:
research units operate in an area that borders on application, just outside the realm
of corporate product development. Research units are concerned to develop universal
technological solutions on the basis of which companies can proceed to create new
products and services. Proper product development is very rare; that is considered
the exclusive domain of companies. Most companies, too, prefer to work on product
development on their own, although they do to some extent commission work to
research groups. Generally speaking, research units will decide upon their involvement
in projects on the basis of whether or not they expect to benefit in the form of increased
knowledge and know-how. Professor Matti Vilenius from the Institute of Hydraulics and
Automation at Tampere University of Technology has this description of the objective of
basic technological research:
“We try to build our tools of basic research in such a way that they can be used to
resolve practical problems. As far as the relationship between research and practice
is concerned, you could say that research provides the tools with which engineers
can then set out to design new machines. Research in itself may be quite strictly
practice-driven, but all the time we are now moving in a direction where theoretical
development is pretty important because experimentation alone will not get you
very far … what you are really aiming for are solutions that have broad application
across many individual cases. For instance, the excavator boom and the harvester
boom are both booms. You need to have basic tools that you can use to resolve
problems on both.” (Professor Vilenius)
182
Control technology has by now reached such a high standard of sophistication that the
problems in boom technology are approaching the problems of controlling physical
movement. Technological research is approaching physical research.
Another reason why research units are keen to maintain a clear distinction between
industrial cooperation and unit research has to do with the use (and possible misuse)
of labour. Cooperation between academic research and industry in Finland is still very
much in its infancy and therefore there has not yet been much debate on unwanted
side effects concerning cooperation. Finnish universities of technology have a clear and
straightforward position on any instances of malpractice that may distort competition:
teaching and research staff who are paid from the public purse shall not be hired on
business projects in which the professors in charge have a vested interest.
Research units are also somewhat dubious about corporate projects that involve
some aspect of confidentiality, which means that not all results can be released in the
public domain. There is a conflict of interests here between the research principle of
transparency and openness, on the one hand, and the principle of corporate ownership
of private information, on the other. As a rule the problem has been more or less
successfully contained. Research units have realised the importance of making clear
their interests to publish as early on in the project as possible. Very often the majority
of research findings (some estimates put the figure at 80%) are such that there are no
obstacles to publication. Many projects have their own steering group that will give
permission for researchers to release their results. Some research groups have industrial
partners who are themselves competent researchers, and they will write up the research
together. The information that needs to be patented or that otherwise is obviously
beneficial to the business partner concerned, will become the intellectual property of that
business. Ownership rights will also depend on the company’s financial contribution to
the project. One of the ways in which companies restrict the use of the information and
technology produced is to prohibit their use in projects involving rival firms.
On the other hand, industry too is often reluctant to disclose strategically important
information. Where the boundary line is drawn in different projects will largely depend
upon the partner’s competencies and abilities in product development. At some stage,
the business partner will want to take charge of product development. These joint
projects are very useful for research groups because they provide an insight into the
practical problems in the field concerned and support the development of new research
projects. It is precisely in technological R&D projects that the benefits of reciprocal
information exchange are most clearly apparent.
Technology transfer in joint projects with industry takes place in various ways. Industry
representatives will often be involved in project or programme steering groups, in which
case the relevant information is transferred through meetings and informal discussions.
VTT Biotechnology has its own formal body, the so-called industry forum which involves
16 Finnish companies. The forum has its background in a national basic research
programme in biotechnology. Research results are reported and discussed at seminars.
If the discussions at these seminars do not lead anywhere, the centre of excellence will
contact industry directly and try to find out whether the results should be patented and
if so, whether companies are prepared to use the patents.
183
Contents
If the business partner has a sufficiently high level of scientific expertise in-house, it
may in one shape or another take part in the implementation of the project. In this
case there will be close and regular interaction between the two parties. This is an
extremely efficient way of organising the transfer of both general information and
information that is particularly useful to the company concerned. Joint projects with
industry often involve young students who upon graduation move to work elsewhere
within the industry. This channel of personal technology transfer is important for these
young people’s job careers and is of great interest to students who in technological
fields are often very practically minded. In many cases the research unit’s contacts with
industry are based upon this horizontal movement in the job market. Research reports
are of course one channel through which information is transferred, but their practical
impact is limited.
There are a couple of units that, unusually, have their own commercial production.
The Research Unit for Nuclear and Material Physics at the University of Jyväskylä
Department of Physics produces radioisotopes for the pharmaceutical industry, and
the Industrial Biotechnology Group at VTT Finland produces enzymes and microbes
for small and medium size enterprises. This is motivated, on the one hand, by
interests of maximising the capacity utilisation of highly expensive equipment. On
the other hand, the level of sophistication in small and medium size enterprises is not
yet high enough so that they could manage without the services of the Biotechnology
Group.
The natural sciences and engineering units that are involved in the centre of excellence
programme can be divided into two main groups on the basis of their impact
mechanisms and structures of cooperation. Units engaged in basic natural sciences
research have a less immediate relationship to application and to end-users than do
units engaged in basic technology research. Their research is more far removed from
the practical problems of industry, and indeed it is often necessary to have some kind
of intermediary to link together the work that is done in research units and the interests
of industry. For units engaged in basic technological research, practical application is
a built-in motive. They can work directly with industry; if they have a problem, that
is more likely to be not too distant a relationship, but too close a relationship with
industry. In some cases industrial projects may prove to be too heavy a drain on the
unit’s resources, throwing in jeopardy the reproduction of the unit’s know-how assets.
To some extent this may even affect the extent to which units want to advertise the
industrial cooperation they are doing and its economic value.
3.5 The economic impact of research – from investments to derivatives

In the discussion above we have at many points briefly touched upon the economic
impacts of research. Economic impact refers to such factors that promote economic
activity within society. The most typical examples of the economic impacts of
research are commercialised product or process innovations, or spin-off companies
based on new knowledge. Other examples of economic impact include the
development of public finances, the development of work cultures and organisations
or the development of character structures and an attitude climate that fit in with the
modern economy.
184
Economic and technological impacts are often closely related: new technology is
developed specifically with a view to producing economic impacts. Indeed 15 of the
Academy’s centres of excellence have cooperation with the private business sector. Apart
from engineering, there is business cooperation also in the natural sciences as well as
medicine. Even a couple of units in cultural and social research have cooperation with
the business sector, most notably in the development of working life.
Different forms of science impacts are reciprocally dependent on each other. For
instance, economic activity promotes welfare and vice versa. A high level of know-how
and intellectual capital supports the creation of economic value, but on the other hand
economic prosperity is a condition for the development of knowledge-based society.
It is important to make a distinction between direct and indirect economic impacts.

Many centres of excellence are engaged in basic scientific research in their respective
fields. The economic impact of their work is more often of an indirect rather than a
direct nature, if the latter is taken to mean outputs that can be measured in terms of
monetary value. The impact of basic research is also broad in scope rather than being
specifically localised. Sometimes, scientific innovations related to the deep structures of
knowledge can give rise to whole new fields of technology.
Research in culture and society is rarely aimed at direct economic impacts. All centres
of excellence, however, have indirect effects, for instance via their impacts on reforming
culture or changing structures of social action. The economic impacts of research in
culture and society can be usefully compared to energy: the energy consumption of a
manufacturing unit cannot be immediately seen in the final product, but without that
energy input, there would be no product. It is easy to understand the economic impacts
of the work of English language researchers by imagining a situation where universities
would offer no programmes in English. In all international exchange today, English is
a major lingua franca. The high standard of teaching at primary and secondary level
relies largely upon the work of English language researchers. Furthermore, English has
absolutely crucial significance to the competitiveness of the national economy. The role
of cultural critique is apparent if we compare societies that support open discussion and
debate with those that represents fundamentalist religions. A democratic culture of open
discussion and debate is a crucial precondition for the working of modern economy
– and has become even more so with the informationalisation of the economy and the
increasing flexibility of production. Knowledge of foreign and past cultures supports the
development of the tourism industry, and the Petra exhibition that is now touring the
world provides an example of a joint project between researchers and museum people
that has economic impacts.
The investigative development of organisations in working life is ultimately aimed

at rationalisation. These changes lead typically both to the growth of welfare and to
increased organisational efficiency, which in turn pave the way to improved economic
cost-effectiveness. It is also impossible for the modern economy to survive without the
support of educational institutions. Many of the key problems in the economy today
are of a social rather than economic nature; the only reason they do not show up in
economists’ forecasts and recommendations is that it is virtually impossible to fit their
underlying reasons into economic models.
185
The economic impacts of ecological research are both direct and indirect. Improved
forest management methods have direct economic effects through higher levels of
forest yield. The situation is very much complicated by the integration of sustainable
development objectives with forest use, but this has now become a global boundary
condition for forest economy. Forestry has to take into account the continuing growth
of environmental requirements. Environmental control has increased significantly
since the Rio Earth Summit, and environmentally friendly production methods are
bound to gain increasing significance as a competition factor in business and industry.
Ecological research provides invaluable clues on how all these different objectives can
be rationally fitted together: on how much the natural environment can tolerate, on
how to choose the most appropriate measures of control, on how to adjust production
methods.
The economic impacts of health promoting research find expression in two main
ways. On the one hand, clinical cooperation related to health research supports the
development of increasingly effective treatments and practices. On the other hand,
research produces patentable information, new drugs and spin-off companies. The
Academy’s centres of excellence have produced and patented, among other things,
information related to diagnostic tests, cancer, muscle and nervous diseases as well
as various biodegradable grafts. Some of the results are turning in a profit right now,
others will yield a profit some time in the future.
Even within the field of technological development, the economic impacts of the
Academy’s centres of excellence are usually of an indirect nature: most of the work
they do is effectively groundwork for industrial product development. It is only rarely
that they are directly involved in work that would lead to a commercial product.
This is due to the different nature of research and product development: research is
aimed at producing new information about the natural environment and society
and generic technologies, product development in turn is the business of producing
marketable products. The requirements of objectivity and accuracy that academic
research takes for granted, are easily seen as additional cost factors in commercial
product development. In the development of generic technologies, by contrast, the
theoretical foundations, parameters and data of the models employed are all expected
to meet these requirements: these are crucial so that the models can provide a reliable
simulation of reality. The success of commercial innovations is not determined only
by the technological superiority of new products; indeed this is not necessarily even
the primary determinant of success. More important factors than technological
sophistication include the needs of end-users, their impressions as well as the price of
products. The best technology can lose out to less sophisticated technology if its use is
not supported by the interests of the producers and end-users.
All centres of excellence are clearly aware that there are certain bounds they cannot
overstep without jeopardising their main function: the creation of new knowledge and
generic technologies. However, it is at this very interface that the centres operate, as is
indicated by the growth of some spin-off companies, the patenting of results that have
economic potential, relatively extensive business cooperation and in technology units
even some measure of involvement in product development projects.
186
Contents
4 The diversity of the social impacts of research

in centres of excellence
The discussion above has looked at the social impacts of research units involved in
the national centre of excellence programme 2000−2005 by highlighting some of the
typical impacts of different fields of research and different lines of inquiry. The purpose
has been to draw a general picture of the different types of impact exercised by science
and research. This picture still simplifies reality, but it certainly affords a more in-depth
view than the one provided by the current discussion where the focus is very much on
technological and economic impacts. If we could go deeper still, we should be able to
demonstrate that the impacts of centres of excellence in different fields are by no means
confined to the main effects we have raised here on the basis of a relatively narrow
dataset. Similar effects that we have now seen for instance in connection with cultural
and social research would show up in other fields of recearch and vice versa.
The Academy’s centres of excellence cover most of the broad field of science and their
primary knowledge interests vary widely. The same goes for their social impact: it comes
in various different shapes and sizes and covers a broad spectrum. This is the most
important conclusion that can be drawn about the impact of centres of excellence; it
would be counterproductive to narrow the focus and concentrate on certain aspects of
that impact only. Research has a broad impact, ranging from the critical evaluation
and reorientation of basic cultural factors through to the production of direct economic
benefits. In pluralistic society, social impacts are reciprocal, and through feedback
mechanisms they also accumulate. For instance, basic research on culture rarely has
immediate economic impacts. But just as the results of basic research in mathematics
can surprisingly produce far-ranging technological applications, so basic research in
culture can prove to have significant economic impacts. An in-depth understanding of
Chinese and Asian cultures, for instance, would today be immensely valuable for the
international success of Finnish industry. In this specific historical situation, cultural
understanding and commodity aesthetics have emerged as important economic
competition factors.
Social homogeneity is typically associated with past societies and totalitarian systems.
Modern society is certainly not immune to the threat of homogenisation. Strong,
autonomous and diversified science provides an important safeguard against such a
threat. In order to produce broad-ranging cultural impacts, scientific research itself
needs to be broad-ranging. It is impossible to imagine a sound modern society that does
not recognise its basic values, work to improve its methods of raising children, develop
its organisations, and appreciate the conditions for environmentally sustainable
development. These impacts often unfold in qualitative development projects in which
knowledge produced in research plays a crucial part.
The impact of science and research consists in interaction. Some centres of excellence
have developed established forms of collaboration that strengthen the impacts of
research without compromising the integrity of basic research. For example, the
cooperation of the Low Temperature Laboratory at Helsinki University of Technology
with VTT Finland and the cooperation of the Collagen Research Unit at the University
of Oulu with FibroGen, both seem useful ways of promoting the dissemination of basic
187
Table 2. Examples of the social impacts of research at the Finnish centres of
excellence.
Impact type Examples of impacts

Socio-cultural – unravelling the deep structures of culture
– maintaining the continuity of culture
– preserving cultural artefacts
– knowledge of foreign languages
– developing communications culture
– developing organisational structures
– promoting museums, exhibitions and tourism
– advancing the knowledge and understanding
of practical actors in work organisations
– providing better conditions for personal growth
and social development
Impact on administration and politics – critical assessment of existing practices
(e.g. ecological research) – controlling interaction between humans and nature
on a critical basis
– protecting habitats and species diversity
– environmental restoration projects
– promoting exploitation and conservation of the natural
environment at the same time
Impact on welfare and health – promoting and deepening the use of clinical information
– active business cooperation
– developing test methods
– pharmaceutical development
– knowledge and know–how leading to spin–offs
Technological impacts – developing generic technologies (controlling complex phenomena)
– models, programs, patents, prototypes
– knowledge and know–how leading to spin–offs
– close cooperation with applied research
– cooperation in industrial forum
– knowledge transfer to industry in project steering groups,
at seminars and through informal contacts
– cooperation, transfer of knowledge and know–how
in project implementation
Economic impacts – developing the cultural competencies required by global business
– developing the operation and efficiency of organisations
– promoting economically sustainable management
and use of the environment
– developing more effective treatment methods, materials and tests
– developing service businesses
– commercialised product and process innovations
– fee–based products
– new spin–off companies
research results in society. In both cases the key thing is that responsibility for industrial
application lies with the party that in the last instance has an interest in that application.
End-users have both a high level of scientific know-how, a knowledge of potential
applications and close contacts with business and industry. This means that researchers
can concentrate on what they do best and on how they feel they can contribute most to
what is best for society as a whole. These kinds of arrangements where end-users have
enough expertise and competence to assess the practical applicability of research are of
immense value to strengthening the social impact of research. In this regard there is still
much room for improvement in Finnish industry. As for the economic and technological
impacts of research, one problem that remains is the question of initial capital: more
funds need to be made available to actors and institutions that are primarily interested
in putting to use the knowledge produced in research.
188
There is also need for institutional solutions that would put cooperation with public
administration on a longer term foundation and at the same time strengthen the
impacts of information. Research programmes have provided some help in this respect,
but one has to ask whether this kind of cooperation really is close and effective enough.
Researchers often feel that the information they produce has less practical impact on
administration and politics than they would like to see it have. Increased impact would
also require a better ability to receive and to put to use the information generated in
research in different fields of administration.
Acknowledgements. I am grateful to Erik Allardt, Reijo Miettinen and Anneli Pauli

for their comments.
189
Contents
References
Interviews in spring-autumn 2002 with the directors of centres of excellence appointed
for the 2000–2005 term.
Persons interviewed
Alatalo Rauno 10 Apr 2002
Astola Jaakko 28 Aug 2002
Bamford Dennis 28 May 2002
Engeström Yrjö 6 Feb 2002
Frösen Jaakko 18 Feb 2002
Hanski Ilkka 20 Mar 2002
Hupa Mikko 7 Aug 2002
Jalkanen Sirpa 5 Aug 2002
Kellomäki Seppo 28 Mar 2002
Nieminen Risto 29 Aug 2002
Oja Erkki 11 Apr 2002
Paalanen Mikko 2 Sept 2002
Palva Tapio 30 May 2002
Peltonen-Palotie Leena 10 Jun 2002
Pihlajaniemi Taina 9 Aug 2002
Pulkkinen Lea 1 Feb 2002
Rauvala Heikki 14 May 2002
Rissanen Matti 26 Feb 2002
Räisänen Heikki 12 Feb 2002
Söderlund Hans 11 Jun 2002
Törmälä Pertti 28 Aug 2002
Vilenius Matti 21 Aug 2002
Wikström Mårten 21 May 2002
Äystö Juha 19 Jun 2002
Other sources
Arnold, Erik (2001). Can We Measure the Socio-economic Effects of Basic Science? Contribution
to an Academy of Finland Seminar. 12 November 2001. Technopolis.
Bell, D. (1974). Coming of the post-industrial society: a venture in social forecasting.

London.
Boaz, A. & C. Hayden (2002). Pro-active evaluators: Enabling Research to be Useful,

Usable and Used. Evaluation. The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice 8:
4, 440–453.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity
Press, Cambridge - Oxford.
190
Guston, D. (1999). Between politics and science: assuring the integrity and productivity of
research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Habermas, J. (2002). Knowledge and human interests. Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Helsingin Sanomat 11.1.2003. Professoriliiton valitseman vuoden professorin Simo

Knuuttilan haastattelu.
Ihamuotila, Rauno (2002). Yliopistojen kolmas tehtävä. Yliopisto-lehden pääkirjoitus

13.12.2002.
Malkamäki Ulla, Tuula Aarnio, Annamaija Lehvo & Anneli Pauli (2001). Centre
of excellence policies in research. Aims and practices in 17 countries and regions.
OECD (1997). Basic science and technology statistics. Paris.
OECD (2002). Main Science and Technology Indicators 2002/2. Paris.
Opetusministeriö (2002). Yliopistojen tulosohjauksen kehittämistyöryhmä II.

Opetusministeriön työryhmien muistioita 26: 2002.
Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur’s Quadrant. Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Brookings
Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Tuomi, Ilkka (2002). Networks of innovation: change and meaning in the age of Internet.
Oxford University Press, Oxford - New York.
von Wright, G. H. (1985). Filosofisia tutkielmia. Kirjayhtymä, Helsinki.
191
192
Contents
BIOSCIENCES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH
193
194
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
1 The quality and internationalism of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
2 The quality and state of biosciences and environmental research . . . . 199

at the start of the 2000s
2.1 Increasing trends of internationalisation in publishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
2.2 The state of biosciences and environmental research at the start . . . . . . . . . . 204
of the 2000s − the qualitative strengths of research and the main
targets for development
2.2.1 Biochemistry, cell and molecular biology, genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
2.2.2 Microbiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
2.2.3 Neuroscience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
2.2.4 Ecology, forestry, plant and animal science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
2.2.5 Agricultural sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
2.2.6 Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
2.2.7 Social-scientific environmental research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
3 The social impact of research in biosciences and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

environmental research
3.1 Why evaluate the social impact of biosciences and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
environmental research?
3.2 In what does the social impact of science and research consist? . . . . . . . . . . . 211
− Relevance, interaction, change
3.3 Different types of impact of biosciences and environmental research . . . . . . 211
3.3.1 Training for experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
3.3.2 Economic and technological impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
3.3.3 Cultural and political impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
3.3.4 Nature conservation and environmental rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
3.3.5 Well-being and the evaluation of environmental risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
4 How should the quality and impacts of research be promoted . . . . . . 217

in biosciences and environmental research?
The Research Council’s recommendations and development proposals
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Appendix 1. Research Council for Biosciences and Environment . . . . . . 223

in 2001–2003
195
196
Contents
The quality and social impact of biosciences

and environmental research
Introduction
The twenty-first century has been dubbed the century of the biosciences. Indeed
researchers in this field have been making significant progress, opening up new
domains of development. Work has now been completed to map the genome of humans
and many simpler organisms, gene transfers have become a commonplace in research,
and researchers studying the conjoint effects of hereditary and environmental factors
have made a quantum leap in their explorations. Research in the biosciences helps us
to understand the evolution of organisms and paves the way to new innovations for
greater human well-being.
It is very rarely that advances in science come about through studies on a problem
formulated within any one discipline. The development of different fields of research is
shaped and influenced by the practical problems that people face in their everyday life.
Among the problems on which biosciences and environmental research are seeking to
increase our understanding, and for the resolution of which they are seeking to develop
new technologies, are the various processes of global change, the progressive loss of
biodiversity and other factors that affect the physical well-being of different organisms.
Some have suggested that research and technology in the biosector have the potential
of growing into a new knowledge-based economy comparable to the ICTs sector (Life
Sciences and Biotechnology 2002).
The research in this field is problem-oriented and multidisciplinary: there are close
links of cooperation with the natural sciences, engineering and medical research.
Materials research, computer design and software development are all turning now to
biological processes in search of models, and the development of new medical drugs
and health technologies also requires a firm foundation in biosciences. The more
scientists learn about natural processes, the less meaningful are the boundary-lines
between disciplines. Right now biosciences and environmental research are making
phenomenal progress. Expectations are accordingly high, both in the world of science
and in society at large.
With all the new instruments that are now available to researchers for intervening in
life itself, there has been growing public concern and debate on research ethics and the
use of research knowledge. Stem cell research, human cloning and the use of animals
for research all require a clear set of rules and guidelines as to what is acceptable in
scientific research. The threat of bioterrorism also presents a new challenge to science’s
traditional principles of transparency and openness: how can those principles be
safeguarded at the same time as the abuse of research results is prevented?
A recent international evaluation of biotechnology concluded that Finland has invested

heavily in the development of biosciences research (Biotechnology in Finland 2002).
During the 1990s, the Ministry of Education supported this sector with grants worth
around 100 million euros. In addition, a total of some 60 million euros were channelled
197
Contents
to the sector through Academy of Finland research programmes in the latter half of the
decade. Environmental research has not enjoyed quite the same support.
Biosciences and environmental research are conducted in virtually all universities

around the country as well as in sectoral research institutes, which means that they
are regionally representative. The main research clusters are to be found in the
Helsinki region as well as in Joensuu, Jyväskylä, Kuopio, Oulu, Tampere and Turku.
All these universities have strong research both in the biosciences and in the field of
ecology. The University of Tampere and the Finnish Environment Institute specialise in
environmental social research. In many places these research clusters have inspired the
start-up of various centres of expertise and business ventures, which are having ever
great regional significance.
1 The quality and internationalism of research

The key criterion in the evaluation of research is its scientific innovativeness, its
capability to promote development within the discipline itself. Innovative research
depends upon a number of different factors: it needs to show creativity in formulating
its problems, to apply advanced methods and methodologies and to produce reliable
results. Creative ideas are one necessary but not a sufficient condition for innovative
research. Creativity is not the outcome of what a creative individual has done, but the
outcome of interaction between the cultural field and the individual (Csikzentmihalyi
1990). It is easier to assess innovation in the domain of science and research than it is in
many other cultural domains because the results have to be credible. The commitment
to objectivity makes it easier to reach agreement on what is considered progress in
research.
The quality of research is most typically measured on the basis of publishing − although
since the 1990s increasing attention has also been paid to other aspects of research.
International comparisons of the quality of research continue to rely primarily on
comparisons of different publications. The two key measures of quality evaluation are
impact factors and citation indices. Both describe the quality of research, albeit from
different angles. As far as the scientific weight and significance of research results are
concerned, citations are a more relevant measure of the publication’s quality than the
impact factor. The impact factor, for its part, provides a better indication of the size
of the potential audience, i.e. it describes the exposure that the work enjoys and the
esteem of the researchers concerned. Citation indices and impact factors cannot be
directly compared across different fields of research.
The quality of a scientific article: does the journal’s impact factor provide a relevant measure of the significance
of research?
Professor Mikko Nikinmaa, University of Turku
In recent years the impact factor (IF) of different publications, as determined by the Institute for Scientific
Information, has become perhaps the most important criterion in assessing the quality of scientific research. So
pervasive is IF thinking today that researchers may say their work is highly rated because their production has a
high impact score (number of publications multiplied by the publications’ IF). This is rather curious if we pause to
think for a while what exactly the IF describes: the ratio of the citations received by articles published in the journal
198
Contents
over the past two years to the number of articles published in the journal during the same period (the journal’s IF2002
= [citations in 2002 to the articles published in the journal in 2001 and 2000/the total number of articles published in
the journal in 2001 and 2002]). In other words, the score does not take into account those articles that have been
published in the journal more than two years ago. However, in the natural sciences at least very few articles become
outdated in such a short space of time.
The fact of the matter is that the IF does not pay very much attention at all to the significance of individual articles
to the development of the discipline concerned. This is better illustrated by the number of citations received by the
article (beyond the time frame used in calculating the IF). If the IF were to provide an accurate description of the
significance of scientific work, then we should see a clear positive correlation between the IF of the journals in
which researchers publish their work and the number of citations received by their articles. To establish whether
this is the case, I collected a sample of prominent Finnish natural scientists and studied the total number of citations
received by their production. A statistical analysis revealed no significant correlation between the total number of
citations and the journal’s IF. Since the number of citations and the journal’s IF did not seem to correlate, I proceeded
to look at the journals in which certain Finnish researchers had published their most important pieces of work. This
analysis was confined to articles that had been cited more than one hundred times − which means that the bulk of
all researchers’ production is excluded from the analysis. In this group of researchers by far the largest part of their
most important work has been published in series with an IF of 0–3. On neither of these criteria, then, did the journal’s
IF have any influence on how the article was cited. Indeed it is obvious that readers read and quote articles that are
relevant to their own work, without paying too much attention to the IF of the journal in which they are published.
With the continuing growth of electronic publishing and the increasing use of electronic libraries I am sure that
the content of scientific papers will come to matter more and the IF of the publication channel come to matter less.
Perhaps over the next few years the IF will revert to the role for which it was originally designed, i.e. to describe
how closely a series is followed and how much it is used in the short term. Used in this way, the IF is a valuable tool
for the researcher, providing useful guidance in the search for the most appropriate channel for publishing a certain
piece of work. What the IF does not necessarily do is describe the quality of a publication or its significance to the
discipline as a whole.
2 The quality and state of biosciences and environmental

research at the start of the 2000s
2.1 Increasing trends of internationalisation in publishing

Finnish biosciences and environmental research have shown increasing trends of
internationalisation during the 1990s. Citations to articles published by Finnish
researchers in international series have increased in all fields of research (see Figure 1).
Finnish researchers have long been competing for international exposure in the
fields of molecular biology, biochemistry and biology. Molecular biology and genetics
showed strong growth in the early 1990s, but the trends then plateaued towards the
end of the decade. The strong growth during the early part of the decade is explained
by methodological innovations in molecular genetics that allowed for much faster
identification of disease genes. Researchers in Finland took good advantage of the
opportunities opened up by the national disease heritage and advances in Finnish
clinical genetics to catch up with the international forefront. Although the pace of
development has now slowed down somewhat, Finland certainly remains at the cutting
edge of science in these fields.
International publishing has been an integral part of microbiology ever since the
discipline arrived in Finland. Major European rivals have now emerged to challenge
the dominance of US journals. In particular, European journals in microbial ecology
199
Figure 1. Development of citation indices* in biosciences and environmental research
in Finland in 1981−2002.
have gained a strong position. International visibility was at very high level in the
early 1990s. Growth resumed after a short quieter period, and it seems that this trend is
continuing in the early part of the twenty-first century.
Publishing in Finnish neuroscience is beginning to narrow down the lead to the

top nations in the world. In the 1980s Finland still lagged some way behind these
major science powers, but during the 1990s the citation indices of publications by
Finnish neuroscientists reached the same level as those of their Japanese and French
colleagues.
Ecology is traditionally a strong discipline in Finland, but it was not until the late
1970s and especially the 1980s that internationalisation truly got under way: that
trend continued to gather momentum towards the end of the 1990s. Finnish research
has enjoyed international success especially in the fields of evolutionary ecology,
behavioural ecology and population ecology. Sweden has seen very similar trends
in development. One of the key factors contributing to the internationalisation of
Finnish ecology has been that from very early on, environmental research in the Nordic
countries adopted English as its universal language.
Forestry research showed a strong international orientation as early as the 1980s,

although it was not until the 1990s that it made its international breakthrough.
Scientific evaluations commissioned by the Academy in Finland in forestry research
and closely related disciplines highlighted the importance of an active policy of
internationalisation. This coincided with a new young, more internationally-minded
generation of researchers coming of age.
Researcher training in plant biology received special support in the 1990s, which helped
to create stronger research teams and to increase international publishing and citation
200
numbers especially in the latter half of the 1990s. Publication and citation indices have
also increased in the animal sciences. There is a stronger drive now to publish in high-
profile series, and the quality of publications has also risen.
Agricultural and food sciences have also shown a strong trend towards
internationalisation over the past 15 years. In fact, the international publication and
citation figures (relative to population numbers) for these disciplines are now among
the highest in the world, a huge change compared to the situation in the 1980s. Indeed
in the latter half of the 1990s these disciplines showed much stronger development in
Finland than in most other EU countries, the United States and Canada. This is largely
attributable to increased European cooperation as well as a growing commitment at
research institutes to gain greater international exposure for their research.
Comparisons of international publishing in environmental social sciences are unable

to shed light on trends of internationalisation in this field of research. Although work
in this field generally is characterised by a strong international orientation, publishing
traditions are different from those in the natural sciences. Publishing here is often in
the form of monographs and contributions to national discussions and debates. Closer
collaboration with natural-scientific environmental research and biosciences would
no doubt serve to harmonise publishing structures, which in turn would add to the
international exposure of publications in these fields.
The recent trends in international publishing are explained by the continuing

expansion of the research system and increasing competition. In 2001, some two-thirds
of all research-years spent in biosciences and environmental research at universities
were funded from outside sources.1 The tendencies of internationalisation are at least
partly explained by the structural changes in the research system, the establishment
of graduate schools and other steps to improve and intensify researcher training.
The Finnish research system continues to rely heavily on the contribution of doctoral
candidates. In 2001 the number of PhDs graduating from universities was around
140 per cent higher than at the beginning of the 1990s. In the biosciences and
environmental research, growth has been even faster.2 The number of articles published
in international journals has increased at almost the same rate. Most doctoral theses are
based on series of articles published in international journals, with a separate synthesis
produced to summarise the work. The structural changes are also seen in the slower
growth of citation indices compared to publication volumes: work published with a
view to gaining research merits is important for the individual researcher’s career, but
less so for the development of science. In biosciences and environmental research, most
scholars publish what is regarded as their most significant pieces of work towards the
later stages of their career.
1
In geography external funding accounted for less than one-half of the total (SVT, 2001:4).
2
The number of doctoral degrees increased from 1994 to 2001 by 72 per cent, in biosciences and environmental
research by 77 per cent.
201
Table 1. Publishing in biosciences and environmental research by field of research in Finland and selected OECD countries
202
in 1988−2002 (number of publications per 10,000 population).
Molecular biology and genetics Biology and biochemistry Microbiology Plant and animal science
1988–1992 1993–1997 1998–2002 1988–1992 1993–1997 1998–2002 1988–1992 1993–1997 1998–2002 1988–1992 1993–1997 1998–2002
Finland 1.2 1.8 2.3 3.7 4.8 6.0 1.1 1.4 1.6 2.9 4.1 5.0
France 0.9 1.3 1.4 2.7 3.0 3.1 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.9 2.0
Germany 0.9 1.1 1.3 2.4 2.4 2.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.1 1.8 2.0
Japan 0.4 0.7 0.9 2.1 2.3 2.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.3
Sweden 1.7 2.2 2.6 7.1 7.8 8.4 1.7 1.7 2.0 3.6 4.5 5.2
United Kingdom 1.2 1.8 2.0 3.8 4.5 4.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 2.7 3.2 3.4
United States 1.3 1.8 1.9 4.1 4.0 3.8 1.1 1.0 1.0 2.9 2.7 2.5
Neuroscience Ecology and environmental sciences Agricultural sciences

1988–1992 1993–1997 1998–2002 1988–1992 1993–1997 1998–2002 1988–1992 1993–1997 1998–2002
Finland 2.0 3.1 3.7 1.2 2.1 3.3 1.3 1.4 1.8
France 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.8
Germany 0.8 1.1 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7
Japan 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7
Sweden 3.6 4.2 4.5 1.9 2.5 3.2 1.0 1.1 1.3
United Kingdom 1.8 2.1 2.5 0.7 1.1 1.5 0.9 1.0 1.0
United States 2.0 2.2 2.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.8
Source: Institute for Scientific Information, NSI 1981–2002 / Standard.

Table 2. Citation indices* in biosciences and environmental research in Finland and selected OECD countries in 1988−2002.
Molecular biology and genetics Biology and biochemistry Microbiology Plant and animal science
1988–1992 1993–1997 1998–2002 1988–1992 1993–1997 1998–2002 1988–1992 1993–1997 1998–2002 1988–1992 1993–1997 1998–2002
Finland 8.7 12.8 12.2 5.3 6.5 7.5 4.2 6.2 6.4 1.6 2.2 2.7
France 9.7 11.3 12.3 4.9 5.9 6.9 5.2 6.0 7.0 1.7 2.4 3.5
Germany 11.7 12.5 13.5 5.8 7.2 8.3 5.1 6.1 7.4 1.8 2.6 3.4
Japan 6.6 8.5 10.8 5.0 5.4 6.1 3.7 4.2 4.5 1.5 1.9 2.5
Sweden 8.0 10.7 11.8 6.3 6.9 7.7 5.3 6.9 7.0 2.7 3.1 3.6
United Kingdom 11.6 14.4 15.0 6.2 7.2 8.4 5.4 6.4 7.6 2.5 3.2 4.1
United States 14.4 17.1 17.3 8.2 9.4 9.9 8.1 8.1 9.2 2.2 2.9 3.4
Neuroscience Ecology and environmental sciences Agricultural sciences

1988–1992 1993–1997 1998–2002 1988–1992 1993–1997 1998–2002 1988–1992 1993–1997 1998–2002
Finland 4.0 5.2 6.7 2.3 3.2 3.9 1.0 2.0 3.7
France 4.7 5.9 6.8 1.6 2.4 3.6 1.6 2.2 2.7
Germany 5.5 7.0 7.8 1.8 2.6 3.6 1.1 1.5 2.2
Japan 4.0 4.7 5.4 1.4 1.9 2.3 1.5 1.7 2.0
Sweden 6.0 6.8 7.6 3.0 3.5 4.3 2.4 2.5 3.0
United Kingdom 6.0 7.1 8.7 2.1 2.9 4.2 1.8 2.4 3.2
United States 6.5 8.3 9.5 2.4 3.1 3.8 1.8 2.3 2.7
* Citation index = number of citations / number of publications.
Source: Institute for Scientific Information, NSI 1981–2002 / Standard.
203
Contents
2.2 The state of biosciences and environmental research at the start of the
2000s − the qualitative strengths of research and the main targets for
development
2.2.1 Biochemistry, cell and molecular biology, genetics

In the late 1990s, investment in the biosciences was at a much higher level than in
many other fields of research. Universities and biocentres benefited among other things
from biotechnology funding. Following the biotechnology review in the mid-1990s, the
Academy of Finland began to allocate special funding to these disciplines, for instance
through research programmes (Genome Research Programme, Research Programme
for Molecular Epidemiology and Molecular Evolution, Structural Biology Research
Programme, Cell Biology Research Programme). As a result of these targeted funding
programmes, biosciences in Finland have shown strong growth, and the standard of
research and teaching in the field is extremely high (Biotechnology in Finland 2002).
In recent years Finnish research in structural biology has been advancing in leaps and
jumps. The use of biophysical methods in research has increased and the standard
of work improved. These advances in structural biology and other biosciences have
also paved the way to the next step in research, i.e. to studying larger complexes of
biomolecules. Funding has now been made available to this field of systems biology
through a dedicated research programme, giving scientists in this field a stronger
footing in the international competition.
Although Finland has quite an impressive record in neurobiological research, there

has been no basic training specially devoted to this area. Elsewhere, neuroscience
represents a unified field of research, in Finland there is still a marked lack of coherence.
Neuroscience researchers have now begun to network during the past couple of years,
witness the work at graduate schools and the launch of a new research institute.
With the strong influx of new students, the availability of training programmes in
the biosciences has also been increased. The upcoming reform of university training
programmes (3 + 2 years) may further increase the range of programmes available at
Finnish universities, with plans in the pipeline to set up dedicated Master’s programmes.
Development efforts along these lines are crucially important so that the future demand
for qualified people can be met not only in research but also in the business sector and
society at large. Researcher training in biosciences is well organised in traditional research
groups as well as in a number of graduate schools. A significant fraction of students who
complete a first degree continue to the postgraduate stage. As yet there is no long-term
evidence on the employment prospects of PhD graduates, but at least for the time being
it seems the situation is good. However, from an employment point of view it is essential
that the bioindustry continues to enjoy strong growth and development.
2.2.2 Microbiology
The review of the state and quality of Finnish science and research in 1997 concluded
that the main strengths of microbiology lie in its teaching and research traditions as well
as in the large number of professorships. In 2003 two Academy Professorships are held
204
Contents
by microbiologists, both of whom are also in charge of centres of excellence in research.

The Microbes and Man Research Programme was launched in 2003. Graduating
microbiologists have had no difficulty finding work, and the range of positions occupied
by people with a researcher training in microbiology is wide and diverse.
One of the field’s weaknesses, according to the 1997 review, was that the quality of work
may have suffered at the expense of the quantity of publications. Quality evaluation
is rather difficult in this field because there is no suitable microbiological series with a
very high impact factor. This is apparent from the positive reception received by the
new journal of Environmental Microbiology and from its high IF from the very outset.
Another weakness identified in 1997 was that there were some areas in the important
field of environmental microbiology that fell short of international standards. In
2003 environmental microbiology enjoys a relatively strong position. For instance,
the Applied Microbiology Research Unit that was appointed a centre of excellence in
research for 2002−2007, represents the field of environmental microbiology.
By now scientists have sequenced the complete genomes of more than one hundred
prokaryotes, providing a strong foundation for functional genome research. The
situation is very different for eukaryotic microbes: to date the full genomes of no
more than two yeasts have been published. The information that scientists are now
gathering is hugely important in that it allows for the use of microbial cells in the
production of enzymes and bioactive compounds with medicinal effects. Various new
chip technologies have greatly facilitated the study of complex interactions and signal
transmission between microbes as well as between microbes and higher organisms: this
is expected to yield crucial information on the role of these interactions for instance in
gene regulation as well as in the development of drugs, probiots and functional foods.
New methods in molecular biology have paved the way to exploring completely novel
areas because there are many microbes that cannot be grown in laboratory conditions.
The microbiology of the soil and the intestinal system are two examples of fields where
microbial ecology is looking forward to significant new breakthroughs.
One threat that remains on the horizon in 2003 is the limited number of new student
places at universities, which means that the number of students who can take up a
career in research in this field is obviously more limited than in more popular fields
such as molecular biology. There is a shortage of posts for senior researchers. In Finland
microbiology is a female-dominated field, and that may be reflected in difficulties of
landing new research posts and positions: the stage of gaining the qualifications of
researcher and setting up one’s own research group often coincide with the stage of life
when women start a family.
2.2.3 Neuroscience
The discipline of neuroscience is characterised by a transdisciplinary approach aimed at
understanding the development and function of the nervous system from the molecular
and cell level through to the system level. Traditionally, research in neuroscience has
been done as part of other fields of research. None of the universities in Finland offer
students the option of majoring in neuroscience to the Master’s level. This is noteworthy
because especially in the United States, neuroscience began to evolve into an
205
Contents
independent discipline as far back as 20−30 years ago. The transdisciplinary approach
in neuroscience has produced several major breakthroughs, and in the United States
and Japan, for instance, recent investments in the natural sciences have been precisely
for purposes of setting up neuroscience departments and research programmes. The
University of Helsinki has now launched an independent Neuroscience Center to
produce multidisciplinary, high-standard research and training in this field.
Brain imaging and related cognitive research is one of the main strengths of Finnish
neuroscience. The application of computational methods to brain research is another
area where Finnish research has enjoyed much international exposure. It is an obvious
weakness that research which makes use of imaging methods is scattered across several
different research institutes. This is a line of work that uses expensive equipment, but its
contacts with other strands of neuroscience research are too loose and sporadic.
Molecular genetics concerned with human diseases is one of the strongest areas
of biomedical research in Finland. Its main focus is upon nervous diseases. The
one weakness in this field is that it remains very much detached from the rest of
neuroscience.
A major weakness and threat for molecular neuroscience is the lack of adequate
facilities for housing test animals, which primarily affects the work that is being done
with transgenic mice. In modern neuroscience, transgenic methods form a bridge
between molecular research and the behavioural level. For this reason alone the use of
animal models is crucially important to behavioural research.
One of the strongest lines of work in Finnish neuroscience is represented by

electrophysiological research. Research that combines electrophysiology and molecular
biology is another strength area. A major weakness in electrophysiology, as in
neurophysiology more generally, is that it lacks in breadth: there are no more than a
handful of laboratories in the country, and even they do not have enough equipment. For
example, modern imaging technology at cell level combined with electrophysiological
research is a powerful tool in nervous system signalling and plasticity research, but
scientists in Finland do not have access to the necessary technology.
2.2.4 Ecology, forestry, plant and animal science

Following the 1997 review which singled out the main shortcomings of Finnish
biosciences and environmental research, the Research Council began to support the
convergence of basic and applied research through targeted funding as well as research
programmes. The Finnish Biodiversity Research Programme FIBRE, the Finnish Global
Change Research Programme FIGARE, the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources
Research Programme SUNARE and the Baltic Sea Research Programme BIREME have
all emphasised ecological research applications. On the other hand, the Cell Biology
Research Programme and Life 2000 programme have supported cell and molecular
biology research on plants and animals.
Finnish research has achieved international success most particularly in the fields of
evolutionary ecology, behavioural ecology and population ecology. The methods of
206
molecular biology have opened up new horizons for ecological research and at once
thrown up new challenges for the training of ecologists. The Academy’s research
programmes have for their part helped to strengthen the links between basic research
in ecology and applied studies in environmental ecology and conservation biology.
With the growth of postgraduate training in ecological disciplines there has also been
a marked increase in the number of PhDs seeking employment outside the university
sector. This presents a challenge not only to postgraduate training, but also to
recruitment policies at research institutes and to their networking with universities.
Forestry emerged with flying colours from a recent scientific evaluation of the University
of Helsinki, and the Faculty of Forestry at the University of Joensuu has been appointed
a centre of excellence in teaching. In addition, both universities have a centre of
excellence in forestry. Research programmes in the forestry sector have produced a
number of experts in new areas of forestry research, including wood material science
(Wood Wisdom) and biodiversity (FIBRE). On the other hand, researcher training
ought to have been more closely adjusted to demand: as it is there has been too much
postgraduate training in the field of forest ecology, and too little in the fields of forest
economy and forest policy. The investments made by the business sector in research
concerned with forest economy remain quite modest, while quite considerable sums
have been poured into wood processing.
Research in functional cell biology (systems biology) has inspired closer cooperation
between plant genetics and plant physiology. Research in systems biology is a great
breaker of barriers between different fields of research in that the development of genomic
and proteomic technologies and the application of research results require extensive
cooperation between biologists, bioinformaticians, mathematicians and technology
experts. Active researcher training in the 1990s has helped to strengthen research
teams in the field of plant biology (plant molecular biology and plant biotechnology),
and graduating PhDs have been in a position to set up their own research groups. PhD
employment outside the university sector has been reasonably good.
Animal sciences have not yet established the same kind of unified, methodologically
transdisciplinary research tradition as the field of plant biology, partly perhaps because
research programmes in the field have been heavily focused on humans and health,
while physiological research concerned with the interaction between animals and their
environment has received less attention. It is possible that the invisibility of physiological
animal research science is due to a genuine disappearance of disciplinary boundaries,
although it may have more to do with the fact that animal physiology has not yet taken
full advantage of the new research methods developed by cell and molecular biology.
Stronger physiological research concerned with the environment and natural resources
would support not only basic research in animal physiology, but also closely related
applied environmental sciences. This also goes for plant ecophysiological research,
which has recently been overshadowed by research in molecular biology.
One of the most serious problems in the field of plant and animal science is the decline
of taxonomy and systematics as well as the dwindling knowledge base and expertise
on the domestic species. These areas need to be strengthened with a view to supporting
biodiversity studies and environmental research.
207
Contents
2.2.5 Agricultural sciences

Agricultural sciences is a heterogeneous discipline that covers a wide range of fields
from plant breeding to agricultural economy. These different sectors vary widely in
terms of their internationalisation. In fields of research most closely related to basic
biology, such as plant breeding, there is quite extensive international cooperation and
publishing. On the other hand, opportunities for international contacts and exchange
have not necessarily been the same for the agroeconomic research conducted at MTT
Agrifood Research Finland, for instance, which the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
wants to contribute to the development of Finnish agricultural policy.
Nonetheless international cooperation has increased in agricultural sciences, too. One

of the major factors has been the active participation in EU framework programmes by
Finnish researchers. In order to succeed with their applications Finnish researchers have
had to publish actively on international fora, which in turn has increased European
cooperation and influenced publishing.
As was pointed out in the 1997 review, the main strengths of Finnish agricultural
sciences lie in the purity of the raw materials and produce as well as in the country’s
sound research infrastructure. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has recently
launched a research programme on organic production, Luomu 2003−2006, which is
also looking into ways in which the national strengths can be put to the best possible
use. Research organisations have been merged in line with the recommendations
issued, which should promote multidisciplinary research. The most notable change in
this respect has been the merging of the Agricultural Economics Research Institute and
the Agricultural Research Centre into Agrifood Research Finland. There is still scope for
improving researcher training. Agrifood Research Finland and universities have closer
cooperation than before.
Finnish agriculture and the countryside at large are closely dependent on EU

agricultural policy, and will become even more so with enlargement of the EU. This
presents a host of new challenges for agricultural research: we now need to establish
and take full competitive advantage of the pure produce of Finnish agriculture. On
the other hand, there is also need for multidisciplinary research into the conditions for
sustainable development in rural areas, with agricultural sciences working closely with
environmental social sciences and forestry, for example. The situation is largely the
same across Europe, but there has not been much progress with this kind of research.
Indeed Finnish research is well-placed to take up a prominent role in this sector, not least
by virtue of the various research programmes that the Academy of Finland has set up
(SUNARE, FIBRE etc.) and that have provided a strong foundation for multidisciplinary
research into natural resources and the environment.
2.2.6 Geography
Geography differs from all other natural sciences in that it combines knowledge of
natural systems with knowledge of the regional structure of human systems. Within
the discipline itself this is widely acknowledged as one of its main strengths. There are
countries where natural and human geography have been allowed to drift apart, but
208
Contents
the results have not been very encouraging – quite the contrary. In these countries
geography’s identity has become rather splintered, and the discipline lacks the sort of
weight and influence it has in social discussions and debates in Finland. It therefore
remains an important priority in the future to preserve and strengthen the unity and
coherence of geography in Finland.
The quality of research has continued to improve. Research projects have shown
great innovativeness throughout. It is particularly pleasing to see that professors and
other senior scholars are still keen to contribute to national discussions that serve the
needs and interests of business and planning processes as well as the development of
teaching.
The main areas of priority in geography have remained effectively unchanged since
the 1997 review. The only noteworthy change is geoinformatics. In the past couple of
years great effort has been invested in the development of this new discipline, witness
the decision in 2001 to set up four new fixed-term professorships. Geoinformatics is
an umbrella concept that includes geographical information systems (GIS), remote
sensing, spatial computation, mobile positioning systems and spatial statistics. The
field has shown strong development both in Finland and elsewhere, and its future
prospects appear good. For geography it is important that efforts are continued to
develop geoinformatics in both basic and applied research.
2.2.7 Social-scientific environmental research

Social-scientific environmental research is a field that typically lies at the interface
of disciplines hosted by different Academy Research Councils. It takes a problem-
oriented approach to the relationship between humans and nature. The field is far
more sociologically and politologically minded, and it also places more emphasis
on environmental philosophy than the Academy’s definition of the discipline −
environmental policy, environmental economy and environmental law − gives to
understand. The most established of the different fields of research, in terms of teaching
and research posts, is environmental law. The new professorships in environmental
policy have also helped to strengthen the status of the discipline. Teaching and research
in environmental management have also been strengthened partly in connection with
economics, partly at the interface of different disciplines at several universities and
research institutes.
Founded in 2002, the graduate school in social-scientific environmental research

represents a major new force in the field that significantly adds to its resources.
The graduate school has helped to increase collaboration among different research
institutes. It is also noteworthy that environmental economists and environmental
lawyers are closely anchored to their respective disciplines and their graduate schools
and are therefore not as closely involved in the work of the graduate schools in social-
scientific environmental research.
It is unclear in the present situation what kind of science policy means would provide
the fastest and most efficient way to raise the quality of different lines of social-
scientific environmental research. The modern remedies of interdisciplinarity as
209
Contents
well as international networking have been amongst those suggested. They have
certainly helped, although progress has been relatively slow. Multidisciplinary
research programmes have also given added weight to social-scientific environmental
research and helped to raise its quality. Without research programmes the field would
undoubtedly be even more fragmented than it is and less aware of the opportunities
provided by multidisciplinary cooperation. One of the difficulties is that basic research
in the social sciences on the relationship between humans and nature is still too weak,
both conceptually and methodologically, to provide any significant direction to the work
done in related fields. This applies most particularly to research in environmental policy,
which has traditionally been under heavy pressure from various directions to network.
Quality standards in social-scientific environmental research in Finland are at more or

less the same level as in the corresponding fields of social science in general. However,
this special field of expertise at the interface between different disciplines has higher
ambitions, and high expectations are also pinned on the young researchers who have
been recruited into the field in large numbers. The field is more international than
before and its research work has a sounder foundation than before, but it is still under
pressure to raise the quality of that work.
Research and researcher training in environmental planning is a problematic area that

is not yet recognised as part of social-scientific environmental research. However, recent
new legislation (e.g. the Act on Procedures for Environmental Impact Assessment,
Nature Conservation Act, Land Use and Building Act) has greatly increased the need
for multidisciplinary knowledge about the physical environment.
3 The social impact of research in biosciences and

environmental research
3.1 Why evaluate the social impact of biosciences and

environmental research?
After World War II the general thinking was that all future innovations would be based
upon the knowledge foundation created by basic research. Applied research and product
development were expected to pick up and, in their own time, turn that knowledge into
practical benefits. Half a century on, Finland has become increasingly convinced that
science and research should also be expected to show clear social impacts.
Biosciences and environmental research are distinguished from the basic natural
sciences by their firmer problem orientation. In the first review of the state and quality
of Finnish science in 1997, the Academy’s Research Council for the Environment and
Natural Resources based its assessment on a distinctly problem-oriented approach. The
main problems related to the state of the environment derive from functions in society
that have changed the boundary conditions for the operation of natural systems. This
has generated high expectations of the ability of environmental knowledge to help
resolve problems. There are high expectations, too, of development in agriculture and
forestry and of the development of new health-related methods. In 1997 the Research
Council cautioned against expecting benefits for business alone. In its review the
Council stressed that research also influences society by creating an atmosphere of
210
Contents
curiosity and innovative thinking by training experts and by producing solutions that
contribute to people’s well-being.
3.2 In what does the social impact of science and research consist?
− Relevance, interaction, change
The relevance of research refers to its ability to work towards the attainment of a given
set of social objectives related to the subject-matter at hand. The impact of research,
then, means that research or its results can change a given practice or way of thinking in
society. Changes in social practices are always interactive. Social impacts are produced
when knowledge and know-how are established in the process of change as part of
a new way of thinking, a new way of acting or doing things or a new product.3 The
impacts of science are created in the networks of producing and using new knowledge.
Practices in society are changed by interpretations developed in practical contexts.
Multilateralism and the emphasis on changes in practices are central to the analysis
of the impacts of science and research. The social impacts of scientific research mean
that in the interaction between the research sector and other sectors in society, new
interpretations and actions are created that shape and influence existing practices.
The social impacts of research must not be confined to the traditional notion of
innovations, to new products or services sold in the marketplace or improvements in
production processes. The concept of impact, especially in environmental sciences, is
much broader than that of innovation. Environmental research has had an important
role in drafting and implementing international conventions and legislation, for
instance. The training of experts that is done in connection with research and the
production of silent knowledge are the most significant mechanisms through which
research exerts incremental impacts. Most of the impacts of research come in the form
of gradual improvements in different processes. The full impact of the investments
made in science and research are not seen in society until decades later. This can be
speeded up by better and more readily intelligible communication of the results beyond
the scientific community.
3.3 Different types of impact of biosciences and environmental research

To get a clearer idea of where and in what kinds of practices social impacts may be
expected, the Research Council for Biosciences and Environment asked the opinion of
a sample of researchers: How did they see the practical impacts of their work?4 In their
3
Tuomi (2002) has developed a concept of innovations as a user-led process of redefining practices. Technological
artefacts are an integral part of the new innovative practice, but these artefacts are not, as such, innovations; it
is only once they have been taken into use in some socially determined and reformed practice that they become
innovations. The same train of thought applies to the social impacts of research.
4
The researchers were instructed to describe the impacts of their scientific research not within the confines of their
current research project, but more broadly in terms of their work as researchers. It was stressed that there was no
standard format for the descriptions: the respondents were encouraged to write their accounts in their own words,
stressing those aspects that they thought had social impacts. The letters of request were sent out in June 2002 to
58 researchers who in spring 1997 had received general-purpose Academy grants. After one reminder, responses
were received from 31 researchers, giving a response rate of 53 per cent. The clear majority of Academy-funded
researchers feel that their work has some social impact. The material collected provides a useful overview of the
different types of those impacts and a rough estimate of their prevalence.
211
Contents
responses we can identify a few typical social contexts and practices in which research
has an impact. The discussion below summarises these researchers’ accounts into eight
main types of impact. It is very rarely that research is considered to have just one type of
impact; usually it will be described as having multiple layers of parallel impacts. It is for
this same reason that it is hard to predict, in advance, what kinds of impacts a certain
piece of research is going to have.
3.3.1 Training for experts

The most common type of impact attributed to scientific research is in the training
of new experts and researchers. This represents an important pathway for the
transmission of research knowledge from the academic world to the society around.
Some two-thirds of researchers in biosciences and environmental research consider
this an integral part of their work. Some respondents make a distinction between the
training of experts and the training of PhDs − a distinction, of course, that is usually
made in other sectors of society, such as public administration or business and industry.
Coordinators of major research programmes over the past few years regarded the
training of experts as a major impact of these programmes, in addition to network
building and the production of “silent knowledge”.5
3.3.2 Economic and technological impacts

Recent discussion on the social impacts of science and research has been dominated
by two types of impact: economic and technological. Indeed work in the biosciences
and environmental research often has various economic impacts. Over half of the
researchers in these fields say that the work they do has economic impacts; among
the examples they mention are spin-off companies, fur farming, the development of
resistant plant and animal species, pest control, recycling, and the logistics of timber
acquisition and harvesting. The economic impacts of research need to be seen in terms
of indirect effects that unfold in the longer term and that are supported by broadly-based
promotion and development of knowledge and expertise. As well as economic impacts,
one in three researchers say the work they do has technological impacts. Examples
here include patents for medical drug development, the development of new molecules
that can be used for saccharide purification, the development of new methods for
virus determination, the development of environmentally friendly biotechnologies for
mining and quarrying and the development of new equipment for the measurement of
greenhouse gases.
The Wood Wisdom programme, for instance, was expected to produce both economic
and technological impacts. The content of the programme was influenced both by the
targets it was set and on the other hand by the direct involvement of the forest industry
in consortia steering groups. Steering groups also serve as an important avenue for
channelling the results of research programmes through to end-users. Almost 70
different stakeholder organisations have been involved in the programme, the majority
5
For the Research Council’s assessment we interviewed the coordinators of the Academy’s Biodiversity Research
Programme, the Finnish Global Change Research Programme, the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources Research
Programme. In addition, the coordinator of the environment cluster’s research programme was interviewed.
212
Contents
of which have represented forestry companies. One of the most important impacts
of the programme at macro level has been to encourage closer cooperation among
different parties and to inspire the creation of new discussion forums and new structures
of cooperation.
The economic and technological impacts of research in the biosciences
Professor Jyrki Heino, University of Jyväskylä
High-quality basic research in the biosciences is crucially important to the development of new innovations. As well
as encouraging more traditional forms of cooperation between the private business sector and academic research,
biocentres have inspired the growth of spin-off companies as university researchers have set out to take commercial
advantage of their innovations. In addition, it seems that there is a growing demand in business companies for
increasingly qualified people, which has increased the need for doctoral training especially in the biosciences.
The rapid increase in the volume of biosciences research in Finland and its improved quality in the late 1990s also
provided a boost to development efforts aimed at commercial applications. This was reflected in an increasing
number of patents and in a growing movement of researchers from universities and research institutes to the open
sector. The rapid growth of businesses in the sector caused a temporary shortage of qualified staff. The funding
problems of SMEs using biotechnology have adversely affected their capacity to recruit new people. Employment
prospects for researchers with a specialist training in this field are still quite good, even though research groups at
universities and research institutes, constrained by the slowdown in research funding, have no longer been in the
position to recruit researchers in the same way as before.
Finnish research in the field of biotechnology was evaluated in 2002 and described as internationally competitive.
If continued growth can be secured for basic research and researcher training, that should improve prospects for
commercial applications in biotechnology research. The development of nanosciences and nanotechnologies also
looks set to create new potential for applications in the field of biosciences. This trend in development is bringing the
biosciences closer to research in physics and chemistry and opening up new opportunities for the development of
entirely new kinds of technologies.
3.3.3 Cultural and political impacts

Cultural impacts refer to the development of new interpretations and understandings
of everyday activities. General cultural impacts are more or less equally common as
economic impacts. One of the examples mentioned by the researchers is provided by
positive public opinion towards the protection of the Saimaa Seal and growing public
awareness of the possibility to control detrimental microbes without the use of pesticides.
Among the channels of cultural impacts identified by the researchers, mention may
be made of publications in popular media, television and radio appearances and
lectures and discussions on ethical questions related to biotechnology. Launched at
the initiative of the Government, the Biodiversity Research Programme included an
assessment of how the programme has succeeded in promoting cultural impacts.
According to the report (National Impact of the Finnish Biodiversity Programme),
the programme has increased public awareness in Finland of biodiversity issues
and sustainable development. The programme has also opened up new channels of
interaction and communication between researchers and end-users. On the other hand,
the report makes the critical remark that the knowledge produced in the programme
has not reached all key agents, and that many of its results have not filtered through
to the general public.
Impacts on administration and politics are equally common as technological

impacts. Some of the examples mentioned by the researchers include influencing the
213
content of conservation decisions; identifying the “best models” for communication
and exchange between land use and nature conservation; providing assistance
to administration in testing programmes; supporting work to draft international
agreements; promoting the implementation of agreements; and working to develop
forecasting models for forest growth. The Biodiversity Research Programme in particular
was aimed at supporting the implementation of the UN Biodiversity Convention by
producing information about biodiversity to the Finnish authorities.
Research plays a major role in the development of air pollution control
Director General Lea Kauppi, Finnish Environment Institute
Research has played a very prominent role both in Finland and internationally in addressing the problem of
acidification and in general in developing air pollution control at different stages of the air pollution control cycle
(identifying the problem – understanding the impact mechanisms at play – surveying and assessing the extent
and significance of the problem – dose-response studies – developing models for the ecological and economic
assessment and comparison of different emission reduction alternatives for use in international negotiations). In the
Nordic countries the phenomenon of lake acidification was first identified by Swedish researcher Svante Oden, but
Finnish colleagues were not far behind. The issue was first brought to public attention at the Stockholm Environment
Conference in 1972. Especially in Sweden and Norway where the problem was even more serious than in Finland,
nature conservation organisations were keen to put acidification on the international agenda. In Finland, too,
environmental organisations and the green movement ran vigorous campaigns.
In the 1970s and 1980s, researchers were chiefly interested in the ways that airborne contaminants (initially
sulphur but later on nitrogen as well) are transported and transformed and how they affect different organisms and
ecosystems. On the other hand, they were also keen to establish the geographical extent and severity of the problem.
Once they began to understand more about the mechanisms at play, they moved on to dose-response studies. Now,
equipped with detailed regional information on dose responses, researchers were able to provide delegations to
international emission reduction negotiations with detailed assessments of how different reduction strategies would
be reflected in the Finnish environment. From the very outset researchers from different countries have worked quite
closely with one another on these issues, which has allowed them to produce harmonised assessments covering
the whole of Europe. With economic analyses attached to their calculations, researchers have also been able to say
how best to optimise the reductions in emissions.
In this way then research has contributed to promoting human well-being by improving the quality of the living
environment – and done so cost-effectively. The development of Finnish clean technologies (e.g. fluidised bed
technology) also ties in closely with research in air pollution control.
The focus of research has now shifted to heavy metals and small particles. Most of the work with heavy metals is
still at the stage of determining dose responses, in the case of small particles we have only just begun to explore the
basic processes. The assessment of health effects has been largely based upon air quality norms, which of course
are determined on the basis of international and domestic dose-response studies.
From the outset there has been close dialogue between researchers, NGOs and end-users of research results.
One of the reasons no doubt is that in contrast to earlier environmental problems, acidification was clearly an
international problem: there was no way this was going to be resolved nationally, let alone locally. On the other hand,
the Finnish Research Project on Acidification (HAPRO) provided a solid foundation for Finnish research and educated
large numbers of competent researchers. It is not insignificant that ever since this project, there has been close
cooperation between universities and sectoral research institutes. As research institutes have had close contact
with ministries and delegations to international negotiations, a broad avenue of communication has been opened up
from basic research through to end-users.
214
Contents
3.3.4 Nature conservation and environmental rehabilitation

Around one-quarter of the researchers said their work had impacts in the area of nature
conservation and environmental rehabilitation. The first type of answer referred to
general knowledge and understanding about nature conservation and restoration,
such as increasing awareness and knowledge about biodiversity preservation and
climate change. There were also references to the rehabilitation of desertified areas and
to the biotechnical rehabilitation of polluted areas. Linking ecological knowledge with
economically relevant information, such as mowing and grazing, organic farming, and
the impacts of reindeer herding on the forest nutrient balance, provide examples of a
somewhat different type of impact which combines aspects of ecological and economic
sustainability. Nature conservation is an integral part of most research programmes
administered by the Research Council for Biosciences and Environment (e.g. FIBRE,
FIGARE, SUNARE). The knowledge produced in these programmes should contribute
to the end of resolving environmental problems and promoting the sustainable use
of natural resources. The Research Council also had an active role in launching the
European Biodiversity Platform and in hosting its first meeting in 1999. The Biodiversity
Platform supports the objectives of both the European Platform for Biodiversity Research
Strategy and the European Research Area by bringing together decision-makers and
researchers from different parts of Europe.
The social impacts of research in population ecology
Academy Professor Ilkka Hanski, Academy of Finland
The social impacts of research in population ecology depend upon whether that research is concerned with
species that humans generally consider harmful, beneficial or endangered. In the case of harmful and beneficial
species society is usually prepared to make informed decisions on the basis of the best knowledge available.
Research has clear objectives, and much of the work is done at government research institutes. Ecologists working
at research institutes often have close contact with the end-users of research results, which facilitates efficient
communication.
The situation is very different in population ecology research on endangered species. From the ecologist’s point of
view the research problems are exactly the same as in the case of other species: the aim is to establish the causes of
population fluctuations and where possible to produce models for predicting those fluctuations. There is also broad
public consensus that continuous species endangerment, which also affects biodiversity, is a trend that should be
avoided and averted. However, on just about everything else there is profound disagreement.
The authorities in the environment sector have a genuine interest in research knowledge, and the presence in
government agencies and research institutes of staff who share the same kind of basic training as researchers
makes the use of that knowledge much easier. In political decision-making the positions taken by the Ministry of the
Environment reflect the broader values in society, which means that species endangerment receives rather scant
attention even on the environmental agenda. The general thinking is that people do not want to pay very much for
the preservation of biodiversity, although no doubt the response would largely depend on how the question is asked
and on the broader context of social development in which the preservation of biodiversity is considered. One of the
goals of voluntary nature conservation organisations is to try and influence people’s values in such a way that the
preservation of biodiversity would take on greater importance than it has today.
It is not the researcher’s job to defend different value perspectives − although surely it is not necessary to deny one’s
values in the case of issues where there is broad public consensus. Just as medical doctors may express their support
for higher standards of medical care, so ecologists may express their support for the preservation of biodiversity.
However, the key issue as far as the researcher and the bodies funding research are concerned is how to make sure
that the knowledge produced in research gets through to the political decision-makers, intact and undistorted.
215
Contents
In an ideal world, the different parties would first reach agreement on the interpretation and message of a certain
piece of research evidence; then, in the political process that follows, they would proceed to agree on the steps
that need to be taken in accordance with the prevailing opinion in society. Unfortunately, research on endangered
species rarely gets to exercise such an influence in society, but the parties that for economic or other reasons
are opposed to conservation are inclined to disregard research evidence on endangered species. Instead, they
are keen to highlight the economic and social impacts of conservation. Although both the ecological, economic
and social impacts of conservation need to be taken into account in the process of political decision-making, it
would benefit the effective utilisation of research knowledge if these factors could first be analysed separately.
Ecological research evidence is often challenged on the general grounds that we do yet not know enough about the
relevant processes. However, the people who say this very rarely have the basic education to make an independent
judgement of the research results they are looking at.
In sum, the greatest difficulty with regard to the social impact of research on endangered species is that the results
from this work very rarely get through, undistorted, to inform political decision-making. The situation may be very
similar in other fields where research touches upon issues that involve social conflicts of interest. The old biblical
adage about how much wisdom induces much grief, finds a new expression here: for what a great paradox it is that
it is easier to make decisions on socially complex issues without consulting the best research evidence available.
3.3.5 Well-being and the evaluation of environmental risks

Somewhat less common types of research impacts than those discussed above are
the promotion of well-being and the evaluation of environmental risks.
Among the examples in this category are the identification of environmental toxins,
the identification of exposure to air pollution, healthy foods, new treatments and
the diagnostics of good water quality. Well-being effects seems to be divided into two
main categories. The first consists of immediate effects at the individual level: the
development of new medical drugs or treatment for seasonal affective disorder are ways
of helping an individual with a well-being deficit. The latter examples, then, refer to
well-being effects at the level of society. In these cases the impacts have to do with the
general standard of welfare and the risks presented to the welfare of whole population
or part of the population.
The social impacts of dioxin research

Professor Terttu Vartiainen, University of Kuopio & National Public Health Institute
People in the advanced industrial world have shown a sharply critical reaction against stable organic environmental
toxins. Most of the public attention has focused on dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxines and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans. In the late 1980s, these were dubbed the “supertoxins”, which did little to improve their negative image.
Quite considerable sums have been invested in dioxin research. In Finland, most of the monies have come from the
National Public Health Institute’s core budget funds as well as the EU’s fifth framework programme, the Academy of
Finland and various ministries. In addition, the National Food Agency and the Finnish Environment Institute have been
involved in supporting the research.
The development of the analytic tools needed in this research was a hugely challenging task. Research has now
been able to shed light on the main sources and mechanisms responsible for the emergence of dioxins as well as
on purification processes and disease-causing mechanisms. It has produced information on the environment, on
nutrition and human exposure, proceeding all the way to epidemiological health follow-ups. Not only the research
community but public administration has benefited from the results.
Without the basic research carried out in Finland and the excellent files on concentration levels produced on the
strength of this evidence, the EU’s specified limits for dioxin concentrations in fish would be at an entirely different
level from what they are now. It is too early to tell whether or not the outcomes were favourable, but in any event
the impacts of Finnish research were considerable. Finnish delegations to EU meetings were always equipped with
up-to-date scientific evidence. Without in-depth research, none of this would have been possible.
216
Contents
No other country in the world has kept its people as well-informed about dioxins as Finland has, even though we are
by no means at the greatest risk. The research results have received coverage in the print press dozens of times,
television has covered the issue sometimes monthly. In this case the popularisation of science has greatly helped
to alleviate people’s fears of these faceless, unknown “supertoxins”. We are now in a position in Finland to discuss
the prevalence and possible adverse health effects of dioxins in a constructive atmosphere, without any panic or
prejudice. This was clearly in evidence around a year ago when the EU decided on the maximum permissible levels
of dioxins in fat containing food, when Finland and Sweden were exempted for a period of five years. In Sweden, the
public discussion that ensued was nothing short of panic-stricken when compared to the matter-of-fact, weighted
deliberations in Finland on whether or not the benefits of eating fish are greater than the possible adverse effects
of dioxins in fish.
The recommendations issued by the National Food Agency regarding the frequency of eating fish are based almost
exclusively on Finnish research results. If we had listened to the advice of foreign research, we would hardly
be eating any wild fish at all in Finland today. Without Finnish dioxin research, we would have seen the end of
professional fishing some time ago. We would be eating foreign fish, mainly farmed Norwegian salmon.
Research has also helped to persuade fish farmers in Finland about the importance of feeding their fish stock on pure
fish oils and fodder. This has at once helped to resolve the problem of both dioxins and heavy metals.
A rare type of impact that stands apart from all others is the promotion of
development cooperation. There are three references in the interview material to
this type of social impact that has direct relevance to the Johannesburg Declaration
and Action Plan. Information on the use and rehabilitation of rain forests has a
direct impact on the economy and environmental protection of developing countries.
For instance, information on the ecological value and productive potential of regions
has influenced decisions on the protection of Peruvian rain forests. Cooperation with
local authorities and research institutes has led to the establishment of several new
conservation areas in ecologically unique areas. On the other hand, rain forests
have not been cleared in regions where research has shown that the soil would yield
insignificant crops if the land were cultivated. Training for researchers and experts
from the developing countries promotes the transfer of knowledge and technologies
to the Third World.
4 How should the quality and impacts of research be promoted

in biosciences and environmental research?
The Research Council’s recommendations and development proposals

Basic education at universities is organised around established disciplines. In the future
too, this education will provide the foundation for scientific postgraduate training
and for the training of the qualified staff required by business companies in the
environmental and biosector. For reasons of continuity, then, it is essential that steps
are taken in all fields to maintain an adequate level of student intake at universities. In
some fields, such as microbiology, that level is already low.
Most of the advances in biosciences and environmental research happen at the

interfaces of established fields of research. Continued research funding shall be made
available to these border zones that are most likely to produce significant new scientific
discoveries and breakthroughs. One of the problems is the shortage of posts for senior
researchers. Steps are needed to make it easier for advancing scholars to set up their
own research groups.
217
Special funding for biosciences has been crucial to developing the infrastructure of
biocentres and to the formation of research clusters and networks. Nonetheless the
infrastructure in the field remains far from complete, nor do researchers always have
access to all the technology they would need, or to the best technologies available.
As the number of research groups has continued to rise, competition for research
appropriations – which were no longer rising at the start of the 2000s – has become
much fiercer. Indeed it is important that there is continued and even increased direct
public support for the development of research in the biosciences. The discipline
of neuroscience that showed strong growth throughout the 1990s needs to be
further strengthened by allocating more funding to the area through a research
programme.
Biological research has moved on to the post-genomic era. The set-up of technologies
related to genomics/proteomics/metabolomics requires considerable resources. For
instance, the ongoing national organisation of research in plant genomics is set to
improve the use of resources and increase international cooperation for instance with
corresponding organisations within the European Research Area.
Researchers in the fields of ecology and forestry emphasise global environmental issues
that cut across the boundaries of several different disciplines. In the case of forestry, these
issues include forests in climate policy, sustainable forest economy and the role of forest
economy in combating poverty. Sociological questions related to forest economy have
so far received insufficient attention when considered against development needs.
Society has access to various economic, legal and informational steering mechanisms
it can use to promote socially, economically and ecologically sustainable development.
The key challenge for social-scientific environmental research is to increase our
understanding of how different steering mechanisms, individually and collectively,
produce intended and unintended outcomes. This requires that social-sientific
environmental research is closely integrated with other lines of environmental research
– although at the same time it is important that steps are taken to safeguard its
autonomous development from its own scientific premises.
Applied environmental research and informed political decision-making as well as

environmental policy measures based on that research require a close understanding
of the distinctive northern features of Finland’s natural environment. In its capacity
as an agency dedicated to supporting basic research, the Academy of Finland must
make sure that adequate support is made available to research that is aimed at
gaining a more in-depth understanding of the biological factors that have an impact
on species diversity, distribution and adaptation. In particular, funding should be
made available to research in the fields of modern systematics, taxonomy and
ecophysiology.
Geoinformatics has got off to an excellent start and its continuity must be safeguarded.
Geoinformatics supports all disciplines that need positioning information and
its development will support for more effective utilisation of that information.
Environmental monitoring and the development of planning systems will also rely to
an increasing extent on geoinformatics.
218
Agricultural research needs to establish and take competitive advantage of the pure
produce of Finnish agriculture. In addition, there is a growing need in this field for
multidisciplinary research that explores the conditions for sustainable development in
rural areas. The integration of agricultural sciences with other disciplines, including
social-scientific environmental research and forestry, is crucial to this effort.
The most important way in which the social impacts of biosciences and environmental
research can be promoted is through an in-depth understanding of the meaning of
interaction. Social impacts are created if and only if there is the right kind of division of
labour between different sectors of society and if the individual actors involved have the
necessary expertise and commitment to try and resolve misunderstandings that are due
to divergent interests. Intensive postgraduate training in the field has produced a large
number of experts who, if they work in the right direction, can promote the adoption
and application of new information in different sectors of society. The innovation policy
pursued over the past years has provided a solid foundation for socio-economic actions
based on the utilisation of knowledge and know-how. What is called for now in different
sectors of society is an investment in the skills and competencies that are needed to put
the existing and the emerging knowledge and know-how to the best possible use.
The cultural and political impacts of research can be supported and promoted through
improved science communication. The goal of communications policy is to develop the
dialogue between researchers, political decision-makers and individual citizens and to
make sure that the voices of different actors are heard in the policy-making process.
The involvement of individual citizens and voluntary organisations in the discussions
and debates on the ethics of biosciences and environmental policy helps to remove
prejudice and to strengthen the value foundation of the information society. Open
dialogue also helps the parties involved to understand one another and increases the
political impacts of science. It is important therefore that researchers are given every
possible opportunity to take part in this kind of dialogue.
Both the private and the public sector have promoted the technological and economic
exploitation of biosciences. The Ministry of Education, the Academy of Finland, the
National Technology Agency and private venture capitalists have increased the amount
of personnel and economic resources available in this field. SMEs in the biotechnology
sector are the most research-intensive in the whole economy. For research and training
purposes it is important to look into the reasons why these businesses are having
funding problems. The development of products and services that are financially sound
and that can make a real difference to people’s well-being is a long process that often
takes years. Such a sustained development effort obviously requires secure access to
adequate resources.
Biosciences and environmental research can help to gain control over environmental
problems by producing information that supports political processes aimed at resolving
those problems. The Kyoto Climate Convention, the Biodiversity Convention and
the Johannesburg Action Plan are examples of good dialogue between research and
politics. Since all environmental problems are in the final analysis caused by human
activity, natural sciences alone cannot resolve those problems. It is therefore important
to support social-scientific environmental research that adds to our understanding of
219
the connections between social and natural processes. Solutions with a favourable
impact on the environment require the right kind of value climate in society as well as
a commitment to make the best possible use of the existing knowledge base.
220
Contents
References
Arnold, Erik (2001). Can We Measure the Socio-economic Effects of Basic Science? Contribution
to the Academy of Finland Seminar. 12 November 2001, Technopolis.
Biotechnology in Finland. Impact of public research funding and strategies for future.
Evaluation report (2002). Publications of the Academy of Finland 11/02.
Csikzentmihalyi, Mihaly (1990). The Domain of Creativity. In Runco, Mark A. & Robert
S. Albert (eds.). Theories of creativity. Sage, Newbury Park - London - New Delhi.
Hermans, Raine (2003). Biotekniikkateollisuus Suomessa. Suhdanne 2003: 1, 108–113.
Life Sciences and Biotechnology (2002). A Strategy for Europe. Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Luukkonen, Terttu (2003). Biotekniikkayritysten globaalit markkinat. Suhdanne 2003:

1, 114–117.
Statzner, B., V. H. Resh & N. G. Kobzina (1995). Scale effects on impact factors of
scientific journals: ecology compared to other fields. Oikos 72, 440–443.
Suomen tieteen tila ja taso. Katsaus tutkimukseen ja sen toimintaympäristöön Suomessa

1990-luvun lopulla (2000). Husso, Kai, Sakari Karjalainen & Tuomas Parkkari (eds.).
Suomen tieteen tila ja taso. Ympäristön ja luonnonvarojen tutkimus (1997). Suomen

Akatemian julkaisuja 12/97.
Tuomi, Ilkka (2002). Networks of innovation: change and meaning in the age of Internet.
Oxford University Press, Oxford - New York.
Statistics
OECD: Main Science and Technology Indicators Vol. 2002: 2.
SVT 1995, Koulutus, 1995: 14.
SVT 1996, Koulutus 1996: 12.
SVT 1997, Koulutus 1997: 5.
SVT 2001a, Tiede, teknologia ja tutkimus 2001: 4.
SVT 2001b, Koulutus 2001: 4.
221
Databases
Main Science and Technology Indicators 2002/1. OECD, Paris.
National Science Indicators on Diskette (1981–2002) – Standard. Institute for Scientific

Information, Philadelphia, PA.
222
Contents
Appendix 1. Research Council for Biosciences and Environment

in 2001–2003
Chair
Terttu Vartiainen, Professor
National Public Health Institute
Annele Hatakka, Professor

University of Helsinki
Jyrki Heino, Professor

University of Jyväskylä
Lea Kauppi, Director General

Finnish Environment Institute
Markku Löytönen, Professor

Pasi Puttonen, Professor

Maija Rautamäki, Professor

Helsinki University of Technology
Eevi Rintamäki, Professor

University of Turku
J. Peter Slotte, Professor

Åbo Akademi University
Juha Tuomi, Professor

University of Oulu
Matti Vornanen, Professor

University of Joensuu
Science Adviser Timo Kolu and Director Arja Kallio from the Academy’s Biosciences and
Environment Research Unit were involved in preparing the Research Council’s report.
223
224
Contents
RESEARCH
IN CULTURE
AND SOCIETY
225
226
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
2 Trends and challenges in recent years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

2.1 The growth of multidisciplinarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
2.2 The internationalisation of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
2.3 Special issues of researcher training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
2.4 Research funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
3 Strengths, cooperation and new openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

in different fields of research
4 Assessing the impacts of research in the humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

and social sciences
5 Conclusions and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Appendix 1. Research Council for Culture and Society in 2001−2003 . . . 255
227
228
Contents
1 Introduction
In addition to the more traditional emphasis on internal impacts, there have been
increasing calls in recent years that science and research should give equal attention to
the social impacts of research. This has its background, on the one hand, in the growing
trend towards accountability in services funded from the public purse and, on the other
hand, in the national strategy adopted by Finland which stresses the importance of
innovativeness and top-level knowledge. The Science and Technology Policy Council of
Finland considers social innovations to be equally important engines of socio-economic
development as technological innovations. In the humanities and social sciences,
increasing the social impact of research is a new challenge the assessment of which is a
complex and demanding task indeed.
Various changes in the environment of research combine to have an effect on the

state and quality of research. General economic development, solutions adopted in
the university system, and the gradual structuring of the European Research Area are
examples of such changes. The aim of this report is to review developments over the
past few years against earlier evaluations and to open up new perspectives that have
been ignored in earlier reviews. The material consists of statistical data from various
sources (KOTA database, Statistics Finland), expert evaluations, and self-assessments by
researchers of their work and its impacts − a new method that has not been used before.
The purpose has been to complement the picture drawn by quantitative indicators with
qualitative data. This kind of material helps to uncover such kinds of scientific impact
that have been hard to establish on the strength of quantitative indicators alone.
The Finnish science and research landscape has seen a growing tendency for larger
research groups to be formed. This has been aimed at increasing the international
competitiveness and impact of science. Long-term research in larger groups and networks
has increased in the humanities and social sciences, too. Academy funding instruments
such as research programmes, centres of excellence and Academy professorships, have
played a crucial role in this development. However, it is important to note that research
in the humanities and social sciences differs from work in the natural sciences in the
sense that individual efforts continue to have a significant impact in these fields.
229
Contents
Research programmes administered by the Research Council for Culture and Society in 2000–2002:
Finnish Companies and the Challenges of Globalisation, LIIKE 2001–2004
Information Research Programme II 1996–2001
Interaction across the Gulf of Bothnia 2000–2003
Life as Learning Research Programme, LEARN 2002–2006
Marginalisation, Inequality and Ethnic Relations in Finland, SYREENI 2000–2003
Media Culture Research Programme, MEDIA 1999–2002
Research Programme for Russia and Eastern Europe 1995–2001
Research Programme for the Economic Crisis of the 1990s, LAMA 1998–2001
Centres of excellence in the disciplines hosted by the Research Council for Culture and Society in 2000–2005:
Ancient and Medieval Greek Documents, Archives and Libraries (University of Helsinki)
Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research (University of Helsinki)
Research Unit for Variation and Change in English (University of Helsinki)
Research Unit on the Formation of Early Jewish and Christian Ideology (University of Helsinki and Åbo Akademi
University)
The Human Development and Its Risk Factors Programme (University of Jyväskylä)
Centres of excellence in the disciplines hosted by the Research Council for Culture and Society in 2002–2007:
Helsinki Brain Research Centre (University of Helsinki, Helsinki University of Technology, and Helsinki and Uusimaa
hospital district)
History of Mind Research Unit (University of Helsinki and University of Jyväskylä)
Research Unit on Economic Structures and Growth (University of Helsinki)
Academy Professors in disciplines hosted by the Research Council for Culture and Society (1 August 2002):
Hakulinen, Auli, University of Helsinki (linguistics)
Hietala, Marjatta, University of Tampere (history)
Honkapohja, Seppo, University of Helsinki (economics)
Knuuttila, Simo, University of Helsinki (philosophy)
Näätänen, Risto, University of Helsinki (neuropsychology)
Palonen, Kari, University of Jyväskylä (political science)
Räisänen, Heikki, University of Helsinki (biblical exegetics)
Sams, Mikko, Helsinki University of Technology (neuropsychology)
Sepänmaa, Yrjö, University of Joensuu (environmental aesthetics)
Siikala, Anna-Leena, University of Helsinki (folklore)
Vuorela, Ulla, University of Tampere (social anthropology, women’s studies)
2 Trends and challenges in recent years
2.1 The growth of multidisciplinarity

The past few years have witnessed a progressive crumbling of boundaries between
individual disciplines as well as increasing multidisciplinary cooperation within the
field of humanities and social sciences. These trends have invigorated and renewed
research in several fields of study. On the other hand, the humanities and social
sciences include a number of disciplines that are inseparably linked with the natural
sciences (e.g. psychology, archaeology).
The Research Council considers research programmes to be an effective means for

promoting high-quality multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research. Research
programmes support both thematic integration and multidisciplinary cooperation,
creating an arena that is conducive not only to specialisation but also to exchange and
interaction between closely related disciplines. Multidisciplinary research programmes
have been geared at producing research results and knowledge that have social
230
relevance. For research in culture and society, programme initiatives jointly sponsored
by different research councils have opened up interesting new prospects of cooperation
with medicine, the natural sciences and engineering. However, in many cases the most
fruitful multidisciplinary projects grow up out of spontaneous contact and longer term
cooperation among individual researchers. It would be important to assess the impacts
of joint council research programmes on the emergence of research at the interface
between different disciplines.
In 2000−2005, the Academy has five centres of excellence in disciplines hosted by

the Research Council for Culture and Society. Judging by the interim reports of their
international scientific advisory boards, these centres have had excellent success both
in creating innovative new research approaches and in training a new generation
of researchers. One of the great strengths of centres of excellence in research is their
ability to integrate the approaches and methodologies of different disciplines: this
has earned them much international recognition. Work produced at these centres is
aimed for publication in leading international journals. In their studies of changes
in work, organisations and technology, researchers at the Center for Activity Theory
and Developmental Work Research have combined the approaches of adult education,
psychology, sociology and communication studies, for instance. The centre of excellence
that is dedicated to the conservation and interpretation of ancient and medieval Greek
documents applies not only the methods of classical philology and archaeology, but
also state-of-the-art technological expertise. There are three centres of excellence in
disciplines hosted by the Research Council for Culture and Society that started their six-
year term (2002−2007) in 2002. One of the units engaged in multidisciplinary research
is the History of Mind Research Unit that is concerned with the structure and function
of the human mind in the philosophy of different eras. In this work it resorts to the
toolboxes of philosophy, theology, history and linguistics.
Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research is also supported through Academy

professorships. In 2002, the Research Council for Culture and Society had 11 such
professorships. Among the Academy Professors who started their term in 2002, Mikko
Sams draws upon both psychology and engineering sciences; Marjatta Hietala’s work is
a combination of history, sociology and urban studies.
One noteworthy trend over the past few years has seen strong multidisciplinary fields
gain the status of independent subjects that are taught as part of the university syllabus.
Examples are provided by women’s studies, future research and cognitive science: all
have matured into syllabus subjects in their own right yet still retained their original
multidisciplinary nature.
Commissioned by the Ministry of Education, the national evaluation of women’s studies

and gender research concluded that this multidisciplinary field produces a very high
standard of research that is internationally competitive. Unusually, the evaluation also
covered the organisation of university education. Overall the evaluation of women’s
studies went extremely well, and researchers in the field were keen to participate and
contribute through self-assessments. Indeed the assessment itself probably had a
positive impact on this field. However, the panel concluded in its report that at most
universities, women’s studies does not yet have a sufficiently sound financial basis, but
231
its future growth and development will require permanent professorships as well as
teachers’ posts at PhD level.
A new opening that is expected to create added interdisciplinary synergy is the

multidisciplinary Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies that was launched at
the University of Helsinki in 2001. This has increased the visibility of research in the
humanities and social sciences and provided a new stronger platform for long-term
multidisciplinary cooperation in these fields.
In the humanities, increasing exchange and contact across disciplinary boundaries in

arts research has been a growing trend in recent years. In particular, mention should
be made of the closer contacts that arts research at science universities has had with
philosophy and sociology. Networking with the broad field of cultural studies is another
noteworthy trend. The rise of the postcolonial perspective has brought arts research
into closer contact with cultural geography and microhistorical research, for example.
Multidisciplinary media studies, a field that to an extent is still in the process of taking
shape, has developed in close contact with arts universities and arts subjects at science
universities. In its multidisciplinary studies of everyday media practices and media
users, the Media Culture Research Programme (funded by the Research Council in
1999−2002) produced valuable new information for various sectors of society.
Research at arts universities depends for its progress not only upon interdisciplinarity,
but also upon exchange and interaction between research and the arts. In order to
promote this novel form of communication, the Research Council together with the
Central Arts Council supported in 1999−2001 a total of ten projects from all four arts
universities as well as the University of Lapland Faculty of Art and Design. These
projects were geared to finding solutions to the practical and methodological problems
of arts research and to promoting the integration of science and the arts. The evaluation
seminar concluded that the results overall had been encouraging, even though it had
not been possible to resolve the questions of integration within the confines of this one-
off targeted programme.
Social-scientific environmental research is a new multidisciplinary line of inquiry. One of

its growing areas of specialisation is legal environmental research, which combines the
approaches of law, social sciences and natural sciences. Social-scientific environmental
research is a typical example of a discipline that lies in the middle ground between
different Academy research councils. The Research Council for Culture and Society is
charged with the task of supporting cultural, sociological and philosophical research
that is concerned with the interaction between humans and the natural environment
but that does not fit in with the administratively and economically oriented lines
of environment research that come under the Research Council for Biosciences and
Environment. Many current research problems and projects, such as those concerned
with sustainable development, call for the development of multidisciplinary interface
programmes between different research councils.
Regional studies is a growing multidisciplinary field of research that applies social and
cultural research. Multidisciplinary research with a specific regional focus (e.g. Arctic
research, EU research, Russian studies, Chinese studies, African studies) is ongoing
232
Contents
at several universities. Often, this line of research has been started in response to
challenges thrown up by growing trends of globalisation. The Research Council has
been responsible for preparing the Research Programme on Russia that is expected to
provide important new directions for regional studies. In general, the local impacts
and transformations of globalisation are an important field of study that will require
increasing input from research in culture and society.
More research is also needed into the relationship between humans and technology
from a humanities and social science vantage-point. In particular, more research is
needed in subjects related to gender and technology. This was also mentioned among
the recommendations of the international panel who evaluated women’s studies and
gender research in Finland.
The growth and development of new fields of study requires much flexibility on the part
of research funding bodies. The multidisciplinarity of research should also be reflected
in practices of evaluation. The Research Council for Culture and Society has sought to
pay special attention to reviewing multidisciplinary projects, but this is an area that still
calls for a committed development effort. At universities, too, management by results
and the methods of evaluation used often stand in the way of research and training
projects that cut across faculty boundaries.
2.2 The internationalisation of research

According to the KOTA database, publishing in the humanities and social sciences
has increased since 1994−1996, especially on international forums. For example, an
increasing fraction of peer-reviewed scientific articles are published in international
series. The sharpest increase in the number of articles published in international
journals is recorded for theology. The proportion of articles published abroad is highest
(at over 80%) in economics and business administration and psychology. There has
also been a marked increase in the number of articles published in edited volumes or
printed conference publications as well as in the number of monographs.
Table 1. Proportion of articles published abroad by field of study in 1997–1999 and

2000–2002.
Field of study 1997–1999 2000–2002

Theology 29% 41%
Humanities 43% 50%
Art studies* 37% 19%
Educational sciences 50% 56%
Social sciences 45% 51%
Psychology 79% 81%
Law 20% 11%
Economics 78% 83%
Total 52% 56%
*Including art, music and theatre.

233
Figures compiled by the NSI show that the number of citations received by Finnish
publications in the humanities in 1998−2002 is higher than the world average. In
the social sciences, the relative citation impact for Finland is close to that average.1
Data presented in the previous review for 1995−1999 showed that citations to Finnish
publications in these fields were still well below the world average. Against this
background it is safe to conclude that Finnish research in these disciplines now enjoys
stronger international recognition than before. However, the NSI database leans heavily
towards the Anglo-American world and does not provide comprehensive coverage
of publishing in the humanities and social sciences. In particular, large amounts of
research from outside continental Europe and in other than the English language are
omitted from NSI statistics. It may be assumed then that Finnish research has greater
significance than these figures give to understand.
In its review in 2000, the Research Council recommended that steps be taken to support
publishing in foreign languages by allocating more resources to translation and
editing services. So stringent are the style and grammar requirements of high-profile
international publishers that researchers in the humanities and social sciences need
special support in order to make the grade.
Domestic scientific journals and series also play an important role in many disciplines
within the humanities and social sciences. Domestic publishing has a major impact on
public opinion and the general attitude climate. Good examples of scientific publishing
that has a social impact include publications in women’s studies, social-scientific
environmental research and theology. In public discussions and debates, researchers in
the humanities and social sciences can contribute most significantly to the human side,
as well as providing a historical perspective and addressing value issues.
The internationalisation of research is a major challenge for funding bodies as well.

In the previous review of the state and quality of scientific research in Finland, the
Research Council looked ahead at the emerging impacts of globalisation in the
humanities and social sciences and concluded that funding bodies need to step up
their cooperation both nationally and internationally. This recommendation has been
reflected in changing patterns of cooperation in research programmes. New avenues
of cooperation have been sought in all research programmes launched in 2002, and
the Council now has regular exchange and cooperation with the National Technology
Agency, for example. International cooperation is pursued along several different
avenues. Life as Learning Research Programme serves as one example of international
networking with corresponding research programmes in a number of other countries.
Joint international funding is being tried out with the European Science Foundation
(ESF) and its member organisations in the field of social sciences. Involvement in the
European Social Survey project, for instance, has opened up interesting and important
opportunities in comparative research.
Finnish researchers were involved in 42 projects under the Improving Human

Potential programme in the EU’s fifth research framework programme; this is about
1
In the humanities the relative citation impact was 1.37 and in the social sciences 1.01, while the world average is 1.
Publishing is discussed in closer detail in the Review’s General Section, Chapter 5.1.
234
Contents
one-quarter of all projects funded through the programme. To qualify for funding
through the framework programme, research projects are expected to involve elements
of cooperation with researchers from different countries as well as across disciplinary
boundaries, and further to produce results with practical application. Many comparative
research projects related to welfare, the labour markets, training and other fields have
benefited from the new opportunities of European networking. Overall the number of
Finnish researchers involved in humanities and social science projects appears to be on
the increase. Another indication of the growth of European research cooperation and at
once of the competitiveness of Finnish research in the humanities is the start-up in 2001
of a multidisciplinary research project in church history. Coordinated by the University
of Helsinki, this is the first ever EU-funded research project strictly within the purview
of the humanities.
In its previous review in 2000, the Research Council for Culture and Society recommended
that more European research funds be allocated to the humanities and social sciences.
Indeed these fields have now achieved a stronger position in the EU’s sixth research
framework programme that was opened at the end of 2002 – although research into
themes most directly relevant to these disciplines still accounts for only a small proportion
of total programme funding.2 For the first time now the framework programme
includes a separate thematic priority (Citizens and governance in the knowledge-based
society) for research oriented to the humanities and social sciences. In June 2002 the
Commission invited expressions of interest in which researchers were to propose future
research subjects to be included in the sixth framework programme. Judging by the
proposals received, there is quite a high level of interest in these themes when compared
to the amount of funding earmarked. However, the sixth framework programme also
includes new types of project funding that challenge researchers in the humanities and
social sciences to set up joint European projects on a major scale. Universities, for their
part, need to invest greater effort in developing administrative services that would allow
Finnish experts to serve as coordinators for European research projects. The Research
Council has supported Finnish participation in framework programmes by granting
funds for purposes of preparing applications, mainly to project coordinators.
2.3 Special issues of researcher training

The number of doctoral degrees increased sharply in the 1990s. In 2000−2002, a total
of 1,149 PhDs were completed in culture and society disciplines (Figure 1). However,
compared to the number of first university degrees the proportion of students proceeding
to the doctorate is lower than in other fields. For instance, almost 60 per cent of all
higher university degrees completed in 2001 were in the field of culture and society,
whereas among PhD graduates the figure was no more than 33 per cent. However,
there are marked differences in the PhD graduation rate between individual disciplines.
The highest number of postgraduate degrees relative to the number of professors
was recorded in philosophy, theology, psychology, social sciences and history; and
the lowest in communication and information sciences, law, linguistics and business
administration.
2
The total budget for the sixth research framework programme in 2002–2006 is 17,500 million euros, with 225
million euros set aside for the Citizens and governance in the knowledge-based society programme.
235
Women accounted for 47 per cent of all PhDs completed in 2000−2002. By field of study,
the proportion of women PhDs was highest in education at over 60 per cent.
Figure 1. PhDs completed in fields of study hosted by the Research Council for Culture
and Society in 2000−2002.
As in other fields, graduate schools have become a significant pathway to the doctorate
in cultural and social studies. Most disciplines represented by the Research Council have
by now their own graduate school. One single statistic suffices to illustrate just how
widely scattered these disciplines are: the 346 graduate school places funded by the
Ministry of Education as from the beginning of 2003 are divided between 41 graduate
schools. These are usually single discipline or multidisciplinary networked schools run
jointly by several departments or universities. Examples of single discipline networked
schools are provided by national graduate schools in philosophy, education, history, art
history, law, theology, literature, economics, economics and business administration,
psychology and linguistics. Good examples of the areas of study covered by recently
founded multidisciplinary networked schools with a special thematic focus are Russian
and East European studies, language technology, American studies, the gender system,
social-scientific environmental studies and development studies.
In the interest of balanced scientific and cultural development it is important that all
disciplines under the Research Council for Culture and Society should have their own,
broadly-based graduate schools that could also accommodate postgraduate students
from closely related fields of study. However, it is not possible within the humanities and
social sciences to have a graduate school system that caters for postgraduate training
needs in each and every discipline. Apart from graduate schools, other important
pathways to the PhD have included postgraduate positions at universities and research
institutes – although these positions now look set to lose much of their significance
with the changes being planned in university systems of teaching and research posts.
The Research Council has actively supported researcher training outside the system
of graduate schools, for instance through high-quality research projects and support
236
Contents
for doctoral studies abroad. It remains an important recommendation that researcher

training in the humanities and social sciences should have access to flexible funding
options that correspond to the needs of science and society at large. That in turn will
require steps to develop improved monitoring mechanisms.
PhD graduates in cultural and social research have had little difficulty finding
employment. According to Statistics Finland the jobless rate at year-end 2001 among
those graduating in 1998−2001 was less than three per cent for all PhDs except those
with a degree in history, archaeology and music. The jobless rate is clearly lower than
in 1997 when in the humanities the figure was 5.5 per cent and in the social sciences
2.1 per cent. Most PhDs are engaged in the university sector, but some with a degree in
cultural and social research work in the business sector. In the private sector the biggest
single employer is publishing. At universities, most new PhD graduates are hired
through fixed-term project funding from outside sources.
Research and postgraduate training at arts universities is a special strength of Finland’s:

this is an area where there is still very limited researcher training in other EU member
states. In 1997−1999 a total of 22 PhDs graduated from arts universities, in 2000−2002
the figure rose to 38. Research and postgraduate training at arts universities includes
both artistic and scientific components, although the position and interaction between
these varies from one university to the next and even between different postgraduate
programmes at individual universities.
Postgraduate training at arts universities is organised through graduate schools and

with project funding. However, the funding of postgraduate training at arts universities
is somewhat more problematic than at science universities in that there is no funding
body that is directly responsible for supporting doctoral studies in arts subjects. For
reasons of equity alone, however, arts and science universities should have the same
kind of access to public funding for postgraduate training.
The employment and placement of PhD graduates is closely monitored in order to

keep track of educational needs. The skills and competencies required in a traditional
university career will no longer suffice for future PhDs. Therefore steps will be needed
to develop and upgrade the doctoral degree in cultural and social research as well,
where the most typical career path has been that of a professional researcher within the
university system. One area that holds interesting promise for the future is represented
by new business concepts emerging at the interface between hard and soft disciplines
(e.g. IT and new learning environments, language technology or electronic business).
2.4 Research funding

No research can be competitive and have a real impact unless it has access to adequate
funding. According to Statistics Finland figures, research spending in the humanities
and social sciences at universities has developed favourably over the past few years.
In relative terms the biggest increases in research spending are recorded for art studies,
cultural studies, political science and communications studies. Table 2 shows the
research spending for the humanities and social sciences in 1997 and 2001 as well as
the proportion of core budget funding in 2001. Although funding for research in the
237
humanities and social sciences has continued to increase in recent years, its percentage
share of the total volume of university research has declined over the past ten years.
Table 2. Research spending in the humanities and social sciences* in 1997 and 2001
and the proportion of core budget funding in 2001.
Field of research 1997 2001 Percentage share

1,000 € 1,000 € of core budget
funding in 2001
Philosophy 2,351 2,984 38
Linguistics 23,677 29,295 76
Art studies 10,318 16,140 68
Theology 4,919 5,435 61
History and archaeology 6,866 9,504 48
Cultural studies 3,389 5,090 54
Humanities total 51,520 68,448 66
Economics 6,016 7,076 55
Business administration, economic geography 25,552 35,998 46
Law 9,799 12,438 67
Social sciences 15,973 19,520 53
Psychology 6,839 7,945 44
Education 26,075 33,185 76
Political science, administrative science 8,059 12,113 49
Communication and information studies 4,606 6,933 51
Statistics 2,856 1,832 63
Social sciences total 105,775 137,040 57
*Including universities and university hospitals, excluding polytechnics.

Source: Statistics Finland.
The proportion of external funding continued to increase in the humanities and social
sciences throughout the 1990s, but even so the total volume of such funding remains
much lower than in other disciplines. Although universities have managed to attract
more external investment now, the bulk of research is still funded from core budget
sources. In the humanities core budget funding accounted for 66 per cent and in the
social sciences for 57 per cent of research spending in 2001. Therefore the concerns
voiced by the Research Council in 2000 with regard to the adequacy of core funding
for universities and its importance to maintaining a high level of research, remain
as current today as they were then. The key importance of core funding is further
accentuated by the slowdown in research funding from the business sector.
The majority of external research funding in the humanities and social sciences comes
from the Academy of Finland and other public sources. In history and theology, the
Academy of Finland now accounts for more than 70 per cent of all external funding.
On the reverse side of the growing proportion of funding from other than core budget
sources, departments have had to cover the additional costs incurred from research
projects. As from 2001 these have been compensated from an overheads grant included
in all Academy funding decisions.
238
Contents
3 Strengths, cooperation and new openings in different

fields of research
In its quest for renewal and reform, research in the humanities and social sciences has
mainly probed the interfaces between different disciplines and established new contacts
of cooperation at home and abroad. As well as showing stronger internationalisation,
research in these fields has devoted greater attention to its national impacts and to its
relationship with the surrounding society.
Long-standing areas of strength in the field of philosophy include logic and its history,
the history of philosophy, the philosophy of science and norm theory. New, emerging
areas include the philosophy of mind and cognition, practical ethics and other applied
philosophy, social philosophy, phenomenology and feminist philosophy.
Finnish philosophy has primarily been grounded in the analytic tradition and showed
a strong leaning towards the Anglo-American world. Recently, however, closer contact
has also been established with the other Nordic countries and continental Europe.
Finnish philosophy has also shown some ambition to break down barriers between
philosophical schools and to inspire comparative discussion and debate between
different lines of philosophical inquiry.
Philosophy has continued to have quite a prominent role in public and social life.
Philosophers are also in demand in the private sector for such jobs as drafting codes of
professional ethics, management training as well as various consultancy tasks. Most
philosophers, however, work at universities with funding from universities themselves,
the Academy of Finland and foundations.
Philosophical research is an inherently international exercise, although it is also

considered to have significance to national culture. Philosophical commentary and
textbooks therefore also get published in Finnish, as do Finnish translations of classical
works.
Among the areas that have shown good success in historical research are ideological
and cultural history, the history of the Middle Ages and the Early New Age in Finnish
and general history, urban history, the history of the family and the history of everyday
life, the history of crime, psychohistory and the political history of the Cold War.
Antiquities research and social history based on quantitative methods have been losing
some ground.
The challenge of international cooperation has been taken seriously not only in general
history that has always shown a strong interest in international subjects, but also in
domestic history as well as in the historical subjects covered at social science faculties.
Nonetheless the subject of Finnish history also emphasises the national significance of
this field, on good grounds. Even though research in this field is chiefly concerned with
national questions, the number of international publications in history have shown
strong growth. International researcher visits, colloquia and networks of cooperation
have also increased, as have international comparisons in research.
239
Both the search for new interfaces between disciplines and multidisciplinary cooperation
have increased in historical research. Historians of antiquity and the Middle Ages
have traditionally worked closely with linguists and archaeologists; ideological
and conceptual historians have often joined forces with philosophers and political
scientists; social and economic historians in turn have had close cooperation with social
scientists; and for historians of the everyday the most natural choice of partner has
been represented by anthropology and ethnology. Reference might also be made to the
interest shown by psychohistorians in the psychoanalytic research tradition and to the
cooperation of environmental historians with other environmental sciences.
Archaeology is another inherently multidisciplinary science. It has traditionally

worked closely with the natural sciences, including geology and paleology. Recently
archaeology has been showing some movement away from its traditional natural
science orientation towards the humanities, mainly history and linguistics. It is
reasonable to suggest that the role of classical archaeology has strengthened.
Research in education is divided into several different areas with quite widely divergent
interests. There are major research groups and units in the fields of research on learning,
training and development in the workplace, teaching technology, educational policy,
evaluation and subject didactics. Three of these areas are covered in the Academy’s
research programme Life as Learning that was launched at the end of 2002: research
on learning, training in the workplace and teaching technology.
The organisation of Finnish education research into ever larger projects has helped to
give it greater international exposure. However, there are still no more than a handful of
researchers (in the fields of workplace development, learning and teaching technology,
educational sociology and educational policy) who enjoy international recognition.
Multidisciplinary cooperation among different units and more advanced publishing
practices would certainly allow the discipline better to meet the needs of society and add
to its international visibility. As far as publishing is concerned it is important to make
a clearer distinction between publications dedicated to academic discussion and debate
and those aimed at practical application.
In education, the past few years have seen quite rapid growth in project funding
from outside sources, mainly the Academy of Finland, the EU, the National Board of
Education, other government agencies, local governments, foundations and to some
extent business companies. There are three graduate schools in this field.
Linguistics has the great advantage that it is intrinsically an international and

multidisciplinary field of research. A major force of domestic cooperation in this field
is the national graduate school Langnet, which covers both Finnish and Swedish
(Finland’s two official languages) and foreign languages. Research in this field has been
highly rated in several international evaluations.
One shadow hanging over the future of this field is the ever greater predominance of
the English language, which has now reached the point where some other languages
are reporting problems recruiting new students. The numbers dropping out is another
cause of some concern. One of the options universities may well have to consider is a
240
rearrangement of their national division of labour and increased Nordic networking:
this might help to safeguard the diversity and high standard of language education
and research.
Although most language students are pragmatically oriented to teaching, translation,

technical communication and other modern language occupations, there is also
growing interest in postgraduate studies. However, the majority of PhD graduates still
take up an academic career because neither the school system, public administration
nor business and industry seem to be interested in recruiting PhDs. Most of the research
funding also comes from the Academy of Finland and various foundations.
Fennistics obviously has research interests all of its own that tie in with Finnish
language heritage, but otherwise it is largely preoccupied with the same kind of research
questions as foreign language studies more generally. The fact that all these disciplines
share the same graduate school has also contributed to increased research cooperation
across language boundaries. Theoretical and applied research in language technology
both have a prominent role in general linguistics by virtue of the national and Nordic
language technology programme. Training and research in the field of logopedics has
received a major boost in recent years, and discussions are currently underway on the
possibility of expanding research and teaching in this field beyond the universities of
Helsinki and Oulu in order to meet the high demand.
As far as methodology is concerned, the most noteworthy trend is surely the growing
impact of corpus linguistics: the collection and analysis of domain-specific corpora is
central to many Academy-supported projects. There is growing need in comparative
corpus research for an extensive and annotated standard corpus of the Finnish
language. As well as applying new quantitative methods that are applicable with
electronic corpora, researchers are also making increasing use of multidisciplinary
qualitative methods.
There is one centre of excellence in the field of linguistics, viz. the Research Unit for
Variation and Change in English. The high standard of expertise at this centre should
be put to better use so that the whole field of linguistics could benefit.
New emerging lines of inquiry include various socio-linguistic themes, discourse

research and pragmatics. Likewise, there has been growing research into the social
relevance of language use and themes related to professional language work.
The growth of international cooperation is based upon diverse patterns of exchange

and interaction between people who speak different languages. Concealed in these
processes are new and important objects of study that researchers have not yet fully
appreciated. In general the human ability to translate thoughts into words and to take
part in various decision-making and human relations processes is set to become an
increasingly important area of multidisciplinary research.
There is more and more cooperation with other closely related disciplines as well. This
is crucially important for research into such questions as the relationship between
language and culture, the psychological foundations of language learning, the identity
241
and socialisation of immigrants and other bilingual people, speech recognition and
automatic language processing more generally.
Cultural research is carried on in numerous fields of humanities research (literary

studies and arts research, cultural history, media studies, aesthetics) and in numerous
social sciences (such as cultural sociology, environmental aesthetics). In all these
fields the scope of research interests has been expanding and work has taken on an
increasingly multidisciplinary nature − to such an extent that it is now impossible to
categorise research in this field under any one heading.
In the discussion below, cultural research is understood as referring to ethnological and

anthropological disciplines, which are taken to represent expertise on popular culture
and foreign cultures. Ethnological and anthropological sciences have continued to
broaden their scope of interests from their traditional themes towards such issues as
the modernisation of culture and post-modernity. In today’s world of globalisation and
localisation, research into ethnicity has also taken on a new look.
Growth and expansion in these fields, mainly through the adoption of new research
themes and fresh theories and methods, have led to increasing diversification and
fragmentation with important benefits. Internationalisation and methodological
reform have also helped to strengthen one of the core areas of research (classical
folklore).
Interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity have increased: these fields have more and
more cooperation now, both in the context of research projects and postgraduate
training, with cultural women’s studies, cultural sociology, media studies, textiles,
clothing and craft design studies and cultural geography, for example. Interdisciplinarity
has been promoted by the adoption of new research interests, a stronger theoretical
approach and by the use of new (e.g. visual) materials. The graduate school in this field
is shared with ethnological disciplines. In addition, a number of postgraduate students
in ethnological and anthropological disciplines are researching their theses at thematic
graduate schools.
As cultural research has continued to grow and expand, so it has assumed increasing
weight and significance. Researchers and experts are now being trained to produce,
analyse, interpret and apply information about cultures. Hence the growing scientific
as well as social impact of research.
The main strength of law lies in its immediate applicability, i.e. its close links with
legislative work, the enactment of laws and legal praxis as well as with discussions on
legal policy. In other words, law has close and direct, real-time interaction with society
and its development.
Research in law has traditionally consisted mainly of monographs by individual

researchers. This has always given the discipline a certain air of cliquishness; its
scientific status has never really been challenged. However in this regard, too, the
younger generation of researchers is clearly showing signs of greater openness and an
eagerness to work more closely especially with other social scientists.
242
There is a strong and very productive tradition of legal dogmatic research in Finland,
but recently growing attention has also been paid to methodological diversity,
particularly in doctoral training. Finnish legal scholars compare favourably with
colleagues in the other Nordic countries, both in terms of the volume and the quality
of their production.
Relevant branches of law have been closely and dynamically involved in ongoing
processes of internationalisation, and European law has grown into an independent
discipline at universities. Among the most recent newly independent branches of law are
women’s legal studies, legal linguistics and sports law. In the future regional jurisprudence
may well emerge as a topical branch of law in the fields of legal anthropology and legal
history, possibly contributing to international comparative law.
Looking ahead to the future, new branches of law may be expected to develop in
response to advances in biotechnology and information technology (medical law,
media law). Changes in social values, such as those related to the environment, will
also require new lines of research and closer cooperation with both natural scientists
and humanists.
Psychology departments at Finnish universities are strongly oriented to research. There

are several neuropsychological research groups in the country that enjoy international
recognition: all of them rely upon multidisciplinary cooperation and state-of-the-art
imaging techniques. The most important line of research is that concerned with the
neurological foundation of linguistic development.
Significant research has also been done in the fields of developmental psychology,
personality and motivation research as well as experimental cognitive research.
Postgraduate training in psychology is mainly organised in research groups, although
the national graduate school plays a major role as well.
Publishing in psychology is concentrated in international journals, and within the

discipline the international visibility of research is monitored by means of citation
indices (in the same way as in the natural sciences). This approach to assessing the
quality of research that relies upon international feedback certainly provides a useful
vantage-point for the further development of research. At the same time, though, it
may well narrow the scope of psychological research to such themes that are most likely
to get published in journals that are covered in publication databases.
Research in the social sciences proper – sociology, social policy, social psychology
and social work – shows a high degree of specialisation and internationalisation.
Research in these disciplines has been geared to addressing current challenges in the
social policy domain. One of the areas that has shown particularly impressive progress
is social-scientific women’s studies. International publishing has increased to some
extent, although there is much variation in the speed of change between different
themes and areas of specialisation.
The stable development and regeneration of the social sciences proper has been
supported through core funding and multidisciplinary research programmes. The
243
graduate school system, for its part, has contributed to their institutionalisation:
continuity here has been represented by schools within specific disciplines, renewal
and regeneration in turn by schools dedicated to specific research themes. The
Research Council has recently been preparing the Research Programme on Social
Capital and Networks of Trust that will be launched in 2004. Apart from the social
sciences proper, the programme will involve numerous other fields of cultural and
social research as well as health research. The programme is aimed at raising the
scientific quality of research in this thematic area, promoting multidisciplinary and
international research and at increasing the social and scientific visibility of cultural
and social research.
Academy research programmes and graduate schools have contributed significantly to

domestic cooperation in the fields of social sciences proper. International networking
has been much slower: successes in research cooperation have been more or less
sporadic and in many cases based upon international funding programmes. Indeed,
a major new challenge for research projects in the social sciences proper is to promote
closer international cooperation and networking.
Ever since the early 1980s Finnish social sciences proper have been in a state of
methodological transition. On the one hand, both the research techniques and the
thinking that lies behind the traditional quantitative methods of empirical research
have developed rapidly. On the other hand, considerable effort has been invested in
developing qualitative methods. To an extent this work has been quite successful – but
primarily in terms of popular and media interest rather than in terms of rigorous
scientific progress. In view of the changes brought about by globalisation and Finland’s
current membership of the European Union, the international impact of Finnish
research − for instance in the field of comparative studies in the social sciences proper
− remains quite modest.
Arts research is conducted at both science and arts universities. In recent years
the field has expanded enormously, and at the same time it has shown strong
internationalisation. Special attention has been devoted to developing postgraduate
training at arts universities. The major arts subjects at science universities are literature,
music and art history.
An important strength of literary studies (and at once a problem) is the division of the
discipline between several different strands of research: so widely do the premises of
some of these lines of inquiry differ from one another that it will soon be difficult to
talk of one coherent discipline of literary studies. These trends have led to theoretical
and methodological reform, to deliberations on the distinctive qualities of literary
studies and to multidisciplinary networking particularly in the field of cultural
studies concerned with gender systems, ethnicities and the environment, for instance.
Researchers are moving across the old dividing line between Finnish literature and
comparative literature all the time: instead the main focus of research at universities
now is upon specific themes, such as lyrics and the institution of literature. Among the
disciplines most closely related to literary studies, aesthetics and theatre research have
invested heavily in internationalisation. In the field of aesthetics, the strongest lines are
represented by environmental aesthetics and phenomenological aesthetics.
244
Research in music is traditionally concentrated upon the historical and analytical
study of art music. In recent years, however, these lines have remained more in the
background as several other approaches have emerged that draw upon premises from
outside the realm of music research (such as cognitive music research, ethnomusicology,
feminist music research and semiotics).
The main strengths of art history have traditionally been in empirical research, but
in recent years, with the growth of a more theoretical orientation, some researchers
have been calling for a distinction to be made between research in visual cultural and
traditional empirical research in fine arts.
Literature and art history both have their own graduate schools, which has been
important for doctoral training. In the field of music there are some smaller and more
closely profiled graduate schools. Project funding from the Academy of Finland has
helped to cover some of the areas that remain outside the scope of these schools.
Research and postgraduate training at arts universities have shown strong growth.
Each of the arts universities in the country has its own rather distinctive profile in
postgraduate training. A special challenge for postgraduate training at arts universities
is presented by the question of how to combine the diverse elements of science and the
arts.
Within the field of economics, research in different areas of national economics and
business administration covers a broad spectrum of issues from the operation of the
markets and the public economy through to problems of selection behaviour in private
households. The traditions and approaches in different strands of economics and
business administration vary widely. In terms of methodology, economics has remained
a more coherent field of research than business administration. The need for research
and training in these fields has increased as a result of accelerating technological
change and the greater knowledge-intensity of the economy.
Economics traditionally has an important role among the social sciences. It also
figures prominently in the field of business administration, because it is important
for companies to have a clear understanding of their broader operating environment.
The discipline has organised cooperation in training and research and it has run a
national postgraduate training programme since 1990. The departments of economics
within the metropolitan Helsinki area are joining forces to set up a major unit in
economics.
Research in these fields has been geared to addressing the challenges thrown up
by economic development. Much of the work has been concerned with the recent,
exceptionally severe recession in Finland as well as the processes of EU integration
and monetary union. New areas of research are represented by the globalisation of
the economic environment and advances in information technology. The development
of the international economy and new information products have also presented new
questions for research on economic structures, growth theory, incentive systems and
financing. Analysis of the economic sustainability of the welfare state is an important
and topical area of research.
245
Economists have become more closely involved in debates on economic policy and
in various expert positions, which now include the assessment of European economic
policy. Empirical research has been strengthened by virtue of new databases and
methodological tools. Work by Finnish economists is more and more often published
internationally, and they are also in demand for international positions of expertise.
Large numbers go abroad to continue their studies after graduation, and many Finnish
scholars have been appointed to professorships in other countries.
Business administration is divided into a number of disciplines, the most important of

which are management and organisation, accounting and financing, and marketing
and international business. Entrepreneurship and logistics have also emerged as
independent disciplines. Research traditions in business administration are highly
diverse and not necessarily limited to economic issues; to some extent their problem-
oriented vantage-points are in fact quite far removed from economics. Research
traditions in this field are less established than in economics, but the number of
professors and other researchers is much greater. There is a national graduate school in
the field that is organised around individual disciplines.
Based upon knowledge and know-how, Finland’s development strategy as well as the
globalisation of business have created a growing demand for business know-how.
The networked structures of efficient production and e-commerce have presented new
challenges for research. Deregulation and internationalisation in the financial markets
have inspired new research into corporate strategies, financial administration and
financing. Another focus of research has been upon entrepreneurship and human
resource management.
Postgraduate training has increased in response to the growing demand for PhDs both
at universities and in the business sector. Drawing upon external sources of funding,
universities in economics and business administration have stepped up their research
effort and launched development units to provide an effective university interface
vis-à-vis business companies. The Academy of Finland is supporting the research
programme for Finnish Companies and the Challenges of Globalisation (LIIKE)
that started up in 2001 in order to strengthen research in economics and business
administration and to promote business know-how. The two main challenges in this
field are to strengthen the research tradition and to promote the internationalisation
of research.
The principal theological disciplines are biblical exegetics, church history, systematic
theology and practical theology with its various branches. The latest newcomer
is comparative religion, which has expanded significantly in recent years. The
methodology applied in these fields is largely shared in common by such closely related
disciplines as classical and Semitic philology, literary studies, philosophy, history,
education and psychology.
Theological centres of excellence have close contacts of cooperation with

multidisciplinary networks across Europe as well as in the United States. These
centres of excellence, the EU project in church history coordinated by the University
of Helsinki and ESF networks have significantly contributed to postgraduate training
246
and to methodological development of the field in Finland. There are also several other
projects in theology that have close contacts with corresponding projects abroad; most
of these are funded by the Academy of Finland.
New methodological openings have been made in studies of religious communities,

voluntary work in the third sector, values in education as well as in research into
the humanities dimensions of social capital. There is also multidisciplinary research
cooperation in the field of modern church art and architecture as well as in Middle East
archaeology. The new theological faculty at the University of Joensuu provides a meeting
place for western and eastern, i.e. the research tradition of Orthodox theology.
Research in theology should seek to step its involvement in current theological

discussions: it needs to contribute more intensively to debates in society on questions
of values and morality, to the analysis of the welfare state and to the dialogue between
different religions both at home and abroad, especially in EU contexts.
The discipline of political science comprises general political science, international

politics and administrative science. There are two fields that enjoy international
exposure: research into contingency and conceptual changes in politics and research
concerned with voting behaviour and voting procedures. Political science and
international politics have a joint graduate school.
Traditional research themes in political science include political institutions, power,

decision-making and voting behaviour. Empirical research into political behaviour
and opinion formation has also been promoted by developing social-scientific data
archives. Political science also comprises politological research concerned with political
systems other than the state institution.
Research into international relations has dealt with such issues as globalisation,
European integration and peace research. Several universities have research units
and posts dedicated to European research (Jean Monnet professorships). In 2002 the
Academy of Finland commissioned an international evaluation of Finnish research in
the field of foreign and security policy. The findings indicated that work in this field
covers a wide range of research issues. The main emphasis is upon problems in Finnish
foreign policy both in a national and regional and in a European context. Finland’s
relations with the Baltic states and the Nordic countries and especially with the EU have
also received some attention.
The reviewers came to the conclusion that political science in Finland should move
away from background analysis and interpretation of current phenomena and devote
more attention to comparative international studies. Furthermore, they recommended
that research in foreign and security policy adopt a stronger international orientation;
that greater effort be invested in developing postgraduate training; that research careers
be supported by means of funding instruments; and that international publishing be
increased.
Administrative sciences have mainly addressed current development needs in the

field of social policy, concentrating on questions of national importance. Crucially, the
247
development of administrative sciences requires a concerted effort to raise the quality
of basic research as well as steps to build up an independent theoretical foundation,
leaning for instance on the tradition of organisation and governance theories. With
the continuing internationalisation of the public sector, there will also be a growing
need for internationally qualified experts in public administration. Administrative
sciences are set to gain increasing significance with the launch of the EU’s Citizens
and governance in the knowledge-based society programme under the sixth research
framework programme. A new line of work is represented by international comparative
research in which Finnish institutions of public administration and their work is
compared with corresponding institutions in other countries. The needs for this kind of
research will no doubt increase in the future with integration and the growing demands
of efficiency in the public sector.
Statistics provides important support to many lines of inquiry in the social sciences.
The past few years have seen significant changes in the field of statistics, and new
methods have been developed outside the realm of traditional statistics in computer
science and mathematics. Biosciences have emerged as an important area of application
for statistical methods alongside the social sciences.
The broad field of communication sciences is in a constant state of flux. In particular,

there has been a sharp increase in the number of disciplines in media studies. A new
area of research is represented by everyday media use, for instance.
Diversity is at once the strength and the weakness of modern communication studies.
Continued internal dialogue is particularly important as research traditions and
concepts are drifting ever further apart. Indeed the main challenge for the future is how
to take advantage of the methodological diversity in this field.
Traditional areas of strength in the field of Finnish communications studies include

societally-oriented research in journalism and mass communication; research with
a humanistic and cultural orientation that has evolved alongside journalism and
mass communication (with some measure of overlap); and information studies,
which comprises information retrieval and questions of information management.
However, the long-standing division of the field between humanities and social
sciences oriented research is less pronounced than before. Interdisciplinarity
within the field has been strengthened by the national network of cooperation in
communication studies, which has included two graduate schools and involved close
research collaboration. The units involved specialise in the areas of organisational
communication, journalism, audiovisual and visual communication and information
sciences.
Communications researchers have been active to network both internationally

and across disciplinary boundaries. New areas of research interest include media
globalisation and digitalisation. Active participation in social discussions and debates
and close contact with people and organisations outside the academic world have been
another distinctive characteristic of communication studies.
248
Contents
4 Assessing the impacts of research in the humanities

and social sciences
It is particularly important in the field of cultural and social research to explore the
various mechanisms through which their impacts are conveyed to the society around.
To this end, a survey was organised in which researchers in ongoing Academy research
programmes under the Research Council for Culture and Society were asked in their own
words to describe the impacts of their scientific work. Together with more traditional
sources of information used for this purpose, this material provides useful insights
into the many different types of impact that research in the humanities and social
sciences can have. However, this dataset does not cover all the disciplines hosted by the
Research Council. For reasons that have to do with the way the data were collected, the
results cannot be directly generalised to the whole field of research, but they do serve to
complement the picture that is obtained from other sources.
The social impact of science and research refers to the influence that their results or the
expertise of scientists has upon social and political decision-making processes, upon
expert practices or upon public access to information. Some research in the social
sciences is directly addressed to practical problems and aimed specifically at supporting
informed decision-making. Some researchers, in their own accounts, referred to
situations where a research project has directly contributed to changing public services
or legislation. This kind of research with immediate impacts on social practices has
been conducted in law and the social sciences proper, among others.
However, in most cases the social impacts of research cannot be reduced to the
answers provided by one particular study to a given practical problem. Instead, those
impacts usually evolve over the longer term, in an incremental process of deepening
understanding. This understanding may be filtered through to social practices
in various different ways. One of the most important pathways is through initial
education at universities: here the new research knowledge is passed on to people who
are engaged in that particular field and its academic practices. Another important
channel is represented by general interest publications. In the field of cultural and
social research at least some research reports can be written in such a way that they are
accessible to ordinary readers beyond the research community. The difference between
scientific reporting and science popularisation is not as clearcut in these disciplines as it
is in the natural sciences. The researchers themselves felt that work they had published
for domestic audiences had had an impact on social issues. A third channel of social
impact is provided by participation in various working groups or in the writing up of
expert opinions. In assessing the impact of their own work, the researchers we consulted
had numerous examples of how they had taken part in an expert capacity in drafting
new practices or decisions. Some researchers occupied significant positions of expertise
in international bodies: in these cases researchers can be said to exercise social impact
at an international level.
Part of the general impact of research in culture and society is based upon the personal
contribution of researchers, in their capacity as independent and critical commentators,
to public discussions and debates. Researchers working in the humanities and arts
also have a major role to play in increasing and shaping the cultural consciousness.
249
Commentators with a background in social scientific research have contributed
to democracy by critically weighing the effectiveness and legitimacy of public
administration and political decision-making.
Where the social impacts of research are concerned, it is important to bear in mind
that those impacts are based not only on the results of work that researchers have
done themselves. Researchers and research groups also play a major role in importing
international research and scientific discussions into Finnish culture. Through the work
they have done, researchers have gained entry into international science communities
and networks, and that in turn has given them access to the latest research knowledge,
regardless of where it is produced.
Researchers in the field of culture and society could have a greater social impact than
they do today. Only some researchers have succeeded in finding various different means
and channels of impact; the expertise of large numbers of researchers remains largely
underutilised. Researcher training today provides only limited guidance in exercising
social impact based on scientific expertise. The systems in place at universities and
research institutes for purposes of bringing the latest research knowledge to the
attention of social debate and political decision-making, are also inadequate. The same
goes for the use of scientific expertise in the media, public administration and political
decision-making. The scarcity of people in the media and public administration with a
researcher training is one possible explanation.
A high quality of research is obviously crucial for science and research to have a social
impact. Assessments of this quality are most typically based upon indices that measure
the internal impacts of science. The impacts of an individual researcher working
within a given discipline may be either local or global. Local impact refers to the direct
measures through which the researcher has influenced her/his immediate scientific
community. Judging by the materials collected for our survey, the most important forms
of local impact include the training of the next generation of scientists, importing new
theoretical and methodological tools into Finnish research and assembling research
groups and networks. This category further comprises various functions in science
administration which are geared to maintaining and strengthening the infrastructures
of science and research. As far as local impacts are concerned, the conclusion seems
warranted that Finnish research has become more professional and more organised in
the humanities and social sciences. Many researchers involved in Academy research
programmes feel that securing the next generation of scientists, sharing know-how,
organising research groups and other infrastructure development are all an integral
part of the researcher’s job.
The global impact of science, then, refers to the connections of the individual
researcher’s or research group’s work with the general development of the discipline
concerned. The most important forms of global scientific discussion and debate are
represented by scientific publications and congresses. What matters most is the type
of forum on which and the frequency with which researchers get to publish their work
as well as how other researchers make use of that work. Other important indicators of
impact include international invitations to lecture and invitations to various positions
of scientific expertise and evaluation. On the basis of general statistical data and the
250
Contents
researchers’ own descriptions, the evidence is quite clear that publishing by researchers
in the humanities and social sciences has increased. The results also indicate that more
and more researchers are attending international congresses and aiming to publish in
international series.
In some disciplines (such as psychology), there are by now clear indications that
researchers are consciously seeking to gain international visibility through high-profile
journals and in this way to push up their citation indices. In Finland there are some
researchers in the humanities and social sciences who have, as judged by citation
impact factors, gained an exceptionally strong international position in their scientific
community. However, disciplines within the humanities and social sciences differ
quite sharply from one another in this respect. In most disciplines the services that
compile citation figures provide very poor coverage of the most important publication
channels. In these cases it is impossible to draw reliable conclusions on the basis of the
statistics compiled about the global impacts of individual researchers. By contrast the
researchers’ own descriptions allow us to draw the conclusion that there are in these
fields quite a substantial number of researchers now who are regularly invited to lecture
at important congresses and whose expertise is widely used in reviewing publications
and in different researcher networks.
5 Conclusions and recommendations

This review of the current state of research in the humanities and social sciences has
drawn attention to various issues related to the procedures and methods of evaluation
itself and to the information made available for evaluation:
• Methods of research evaluation need to be developed in order that a clearer picture
can be gained of both the internal scientific impacts of research and above all of the
social impacts of research. Traditional methods of evaluation provide only a narrow
picture of the impacts of science and research. Improved methods are needed to
describe how the outputs and new ways of thinking produced in humanities and
social sciences research are conveyed through to practices in society.
• International exposure and impact are crucial considerations in the assessing the
quality of scientific work. The sources of information currently available do not
provide a sufficiently reliable basis for valid assessments in the field of social scientific
and humanities research. There is a need for more comprehensive databases with
more balanced geographical coverage of publishing in these fields. The ESF initiative
for the development of a new publication and citation database in the humanities
should be implemented as soon as possible.
Our review of the internal and social impacts of science and research has also drawn
attention to the question of the most appropriate channels of publishing in social
and cultural research. Many high-profile groups in different disciplines have already
achieved quite a prominent status in the international scientific debate and their
publishing is compatible with the best international practice. However, in many fields
publishing in humanities and social sciences research does not provide the groups
concerned with the kind of international visibility that their research would warrant.
• Continued attention needs to be paid to developing high-quality publishing strategies
in the humanities and social sciences. From the earliest stages of researcher training,
251
researchers should learn about international publishing practices and be taught the
skills and competencies they need in order to get their high quality work published
in esteemed international journals.
• In the human sciences, language requirements are much stricter in international
publishing than they are in medicine and the natural sciences. Special measures
of support are needed to help researchers in the humanities and social sciences get
over the language barrier and meet the rigorous style and grammar requirements
of high-profile international publishers.
• In research funding decisions as well as in scheduling research projects, it is
important to make sure that enough time and resources are set aside for the careful
preparation of manuscripts for articles and books.
It has become clear in this review of social impacts that researchers do not always
have the skills and competencies required by science popularisation or other forms of
persuasion based on scientific work. Scientific organisations also provide inadequate
support for the social impacts of research.
• Researcher training in the fields of cultural and social research should pay closer
attention to the different forms and pathways of social impact. Specifically, this
means researchers should learn how better to target their publishing; learn the
proper skills of scientific publishing; and also learn about the special requirements
involved in science popularisation.
• In supporting the efforts of universities to fulfil their new functions in social and
regional service, special consideration should be given to the ways in which
researchers could bring the latest findings from their own work as well as from their
discipline more generally to benefit society as a whole.
In the process of appraising applications for research funding, reviewers time and
again discover that there are numerous theoretical schools within the field of cultural
and social research that are unaware of the work that is going on elsewhere, or that
intentionally refrain from referring to that work even when they are clearly addressing
the same or closely related research problem. This narrow-minded focus on one’s own
line of research may seriously hinder the accumulation of theoretical and empirical
knowledge in the human sciences. Feedback from foreign reviewers in particular
suggests that Finnish researchers in the field of culture and society are not always able
to provide a very impressive account of the methods they have used. This points at
problems, on the one hand, in the tradition of writing up research plans and research
reports; on the other hand, it also suggests that knowledge and know-how in the field
of research methodology are not of a sufficiently high standard.
• In human sciences research special attention ought to be paid to the ways in which
the development of science and the accumulation of scientific knowledge can be
promoted. A good knowledge of research traditions and ethically sound citation
practices is of great importance.
• Many fields of research in culture and society should pay more attention to
improving knowledge in research methodology. The aim should be that doctoral
students gain an in-depth understanding of the methodology in their own field and
also learn about the latest methodological trends internationally.
252
In recent years the solutions adopted in Finnish research funding have provided a
sound basis for intensive researcher training in the context of graduate schools and
research projects. The decrease in the amount of funding made available to culture and
social research as a proportion of the net total has meant, however, that opportunities
for a long-term research effort have not increased to the same extent.
• Where future funding decisions are made it is important to make sure that research
in culture and society has access to resources that correspond to its growing
challenges.
• For reasons of securing the continued international success of Finnish science and
research, and also for reasons of supporting individual research careers, more
attention needs to be given to the postdoctoral stage, which is when researchers
should work to gain a prominent status in the international science community.
253
Contents
References


Suomen tieteen tila ja taso. Kulttuurin ja yhteiskunnan tutkimus (1997). Suomen

Akatemian julkaisuja 8/97.

Technology 1999: 1.
Women Studies and Gender Research in Finland. Evaluation Report. Publications of the

2001. Tutkimustoiminnan menot rahoituslähteen mukaan tieteenaloittain (2003).
Other sources
Descriptions solicited from researchers involved in ongoing Academy research
programmes about the scientific and social impacts of their research.
Interim reports by the scientific advisory boards of centres of excellence in the

humanities and social sciences funded by the Academy of Finland in 2000−2005.
254
Contents
Appendix 1. Research Council for Culture and Society

in 2001−2003
Chair
Arto Mustajoki, Professor
Kaija Heikkinen, Docent

University of Joensuu
Liisi Huhtala, Professor

University of Oulu
Marja Järvelä, Professor

Aila Lauha, Professor

Erno Lehtinen, Professor

University of Turku
Paavo Okko, Professor

Turku School of Economics and Business Administration
Juha Sihvola, Professor

Lauri Suurpää, Professor

Sibelius Academy
Terttu Utriainen, Professor

University of Lapland
Krista Varantola, Professor

Science Adviser Helena Vänskä and Science Adviser Jaana Salmensivu-Anttila from the
Academy’s Culture and Society Research Unit were involved in preparing the Research
Council’s report.
255
256
Contents
HEALTH RESEARCH
257
258
Contents
1 Revisiting the 1997 and 2000 reviews: to what extent have . . . . . . . . . 261
the recommendations been met?
2 Assessment of health research funding in 1997 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 261

2.1 Research funding by the Research Council for Health in 1995–1999 . . . . . . 263
and 2001–2002
3 Assessing the quality of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264

3.1 Biomedicine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
3.2 Clinical research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
3.3 Dentistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
3.4 Veterinary medicine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
3.5 Public health research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
3.6 Environmental health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
3.7 Sport sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
3.8 Nutrition research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
3.9 Nursing science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
3.10 Pharmaceutical research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
4 Impact of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

4.1 Impacts of research on public health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
4.2 Impact of research funding for biotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
4.3 The pharmaceutical industry: a major user of health research . . . . . . . . . . 275
5 Conclusions and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Appendix 1. Research Council for Health in 2001–2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
259
260
Contents
1 Revisiting the 1997 and 2000 reviews: to what extent

have the recommendations been met?
In the Academy’s review of the state and quality of scientific research in Finland
in 2000, the Research Council for Health noted with satisfaction that most of the
recommendations put forward in the 1997 review had been met in the three-year
interim. Today, the Council is in the position to make the same observation with regard
to the review in 2000: most of its recommendations have been picked up and the
problems identified in the research system addressed.
In 2000, drawing upon on its review of the state and quality of scientific research
in Finland, the Academy of Finland suggested that (1) core budget funding to
universities be increased with a view to strengthening the front end of the research
and education system. Decisions and steps taken by Parliament and the Ministry
of Education have helped to satisfy this recommendation. The decision to add
a 12.5 per cent overheads share to all Academy research appropriations has
also served to consolidate the financial situation of universities. (2) The second
recommendation in 2000 called for increased national and international cooperation
among research funding bodies with a view to meeting the shortfall in funding for
health research. The Research Council for Health has responded by stepping up its
cooperation with hospital districts, national foundations and international bodies.
The recommendations aimed at (3) strengthening the clinical research career and
increasing clinical research funding have led to the decision to start up a national
clinical graduate school and a research programme in health services research. (4)
The Council’s decision to establish a support centre for register research utilising
national registers in the health care sector is also in line with the recommendations
of the 2000 review. In its report in 2000 the Council also (5) expressed its concern
over the decline of small disciplines. This remains an ongoing concern, in spite of
the Council’s efforts to strengthen these fields both through additional support for
researcher training (veterinary medicine, nursing science and psychiatry), calls for
targeted appropriations (pharmaceutical research and development) and through
support for the creation of Nordic and European graduate school and researcher
networks (e.g. in the fields of dentistry and child psychiatry). The previous review on
the state and quality of science and research also emphasised (6) the importance of
ethical, social and economic issues. All of these have received closer attention in new
research programmes and in the curricula of graduate schools.
2 Assessment of health research funding in 1997 and 2000

As is pointed out in the two previous reviews, figures for research and product
development expenditure in medical sciences cannot be obtained directly from
Statistics Finland sources. The main difficulty is that research work done at biocentres
is classified in these sources under the natural sciences or engineering and technology,
even though most of that work is without question health research (biomedicine).
Academy expenditure on researcher training abroad and membership fees to
international organisations are also excluded from Statistics Finland figures. For
these reasons a substantial proportion of funding by the Research Council for Health
appears to be channelled to sectors outside the fields of medical and nursing science.
261
The reader is advised to bear this in mind when studying the figures and summaries
attached.
In 1997 the Research Council for Health estimated the total volume of funding for
health research at 281 million euros. In 2001, according to Statistics Finland, the
figure had risen to 470 million euros (an increase of 67%) mainly as a result of
substantial additional investment by the pharmaceutical industry: these figures
showed an increase of 190 per cent from 68 million euros in 1997 to 197 million
euros in 2001. The corresponding figures in the university sector were 85 and 123
million euros (up by 45%), in university hospitals 64 and 74 million euros (up by
16%) and in research institutes under the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health 62
and 76 million euros (up by 23%). In other words, it is the research and product
development investment by the pharmaceutical industry that accounts for most of
the strong growth in this field of research, whereas hospitals and research institutes
have seen very little real growth.
Table 1 provides a more detailed picture of trends in R&D spending in universities and
university hospitals from 1997 to 2001 by sources of funding.
Table 1. R&D in the university sector in 1997 and 2001.*
Source of funding Medical sciences, Biology and environmental

€ million sciences, € million
1997 2001 1997 2001
Core budget funding (own funding) 58.2 66.1 25.8 29.4
Academy of Finland 11.3 15.6 13.2 21.8
Other Ministry of Education funding
0.6 4.0 0.8 3.3
(including graduate schools)
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health 56.9 55.4 0.2 0.04
National Technology Agency Tekes 3.6 12.4 2.4 6.5
Other ministries (including other Ministry of
1.4 2.5 1.7 1.7
Trade and Industry funding)
Municipalities 0.4 1.5 0.6 1.3
Other public funding 1.1 2.5 0.3 0.5
Domestic funds 2.6 8.2 0.5 1.7
Domestic business companies 3.1 9.2 1.7 2.7
Foreign funds 0.6 1.2 0.2 0.1
Foreign business companies 4.3 8.4 0.4 0.4
EU funding 2.7 5.7 2.7 3.1
Other foreign funding 1.4 3.0 0.6 0.5
Universities’ own funds 1.5 1.1 0.6 0.5
Universities total 85.3 122.7 51.7 73.6
University hospitals total 64.2 74.1
Total research expenditure
by university sector 149.6 196.8 51.7 73.6
* Research expenditure in medical sciences as well as in biology and environmental sciences by source of funding
(million euros).
262
Contents
2.1 Research funding by the Research Council for Health

in 1995–1999 and 2001–2002
The Research Council for Health is the smallest of the Academy’s four research councils,
accounting for 18 per cent of the total volume of Academy research funding. In 2001
the Council awarded 35 million euros to support Finnish research in this field, which
represents seven per cent of total research expenditure in the medical and nursing sector
in 2001. Most of the support for health research goes to biomedicine (cell, molecular
and developmental biology and biochemistry; Figure 1).
Figure 1. Academy of Finland funding for health research by field of research (million
euros) in 1997–2002.
In addition to the direct funding decisions made by the Research Council, biomedicine
benefits from funding through research programmes and centres of excellence
programmes: all funding decisions for the latter are made by separate subcommittees.
However, if we compare the average proportions of applications that are approved
in different fields of research, there is not very much difference between these figures
(Figure 2).
There is more year-on-year variation in smaller fields of research. The Research Council
for Health has been more or less even-handed in its treatment of applications from
different fields of research: the large differences in funding volumes merely reflect
differential success rates and to some extent differences in the average size of projects.
On the other hand, a growing proportion of research projects today are multidisciplinary
ventures, which means it is impossible to slot them under any single heading.
263
Contents
Figure 2. Number of funding decisions by the Research Council for Health relative to
number of applications, percentage shares in different fields of research in 2000–2002.
Figures in parentheses indicate totals for three-year period.
3 Assessing the quality of research
3.1 Biomedicine
While work continues to sequence the genomes of an ever-growing number of
organisms, biomedicine is proceeding in its research to the post-genomic stage:
to a broader analysis of interactions between organisms, cells, cell organells and
macromolecules, to a study of complete metabolic pathways and to the application
of the evidence amassed for purposes of unravelling disease processes and developing
new pharmaceuticals and therapies. At the same time the biomedical paradigm is
transforming from hypothesis-driven research to discovery-driven research and moving
towards more integrative approaches. In addition, the study of diseases is turning its
attention to interactions between hereditary factors, the environment and lifestyle.
Bioinformatics, the discipline of science that specialises in the compilation of databases
and in the computer-aided analysis of research data, has become one of the fastest-
growing areas of research in the biosciences. In the wake of these trends, biocentres
have emerged as important multidisciplinary research environments for high-quality
research and highly specialised support services (e.g. genotyping, microchip analysis,
proteomics, structural research and imaging). Biocentres also play a major role in
postgraduate training and in the development of new innovations.
The recent international evaluation of the impact of public research funding on

Finnish biotechnology (Biotechnology in Finland... 2002) took a broad view on
264
Contents
the discipline and defined it as comprising the bulk of basic life science research
as well as its applications. According to the evaluation report the marked increase
in research funding over the past 15 years has produced impressive progress in the
biosector. Finland has several national centres of excellence that are at the very
cutting edge of international research. The evaluation report also pointed out that
Finland’s biocentres have played a major role in raising the quality standards of
research as well as in pulling down barriers between different disciplines and between
bodies outside the university sector. In particular, the panel of experts was impressed
by the long-term and consistent efforts and investments by the Ministry of Education,
the Academy of Finland, the National Technology Agency and the National Public
Health Institute to strengthen the facilities and resources for biotechnology research
in keeping with the policy decisions of the Science and Technology Policy Council of
Finland. Finland’s research and technology programmes received strong recognition
in the evaluation, as did the support provided by the Academy of Finland for
national infrastructures. The Academy of Finland has also made determined efforts
to step up its international cooperation in research funding. All in all the evaluation
concluded that the steps taken in Finland have strengthened the national research
and innovation system, contributing to the country’s success in several international
comparisons.
Targets for development

Major new investments are going to be needed in research equipment if biomedicine
is to remain at the cutting edge of research. In recent years these needs have been
met by setting up centralised service units (core facilities) at biocentres with special
biotechnology funding from the Ministry of Education: these steps have helped to
provide biomedicine with research facilities and resources of an international standard.
Since the development of research equipment is set to continue apace, it is crucial
that continued support is made available for these investments. At the same time it is
important to provide adequate support to research groups working outside biocentres,
centres of excellence and research programmes. Furthermore, funds are needed to cover
the salary costs of highly trained experts at central service units. These experts do not
necessarily have their own research profile, and therefore they are not in a position to
benefit from the Academy’s current funding instruments. Biocentres ought to further
step up their cooperation. Model organisms ought to be added to the Finnish research
palette as soon as their genomes are sequenced, and greater attention should be paid
to the cross-use and comparison of different model organisms. Further effort should
also be invested in the development of transgenic mice technology. The development of
know-how in bioinformatics is considered a special priority.
3.2 Clinical research

Finland has a high standard of health care and the medical profession has traditionally
been actively involved in research. However, most of this research is a sideline to full-
time clinical duties and therefore remains on a rather modest scale; lack of time and
scarce resources have effectively prevented a more professional approach. Indeed in this
situation a clinical research career is not necessarily the most attractive proposition for
young medical doctors: already they are under considerable pressures of workload in
265
health care, specialisation requires several years of intensive study and in many cases it
is at this same stage of life that people begin to have a family. Yet the health care system
needs to be backed up by high-level clinical research in order that it can continue to
provide a high-quality service. Evidence-based medicine has clearly highlighted the
importance of well-designed and well-implemented clinical research. High-quality
clinical research also requires training. The recent launch of the National Graduate
School for Clinical Research provides a solid foundation for the systematic development
of clinical researcher training.
The Finnish health care system has established a firm and reliable foundation for
clinical research in medicine. Increasing cooperation and networking between clinical
research, basic biomedical research and epidemiological research has helped to further
raise the quality of work in these fields. In particular, research in molecular genetics,
epidemiology and clinical pharmaceuticals have achieved widespread international
recognition. Strong traditions have also been built up in research into certain common
diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and neurodegenerative disorders.
The launch of a national centre for register research will support the use of our
internationally unique registers for purposes of clinical research.
Finland has a prominent role in clinical trials. Although Finland accounts for no more
than 0.4 per cent of the international pharmaceuticals market, around eight per cent of
all clinical trials on new pharmaceuticals are carried out in Finland. This is based upon
certain national strengths in health care registers as well as in the academic research
tradition in certain clinical fields. A new universal trend is that clinical trials are more
and more often conducted outside academic environments. However, it is important
that university hospitals in particular continue to provide a supportive environment
for clinical trials. Another threat is represented by EU directives which are jeopardising
researcher-led innovation and indeed all research funded by sources other than the
pharmaceutical industry. In Finland a substantial fraction of clinical research has
consisted of studies commissioned by the pharmaceutical industry.
Basic education as well as scientific postgraduate training in medicine are provided by

universities under the auspices of the Ministry of Education. The bulk of clinical research
is carried out at university hospitals maintained by hospital districts and administered
by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and local councils, although the costs of
research are compensated to university hospitals in the form of so-called EVO grants from
central government. In 2001, EVO grants for health research amounted to 51.5 million
euros, for teaching the sum total was 54.3 million euros. Close to one-half of EVO grants
for research go to research projects selected in open competition and to cover researchers’
salary costs. Financial problems in the health care sector have reduced the amount of
funds allocated to research through the EVO scheme. A recent report commissioned by
the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health establishes new, healthier guidelines for the use
of EVO grants and the future strategy of clinical and systems research.
In 2001, some 18 per cent of the funding decisions by the Academy of Finland Research
Council for Health (some 4.9 million euros per annum) went to research projects in
clinical medicine. Although many centres of excellence are closely engaged in clinical
research, there is no centre in Finland that is specifically devoted to clinical medicine.
266
Contents
In its funding decisions concerning Academy Research Fellows, the Research Council for
Health has sought to take into account the special needs of clinical researchers and to
give them the opportunity to engage in clinical work during their fellowship.

Clinical researcher training needs to be further strengthened and the National Graduate
School for Clinical Research developed in close cooperation with other graduate schools.
A stronger multidisciplinary orientation is needed, together with more active exchange
between clinical research, biomedicine and epidemiology. Another major challenge
for the future is to maintain the appeal and attraction of the clinical research career.
Individual researchers should be encouraged to continue their postgraduate training
at research centres abroad and in general to invest in international networking. The
Research Council for Health supports the EVO working group’s recommendations,
which it feels would support the integration of clinical and health systems research.
Further the implementation of a national research strategy would contribute to a more
systematic, long-term research effort.
3.3 Dentistry
The changes that swept the field of dentistry in the 1990s had a hugely detrimental
effect on research. The decision to relaunch basic education in dentistry at the
University of Turku marks a first step in restoring the teaching and research posts that
were more than halved in number following cutbacks in the early 1990s. Research in
dentistry has also struggled to accommodate to the reorganisation of clinical patient
work as part of the health care system at community health centre or central hospital
level as from the beginning of 2000. Both the universities of Helsinki and Oulu have
tried to resolve this problem. However, in both of the models adopted the changes have
hampered the recruitment of young dentistry researchers in this field. In recent years
most of the Academy’s support to dentistry awarded on the basis of open competition
has been channelled to a few select groups. There is one centre of excellence in the field
that specialises in the dental developmental biology. Another centre of excellence that
concentrates on biomaterials research also includes a dentistry component. Research in
the field has clearly benefited from networking among Nordic and European research
and researcher training in dentistry.

As the difficulties in dentistry research continue to persist, the field will apparently need
special measures of support in order to remain internationally competitive. Although
its integration with the community health centre and hospital system has meant that
dentistry research is now eligible for EVO grants, the level of research funding available
for this field is not at all satisfactory. Efforts to encourage closer collaboration among
different dentistry units have not been entirely successful, apparently because of the
different research approaches at these units. Closer integration with medical research
might help to promote the development of research and postgraduate training in
dentistry. A national review of the state of dentistry research and postgraduate training
might also provide useful clues for future directions of development. Dentistry does not
267
Contents
have a graduate school of its own; the integration of the discipline into local graduate
schools has also been somewhat problematic. However, dentistry is represented at the
National Graduate School for Clinical Research.
3.4 Veterinary medicine

The University of Helsinki Faculty of Veterinary Medicine will be moving to the Viikki
Campus in 2004−2006. With the Veterinary Medicine and Food Standards Research
Institute (EELA) making the same move, the biosciences cluster at the campus will
provide a strong foundation indeed for the growth and development of veterinary
medicine research in a multidisciplinary environment. The Faculty is also keen to
establish closer contact with research groups at the Meilahti Campus, and in 2003 it
has joined forces with the Faculty of Medicine to set up a five-year professorship in viral
zoonosis. The centre of excellence in biomaterials research also includes a veterinary
medicine component.
Since 1999 the Faculty has run a postgraduate training programme in veterinary
medicine. That programme has been developed in close collaboration with two
graduate schools based at Viikki. In addition, the Faculty continues to work closely
with the Nordic Forestry, Veterinary and Agricultural University (NOVA), which will
be having an increasingly prominent role in postgraduate training especially in
clinical fields. In line with the development plan for veterinary medicine, the Research
Council for Health has primarily supported researcher training, allocated vacancies for
postgraduate training, supported postdoctoral researcher training abroad and provided
funding for training courses within the context of the veterinary medicine researcher
training programme.

Further intensification of researcher training remains a key priority in the development
of veterinary medicine. More attention should be given to training needs especially
after completion of the doctoral thesis, when researchers have the opportunity to move
to other research groups, preferably abroad, and eventually to repatriate. The Faculty
should also invest greater effort in defining and delineating the strategic goals and
priorities of research. In this it should take note of other disciplines, particularly those
that are active at the Viikki Campus, seeking to make the best possible use of synergy
benefits in pursuing those goals.
3.5 Public health research

EU legislation and world trade agreements are likely to have a profound effect upon
health promotion and the health care system in Finland. The recent changes that have
taken place in social living conditions and public health in Finland’s neighbouring
regions, the opening up of the Finnish labour market to people from these countries as
well as changes in Finland’s demographic structure (its low fertility rate and population
ageing) and the regional breakdown of the population are all putting the health care
system under considerable pressure.
268
The new technology produced by research in biomedicine as well as the blurring of
priorities resulting from commercial marketing, have thrown up important questions
about the responsibility of research: to what extent should the focus of public health
research be shifted from its former priorities to questions related to the assessment and
control of medical technology?
The crisis in the Finnish health care system has inspired growing interest in public
health research. At the same time, though, the difficulties dogging health care have
imposed unrealistic goals and timetables for research. The Academy of Finland has a
very prominent role in supporting research in public health. That support allows for
“end-critical” research that is not necessarily geared to finding immediate solutions to
problems or launched in response to specific practical problems. The choice of focus
for etiological research has particularly important implications with regard to health
promotion. Ongoing explorations of the biological foundations of the human genome
have provided a welcome breakthrough in the effort to understand the determinants
of health. However, in the current situation of limited researcher resources there is a
real risk that excessive targeting of research funding on genetics diverts attention away
from research topics that might open up easier ways to the promotion of health and the
prevention of illness.

There is no centre of excellence in the field of public health research (cf. environmental
health). High-level research in this field is often based on extensive networking and
cooperation. The centre of excellence strategy should be developed towards greater
diversity in such a way that it supports all fields of health research regardless of their
typical structures.
The number of graduate school training positions in public health is not enough to
satisfy current demand, and these places are offered only by few universities. Having all
students crammed into one graduate school (or two, if the National Doctoral Graduate
School Consortium in the Administrative Sciences is taken into account) is no doubt
good for interdisciplinarity, but it also makes it much harder for researchers working in
new fields of research to gain entry.
It is very difficult for new and emerging fields of public health to secure research funding
through open competition. These fields include research into functional capacity, mental
health and social health as well as qualitative research and other non-traditional
methodological approaches. One of the reasons why these fields have such poor success
is that evaluation is based upon the criteria of biomedical research. Although health
studies should primarily be problem-driven, it is also important to recognise and take
account of the diversity of disciplines that are involved in public health research.
Conceptual clarification might provide useful guidance for the identification of those
fields that are most in need of additional support. The Research Council for Health and
its evaluation panels need to have stronger expertise in the social sciences.
Empirical studies in public health research often require the cooperation of health care
units and/or people. This situation where the “laboratory” is beyond the researcher’s
269
Contents
control imposes special demands upon the administration as well as upon the time scale
of research. These distinctive features should be taken into account in the allocation
of funding as well as in the level of detail required of research plans. Epidemiological
research in particular often requires extensive follow-up periods in order to produce
meaningful results. If funds are allocated to projects for no more than a few years at a
time, that may well reflect adversely upon the preservation and effective utilisation of
valuable research materials. On the other hand, there is certainly scope for improving the
coordination among different materials and the researchers collecting those materials.
Steps are needed to improve the start-up, preservation and use of major cohort materials.
3.6 Environmental health

The main concerns of research in environmental health today are with the health
hazards that are caused by small particulates in community air, poor indoor air quality
and climate change. As well as working to prevent these health hazards, research in
environmental health is concerned to secure access to microbiologically and chemically
safe food and drinking water. The successes that Finnish projects have enjoyed in the
competition for EU research funding attest to the high quality of their work.
There is one centre of excellence in environmental health. The discipline received a major
boost from the Academy-coordinated Finnish Research Programme on Environmental
Health (SYTTY) in 1998−2001. One of the main goals of the programme was to promote
multidisciplinary research, and in that it certainly succeeded. The international panel
of experts who evaluated the programme recommended that it be continued because
three years is too short a time to take full advantage of the development potential
created by the programme.
At the Academy of Finland, research in environmental health is not covered by any single
research council. Therefore it is important that steps are taken to strengthen mechanisms
for the promotion of a multidisciplinary research approach. Research and postgraduate
training in environmental health are quite heavily concentrated in government research
institutes. That base ought to be expanded, with at least some universities having strong
research and teaching programmes in environmental health. Closer cooperation is
needed with research in veterinary medicine (environmental hygienics).
3.7 Sport sciences

Research in sport sciences is conducted at the University of Jyväskylä Faculty of Sport and
Health Sciences, centres of sports medicine and at certain other scientific organisations.
In the late 1990s direct support from the Ministry of Education to research in sport
sciences amounted to around 3.5 million euros per annum, with project appropriations
accounting for 1.3 million and overhead grants for 1.5 million euros. Biomedical
research has accounted for around 65 per cent of all project appropriations, research in
social and behavioural sciences for around 35 per cent. Funding has not increased in
the same proportion as research appropriations overall. According to recent discipline
assessments there are now enough multidisciplinary research units in sport sciences,
but only part of them provide up-to-date research facilities (Liikuntatieteen arviointi...
1999 and Evaluation of sports... 2003). Some biomedical units are too small and
270
Contents
have only weak contacts with units in other fields of research. Some have created a
significant network of international contacts and have an impressive publishing record.
Postgraduate training in biosciences research lags some way behind the rest of the field,
most particularly in cell and molecular biology and genetics.

Research groups in sport sciences are heavily dependent on funding from the Ministry
of Education, most of which is geared to supporting sectoral and applied research in
this field. Recent reviews of the field have encouraged researchers to turn more often
to other sources of funding. The quality of research in the field of sport sciences would
undoubtedly benefit if funding for basic research in the biosciences were provided not
through a separate, closed system but awarded instead on the basis of open competition.
Academy research programmes also provide one possible source of funding in sport
sciences. The relative isolation of research and postgraduate training in sport sciences
is certainly holding back development in this field. Units that have close scientific
exchange and interaction with other national and international research communities
in closely related fields, are at once those that have shown the strongest growth and
development. Closer involvement in the national graduate school system would help to
raise the standard of scientific postgraduate training in sport sciences.
3.8 Nutrition research

Comprising work in nutritional epidemiology as well as clinical and experimental
research, nutrition research is concerned to explore the associations between diet and
health. The emphasis in nutrition research is upon major public health problems
such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Two universities give
students the option of majoring in nutrition, i.e. the universities of Helsinki and
Kuopio. Nutrition research is also done at other universities, the National Public Health
Institute and the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health. Although the research units
at different universities and research institutes are relatively small, the field as a whole
has made impressive progress, witness the large number of graduating PhDs and the
growing research community. The field does not have a graduate school of its own, but
training is organised through multidisciplinary graduate schools.
Dedicated Academy support for nutrition research is quite limited, but in several
projects nutrition research represents an important component; many diabetes studies
provide a good example. Food science research comes under the administration of
the Academy’s Research Council for Biosciences and Environment. The National
Technology Agency, for its part, supports product development in the closely related
field of foodstuffs research.

As well as applying the tools of nutrition and food sciences, research into the health
effects of nutrition needs to show a stronger multidisciplinary orientation. Studies
into the health effects of foodstuffs have also opened up new contacts of cooperation
with other disciplines, such as medicine and pharmacy. One possible future direction
271
Contents
for nutrition research might be in resolving major public health problems on a

multidisciplinary basis. A research project jointly administered by the Research
Councils for Health and for Biosciences and Environment and focusing upon nutrition,
foodstuffs and health would certainly provide a stronger foundation for addressing
broader research problems and for improving multidisciplinary cooperation.
3.9 Nursing science

Nursing science has become firmly established as an independent discipline at five
universities, but it still has more limited resources than most other fields of research. In
response to growing demand, faculties have increased their student intake on Master’s
degree programmes, but the volume of basic funding has not increased accordingly.
The main obstacles to the development of research remain the same as before, i.e.
the limited number of research posts relative to teaching posts and the fact that
research careers begin relatively late. The latter problem is further exacerbated by the
requirement in most training units that students applying to a programme leading
to a Master’s degree in Health Sciences shall have prior professional training. A key
objective in this field has been systematically to develop research programmes and PhD
training. Different units have their own areas of research expertise.
All departments have active international cooperation, some of them are part of a
European postgraduate training network. A domestic network (HealthNet) set up with
support from the Ministry of Education has also contributed to increasing cooperation
with health sciences. Although research in nursing science has gathered momentum
and become increasingly internationalised, the amount of research funding it receives
in open competition through the Academy of Finland remains fairly modest. Recently,
however, the discipline has benefited from increased international research funding.
Nursing science units have been working closely with one another in the field of
doctoral training since 1988. Founded in 1995, the Finnish Postgraduate School in
Nursing Science has had an important role in coordinating postgraduate training in
nursing science. The graduate school provides a wide range of training programmes.

More resources need to be invested into research and postgraduate training in the field
of nursing science. With the teaching resources currently available, it will not be possible
to develop and strengthen doctoral training in this field. Support should be channelled
particularly to senior and postdoc researchers. The Academy of Finland launched in
2002 a discipline assessment of nursing science; the results and recommendations from
that assessment will be available by the end of 2003.
3.10 Pharmaceutical research

High-quality basic research coupled with a dense network of biocentres, centres of
excellence and graduate schools run by medical faculties, provides a strong platform
for the pharmaceutical innovation process. Finland is also in an excellent position to
take advantage of the research done in dentistry and veterinary medicine and to put
272
Contents
its findings to use in the development of new drugs, diagnostic tests and biomaterials.
There is a shortage of experts of pharmacology in industry (Brännback et al. 2001).
The same goes for medical doctors with experience in conducting clinical trials. The
Clinical Drug Trials Graduate School and the National Graduate School for Clinical
Research play a key role in the training of these specialists. Training in administrative
issues related to clinical research, pharmacovigilance, regulatory affairs and health
economics is currently highly fragmented in Finland.
Pharmacy faculties play a crucial part in drug research and development. Qualified
researchers are needed in various fields of pharmaceutical product development, most
specifically in research and development related to drug formulation. The Graduate
School in Pharmaceutical Research has stimulated further training in this field and
contributed to raising the quality of research. The Drug Discovery Graduate School
concentrates on certain therapy areas and is pharmacologically oriented, as is the
Clinical Drug Trials Graduate School. All these three graduate schools would certainly
benefit from closer cooperation. Drug discovery technology centres have been launched
at the universities of Helsinki and Kuopio to further explore and develop the drug
discovery process. Jointly administered by the National Technology Agency and the
Academy of Finland, the Drug 2000 technology programme is aimed at bringing forward
basic research and technology that can significantly contribute to drug discovery and
development and boost the competitiveness of the Finnish pharmaceutical industry.

It is crucially important for the future development of the pharmaceutical sector that
medical faculties and biocentres step up their cooperation. There is also need for closer
collaboration among the various graduate schools in the field, who should also work
closely in planning the priorities of research and education. There is an obvious need
for an increased number of training positions at these graduate schools, whose PhD
graduates have excellent prospects of finding employment.
4 Impacts of research
Health research is in an excellent position to promote public health and well-being.
However, the critical transfer and application of research knowledge into practice
requires practitioners’ understanding and experience of research. In health care, it is
the individual doctor who in each case has to assume responsibility for diagnosis and
treatment decisions; there is no impartial mediator in-between research and the people
applying its results. Political decision-making on health issues also benefits from an
understanding of the processes of producing and interpreting research evidence. Basic
and applied research in the field also provides a useful basis for international business
ventures.
4.1 Impacts of research on public health

Health research is aimed at practical application: it is, by definition, a line of inquiry
aiming to having a positive impact. The most important outcome of health research is
health (understood in a broad sense). Other relevant outcomes include “social peace”
273
Contents
(security and confidence in the availability of help in the event of illness, regardless of
wealth, place of residence or other factors) and the positive effects of the development
of health technologies upon business and industry.
There are two main pathways via which research has an impact on health: (1)
increased knowledge (which factors influence health and illness, and the preventive
measures designed on the basis of that knowledge) and (2) the service system and
the technology (understood in a broad sense) and care provided through that system.
There have been some attempts in other countries to assess the impacts of health
services on health, but these attempts have been rather disappointing: knowledge,
services and other factors influencing health are so intricately interwoven with one
another. Impacts of various specific interventions are often known in experimental
conditions, but little is known about the impacts in real life situations. In particular,
comparative data with other interventions is lacking. It is easy to find examples
from health research of how health knowledge or technology have impacted health;
it is much harder to single out the contribution of individual research projects or
researchers. Generally speaking the accumulation of relevant knowledge is a slow,
incremental process that draws upon the work of a large number of researchers from
the international science community.
Rather than weighing the impacts of health research in general, it makes more sense
for research funding bodies to ask whether their funds are channelled to those lines of
work and those projects that are the most cost-effective (in terms of useful outcomes
relative to resources invested). Cost efficiency analyses are not easy, though: apart from
the general complications mentioned above, it is extremely difficult to compare studies
conducted within very different time frames and dealing with very different kinds of
subject-matters. We can offer some crude estimates by consulting experts who know
about the determinants of health and by asking researchers themselves to weigh the
impacts of their work. Since researchers working in a certain area play a key role in
translating knowledge from that area to the practical domain, one useful approach
to assessing impacts is to establish whether all the main lines of health research are
represented in Finland. Making funds available to different types of research is a good
way to minimise the risks of not attaining impact on health.
The Academy of Finland has provided quite good support for research aimed at
understanding biological phenomena and the genome in particular. Funding for
research which applies information yielded by basic research (including other than
biological research) in the treatment of patients has not increased quite as rapidly, and
more resources need to be invested. Research into the role of factors outside the human
body, especially if it is based on interventions, is a quick and useful avenue to finding
new ways of maintaining health and preventing illness. Bearing this application
potential in mind, this line of research certainly warrants more resources.
4.2 Impact of research funding for biotechnology

The most extensive discipline assessment by outside experts during the period under
review concerned the impacts of public funding on biotechnology. Since this assessment
covered large parts of basic biomedical research, many of the observations and
274
Contents
recommendations it made apply to health research and the Finnish research system
more generally. The panel concluded in its report that the strong growth of research
funding for biosciences has had a very positive impact on the state and quality of
research in Finland. It said that the network of biocentres set up in Finland had
contributed significantly to raising the quality of research in Finland and had helped
to bring down barriers between individual disciplines as well as between the academic
world and business and industry. All in all, the experts took the view that the steps taken
in Finland had helped to strengthen and internationalise its research and innovation
system, which was also reflected in the country’s success in several international
comparisons. In recent years large numbers of new businesses have been set up in the
Finnish biotechnology sector. However, as well as heaping praise on Finland’s increasing
investment in the biosciences, the panel also had a number of recommendations to
make, many of which concern health research as well. The reviewers suggested that
practices with regard to ownership of intellectual property rights be clarified with a view
to making more effective use of research results. Improvements were also recommended
to the technology transfer system so that discoveries made in basic research could be
put to better use.
4.3 The pharmaceutical industry: a major user of health research

The pharmaceutical industry combines many different areas of health research and is
the most important commercial user of research in this field. Besides the pharmaceutical
industry, health research has significant commercial potential in diagnostic testing,
medical instruments, information systems and services (clinical experiments and
screening tests) and in functional foods.
Basic research in drug development started in Finland some 20 years ago. Most of
the early work was done within pharmaceutical companies; the first products of this
research have now reached the international marketplace. These first proprietary
drugs show that in spite of its limited resources, Finnish pharmaceutical research
and development is indeed capable of producing internationally significant results.
Biocentres and centres of excellence in research have emerged as a new major source
of innovation in pharmaceutical research. The mechanisms are now in place to
support better and earlier use of the results of basic research from universities, and
there is also growing awareness of the need not just to publish results, but also to
look into options of patenting new discoveries. Quite a few small pharmaceutical
start-up companies have now emerged in Finland. These companies are especially
keen to network with research groups at universities and to license their innovations
early on to major international pharmaceutical companies. Apart from these drug
development companies, there are also many other new businesses that integrate
basic research in the biosector and medical know-how and that are focused on
diagnostics, biomaterials applications, the development of medical instruments
and services. These companies have received substantial support from the National
Technology Agency and the Finnish National Fund for Research and Development.
In recent years the high expectations pinned on the biosector have begun to wane
somewhat – and the availability of international venture capital has become more
limited. Under mounting financial pressures, many of the start-up companies may
face a wave of mergers.
275
Contents
Under the joint administration of the National Technology Agency and the Academy of
Finland, the Drug 2000 programme represents one recent effort to improve and develop
evaluation of the impacts of research funding. Among the measurable objectives of the
programme are the following: new drug target molecules, molecule families, screening
methods, drug candidates, diagnostic methods, patent applications, patents issued,
licensing agreements, research service contracts and new companies. Furthermore,
the programme is keen to monitor progress in national and international cooperation
between universities and business companies as well as the transfer of researchers to
the business sector. One important consideration in assessing the success of funding
programmes is the long time required by the development of a new drug: the drug
discovery phase may last from 5 to 10 years, and the drug development phase from
7 to 12 years. Thus, the impacts of funding must be assessed over a sufficiently long
period.
5 Conclusions and recommendations
Strengths and opportunities

Finland’s demographic structure, its sufficient heterogeneities and the unique
bottlenecks in the country’s population history, provide an exceptionally favourable
setting for interdisciplinary research into common diseases. Among the main strengths
of this Finnish research setting are the extensive patient and sample materials that
have been collected; the detailed and comprehensive population-based registers that
have been compiled; and the country’s egalitarian and high-quality health care system
with its uniform diagnostic criteria. In addition, people in Finland are generally willing
to let scientists use the data compiled in existing registers, in so far as that contributes
to the well-being of future generations. No other country in the world has access to the
same kind of dataset that can shed light on the interactions between hereditary factors,
morbidity, lifestyle and the environment in the aetiology of diseases. The collection
of these data has required close cooperation between epidemiologists, public health
researchers and clinical researchers as well as government research institutes, and that
cooperation should be easy to expand within both basic and applied research. The
evidence that can be unearthed in this line of work is bound to have a major impact
on future health care as well as on business in the pharmaceutical and diagnostics
sectors.
The Finnish research system has strengthened considerably over the past ten years:
this can be attributed among other things to the establishment of interdisciplinary
biocentres and their service units, the graduate school system, the postdoctoral system,
the centre of excellence and research programme policy and the special funding
made available to biotechnology. The Finnish research and innovation system enjoys
widespread recognition for its modern efficiency. All this puts health research in a strong
position in the competition for international research funding. One of the key strengths
of the Finnish research system is its rapid responsiveness. For instance, following the
publication of the biotechnology evaluation report on 9 December 2002, the Ministry of
Education and the Academy of Finland began work to implement its recommendations
in spring 2003.
276
Weaknesses and threats
Although there are no indications in sight of an actual shortage of research staff, the
Research Council for Health is concerned about the declining proportion of researchers
with a basic training in the field of health research. There are no doubt several reasons
why a career in research appears a less attractive proposition than before. While the
graduate school and postdoc systems have brought greater clarity to the early stages of
the research career, the uncertainties for the young independent researcher remain and
indeed have become increasingly pronounced, as was pointed out in the biotechnology
evaluation. The post of an Academy Research Fellow is the only straightforward option
for postdoctoral researchers who are looking to gain their independence, but fellowships
are available for no more than some 15 per cent of applicants. Universities have not
been able to adjust their system of teaching and research posts in such a way that
they could have resolved this problem. The difficulties of launching upon a career in
research seem to be the greatest in the field of clinical research.
There are still no mechanisms in place for the provision of systematic support for
research infrastructures (equipment, core facilities and databases), which makes it
difficult to take full advantage of the strengths of our research system. The same
problems concern the archiving and use of major national population cohorts for
research purposes.
Recommendations
Amongst the various targets for development identified in different disciplines, the
Research Council for Health wishes to highlight the following:
1. Improving the position of young researchers seeking independence. The

establishment of clear career paths in research and the removal of uncertainties related
to the research career are considered crucial to increasing the appeal of a career in
research and to securing a sufficient number of new recruits. Universities will also need
to take steps to upgrade their systems of teaching and research posts in such a way as
to make the option of a research career more attractive. The Research Council considers
the development of the clinical research career particularly problematic. The general
trend whereby responsibility for clinical research (and indeed other lines of research) is
being taken over by other than those with a degree in health sciences, should be halted
by giving medical doctors and dentists the opportunity simultaneously to engage in
research, to spesialise and to continue in clinical work.
2. Research infrastructures. The maintenance and improvement of research

equipment and other infrastructure at universities and research institutes is another
important area that calls for increased development efforts. Steps are also needed to
make sure that nationally important research materials can be properly preserved and
put to the best possible use.
3. The problems of small disciplines. Although the problems of certain small fields
of research in health research have been addressed through the launch of graduate
schools, research programmes or through dedicated support from the Research Council,
277
these problems continue to persist − especially in those fields that have not benefited
from such support measures. There are several possible strategies for addressing the
future problems of small disciplines. One such solution might be the closer paradigm-
driven integration of research in these fields with other fields of research. Discipline
assessments are one useful way of getting advice on how to go about developing the
field in question (as exemplified by the 2003 evaluation of sport and health sciences). A
lighter-weight solution is provided by an overview of research facilities and resources as
well as postgraduate training and an action plan drawn up on the basis of the findings
made. One proven solution is to develop and expand the graduate school system to as
many different fields of health research as possible.
4. Changes recommended to training programmes and the doctoral thesis

institution. The recommendations made by the international biotechnology evaluation
included proposed changes to training programmes and their overall volumes. Special
attention should be paid to starting up training and research programmes in such
fields where there is a need for research personnel (e.g. drug development, health
economics, biometrics and bioinformatics). In many fields of research clear changes
were recommended to the Finnish doctoral thesis system (a lowered volume at the same
or higher standard) towards a European direction. The Research Council for Health
subscribes to these recommendations.
5. Clarifying the national innovation strategy. Current legislation that governs

the ownership of immaterial property rights in research results should be clarified
without delay and revised in such a way as to support more effective use of research
results. Technology transfer companies have been set up in connection with universities
to facilitate the protection of new discoveries. The commercialisation of innovations, on
the other hand, still requires considerable effort and input. At least for the time being
there remains a shortage of biotechnology companies in Finland that take advantage
of scientific innovations; researchers are having themselves to set up companies to do
just that. As the final report of the biotechnology evaluation observes, the number
of people working in technology transfer needs to be increased and the standard of
expertise raised.
6. Internal development. One of the main objectives in the Research Council’s own
work is to further improve the applications review process. With the continuing growth
of interdisciplinary cooperation the relevance of current classification of research fields
is somewhat dubious. Instead, more attention needs to be paid in the review process to
paradigmatic classifications. This would support the integration of research with closely
related disciplines and also make it easier to evaluate applications for research funding
on an equitable basis.
Academy Research Councils should continue to work more closely with one another,
especially in the field of health sciences as well as social and behavioural sciences.
Epidemiological research often requires long follow-up periods in order to produce
meaningful results, which should be taken into account when funding decisions
are made. If funds are allocated to projects for limited periods, that may well reflect
adversely upon the preservation and effective use of valuable research materials.
278
Contents
References
Biotechnology in Finland. Impact of public research funding and strategies for the
future. Evaluation report (2002). Publications of the Academy of Finland 11/02.
Brännback, M., P. Hyvönen, H. Raunio, M. Renko & R. Sutinen (2001). Finnish Pharma
Cluster – Vision 2010. Target program initiated by the Finnish Pharma Cluster. Tekes
Technology Review 112/2001.
Evaluation of sports and exercise medicine and biology research in Finland (2003).
Reports of the Ministry of Education, Finland 2003: 3.

Liikuntatieteen arviointi – yhteiskuntakäyttäytymistieteellinen tutkimus (1999).

Opetusministeriön työryhmien muistioita 23: 1999.

Terveystieteellisen tutkimuksen valtionkorvauksen suuntaaminen ja määräytyminen

(2003). Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön työryhmämuistioita 2003: 13.

Technology 1999: 1.

2001. Tutkimustoiminnan menot rahoituslähteen mukaan tieteenaloittain (2003).
Other sources
Focus database on Academy of Finland research funding (6 June 2003).
279
Contents
Appendix 1. Research Council for Health in 2001–2003

Chair
Eero Vuorio, Professor
University of Turku
Markku Alén, Medical Director

Peurunka Medical Rehabilitation and Physical Exercise Centre
Esa Heinonen, Senior Vice President

Orion Pharma, Orion Corporation
Elina Hemminki, Professor

National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health, Stakes
Helena Leino-Kilpi, Professor

University of Turku
Lars-Axel Lindberg, Professor

Marja Makarow, Professor

Pirjo Pietinen, Professor

National Public Health Institute
Taina Pihlajaniemi, Professor

University of Oulu
Hilkka Soininen, Professor

University of Kuopio
Timo Vesikari, Professor

Science Adviser Jaana Aalto, Science Adviser Saara Leppinen and University Trainee
Sari Purhonen from the Academy’s Health Research Unit were involved in preparing
the Research Council’s report.
280
Contents
RESEARCH IN THE NATURAL

SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING
281
282
Contents
1 General overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

1.1 Operating environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
1.2 Scientific impact and visibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
1.3 Social impacts of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
1.4 PhD employment in the natural sciences and engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
2 Fields of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

2.1 Space sciences (space research and astronomy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
2.2 Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
2.3 Geosciences (geology, geophysics, meteorology) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
2.4 Chemistry and process technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
2.5 Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
2.6 Disciplines related to the information industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
2.7 Industrial engineering and management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
2.8 Mechanical engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
2.9 Construction technology and municipal engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
2.10 Architecture and industrial design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
3 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
Appendix 1. Centres of excellence, Academy Professors and . . . . . . . . . . . 310

research programmes under the Research Council for
Natural Sciences and Engineering
Appendix 2. Research Council for Natural Sciences and Engineering . . 312

in 2001−2003
283
284
Contents
1 General overview
1.1 Operating environment

Funding for basic research in Finland is primarily the responsibility of universities and
the Academy of Finland. In recent years about half of the funding from the Academy’s
Research Council for Natural Sciences and Engineering has gone to the exact natural
sciences (physics, chemistry, space sciences, mathematics) and around one-third to
disciplines that support information technology (electrical engineering and electronics,
computer science). Traditional engineering fields (process and materials technology,
mechanical engineering and manufacturing technology, construction technology and
municipal engineering) have received between one-tenth and one-fifth of the monies
awarded each year. The total value of applied funding in proposals received by the
Research Council in the general call for research appropriations has increased all the
time. In 1999 the total value stood at 53 million euros, by 2002 the figure was more
than 96 million euros; in 1999 the amount of grants awarded was 21 per cent of the
value of applications, in 2002 the proportion was down to 14 per cent.
The majority of graduate schools and doctoral students funded by the Ministry of
Education, Academy postdoctoral researchers, Academy Research Fellows, Academy
Professors and national centres of excellence that come under the Research Council for
Natural Sciences and Engineering are in the fields of physics, chemistry and chemical
engineering, process and materials technology, mathematics and information industry
related sciences (see Table 1). These are also the Research Council’s main priority areas.
Table 1. Graduate schools and doctoral students funded by the Ministry of Education,
Academy postdoctoral researchers, Academy Research Fellows, Academy Professors and
centres of excellence in the fields of natural sciences and engineering, April 2003.
Field Graduate schools/ Academy Academy Academy Centres of

Doctoral students postdoctoral Research Professors excellence
funded by Ministry researchers Fellows
of Education
Space sciences 1/12 4 6
Physics 4/68 22 18 3 4
Geosciences 2/14 1
Chemistry, chemical
engineering, process and
13/154 33 15 2 3
materials technology, energy
technology
Mathematics and statistics 6/36 7 10 1 1
Information industry related
14/288 33 10 5 6
sciences
Industrial engineering
1/9
and management
Mechanical engineering and
2/27 3 2 1
manufacturing technology
Construction technology,
municipal engineering, 2/10 1 1
architecture
Total 45/618 104 62 11 15
285
Ministry of Education graduate schools have 618 doctoral students in the field of
natural sciences and engineering who are funded from Ministry of Education sources,
plus several times that number of students who are funded from other sources.
Disciplines that support the information industry have great significance to the national
economy, but Academy funding to these fields continues to fall short of demand. The
Research Council for Natural Sciences and Engineering has sought consistently to
increase the share of funding allocated to the information sector. However, since the
total amount of funding from the Research Council has remained more or less constant
and competition for these monies has continued to intensify, the targeted levels have
not yet been reached. More and more often, good projects remain without funding.
The continuity of high-quality research in Finland requires that there are a sufficient
number of talented young applicants seeking entry to university in the fields of natural
sciences and engineering. This, in turn, requires that schoolchildren are encouraged
from a young age to take an interest in mathematical and natural science subjects and
that they have a good enough knowledge in these subjects. The Research Council has
sought to encourage young people to take up a career in research through the various
events arranged in connection with the national Science03 review, for instance. One
way to make research a more attractive career proposition is through consistent, long-
term funding that guarantees young researchers a competitive pay package.
There is active research cooperation among the various natural sciences and engineering
disciplines. Over the past three years projects funded by the Research Council have
shown a much stronger multidisciplinary orientation than before. Adequate public
funding must be made available for a sustained multidisciplinary research effort
in engineering so as to ensure continued technological development in the business
sector. The Academy of Finland has met this challenge by launching in 1999 and 2000
three-year research programmes in Process Technology (PROTEK), Future Mechanical
Bioscience applications of mathematics, physics, chemistry and engineering sciences
The biosciences depend for their progress to an ever greater extent on mathematics, physics, chemistry and
engineering. Research that addresses bioscience problems is essentially about seeking to understand and model
complex dynamic phenomena. Modelling is used in studying biological systems, generating hypotheses, testing
theories, making predictions and in analysing research data. These fields of research are highly demanding and
require high-level methodological research as well as close collaboration among researchers in different fields
of expertise. Significant new fields here include bioinformatics and neuroinformatics. Bioinformatics applies the
methods of computer science, mathematics and statistics to resolve biological problems. These methodological
sciences are needed for such purposes as describing, modelling and utilising the interactions and laws of the gene-
protein system. For example, the mapping of genome information at molecular level may lead to new breakthroughs
in medicine. Working at the interface of neurosciences and information sciences, neuroinformatics is aimed at
producing comprehensive information about the function of the human brain and the nervous system. This requires
modelling of individual nerve cells, cell networks and brain structures as well as analysis of functional brain imaging
studies. Research in materials technology, chemistry and process technology is paving the way to the production of
new biomaterials and to new biotechnological production methods and products. The biotechnological production
process requires not only knowledge and know-how about genes, but also about processes so that the external cell
environment can be controlled and the products produced purified. The complex behaviour of biological materials
is now attracting growing interest in the field of computational physics as well. Chemistry and process technology
have a key part to play in developing technological solutions and biotechnological applications related to energy
conservation, recycling, access to clean water and the management of climate changes.
286
Contents
Engineering (TUKEVA) and Mathematical Methods and Modelling in the Sciences

(MaDaMe). The Research Council for Natural Sciences and Engineering is currently
preparing for the start-up of a research programme in the application of information
and automation technology in the construction, mechanical and manufacturing
industries.
Closer networking among the Academy of Finland, the National Technology Agency
Tekes, universities and business and industry is vitally important for the development
of natural sciences and engineering disciplines. Universities and businesses are now
working closely with one another as a matter of routine, and business companies are
keen to learn about the results of basic research. The Research Council for Natural
Sciences and Engineering has plans to set up joint research programmes with other
Academy research councils, universities, research institutes, Tekes and business and
industry. Cooperation between universities and research institutes has also shown
encouraging progress in recent years.
Research in the natural sciences and engineering is very much an international exercise.
Foreign researchers are involved in a number of projects funded by the Research Council
for Natural Sciences and Engineering, and Finnish research groups send out their own
members to work abroad or have other kinds of international cooperation. The Research
Council contributes to several international science organisations (e.g. CERC3, CERN,
EISCAT, ESA, ESRF, EUPRO, NOT) for instance by providing funding for research projects
as well as for travel that is necessary for maintaining contact. The Research Council for
Natural Sciences and Engineering has international funding cooperation among others
with European Science Foundation’s (ESF) research programmes.
1.2 Scientific impact and visibility

The international impact and visibility of research is often described by reference to
citation impact figures. Although bibliometric analysis involves certain problems,
it nonetheless gives a useful picture of the broad trends in development in different
fields of research. The bibliometric analyses in this report are based on the Institute
for Scientific Information’s (ISI) National Science Indicators (NSI) database, which
provides only selective coverage of the journals and publications within each
discipline. As a rule, each paper is slotted under one discipline heading, which in the
case of multidisciplinary fields and those at the interface of different disciplines causes
some inaccuracy. For example, Finnish space scientists publish frequently in journals
that in the NSI database are classified under the geosciences. For the purposes of the
analysis below, therefore, the database categories “space science” and “geosciences”
are combined. Increasing degrees of multidisciplinarity complicate the interpretation of
analyses even further. Another difficulty with the NSI database is that it does not give
enough weight to growing disciplines that have large numbers of new journals.
Overall, Finnish research in the natural sciences and engineering shows a fairly high
level of international impact and visibility. Figures 1–3 show that in terms of NSI relative
citation impact figures, Finland is above the world average in physics, mathematics,
computer science, chemical engineering, industrial engineering and management,
mechanical engineering and in energy and environmental technology. Furthermore,
287
the relative citation impact figures are close to the world average in geo and space
sciences, electrical engineering and electronics as well as in chemistry. The relative
citation impact figures for chemical engineering, mechanical engineering and industrial
engineering and management have increased clearly since the 1980s, pointing at a
higher level of international impact. The number of citations in geo and space sciences
relative to the number of publications has also shown some tendency to grow of late. In
construction technology and municipal engineering, the relative citation impact is below
the world average. Since the beginning of the 1990s, the number of publications indexed
in the NSI has shown the sharpest growth in computer science, electrical engineering
and electronics as well as in energy and environmental technology.
Figure 1. Finland’s relative citation impact (= Finland’s impact factor / world impact
factor; Impact factor = number of citations / number of publications)* in physics,
geo and space sciences, and energy and environmental technology. Sliding five-year
periods: articles published during each period and citations received by those articles in
the same period.
factor; Impact factor = number of citations / number of publications)* in mathematics,
computer science and electrical engineering and electronics. Sliding five-year periods:
articles published during each period and citations received by those articles in the
same period.
288
Contents
factor; Impact factor = number of citations / number of publications)* in chemistry,
chemical engineering, industrial engineering and management, and mechanical
engineering. Sliding five-year periods: articles published during each period and
citations received by those articles in the same period.
1.3 Social impacts of research

Basic research and applications in electronics and information technology represent
an area of huge significance to Finnish business and industry, and advances in this
field are crucial to the development of the information society. The rapid growth and
development of the electronics sector especially in the 1990s was crucial in helping
Finland pull out of recession and get back on a growth track sooner than its competitors
in the world markets. In the 1990s, production in the electrical and electronics industry
showed a fivefold increase in value. Today it is the biggest single industrial sector in the
country, worth around 20 billion euros in 2002 (Statistics Finland, preliminary data).
The sector also has the highest share of exports, standing at 13 billion euros in 2002
(National Board of Customs, statistical service). Estimates by the Federation of Finnish
Electrical and Electronics Industry indicate that R&D investment by the electrical and
electronics industry in 2002 amounted to 1.9 billion euros, representing around 55 per
cent of the figure for the total private sector. The relative weight of the electrical and
electronics industry has grown significantly: in 1993 R&D investment in the sector
was still at less than 0.4 billion euros, accounting for 35 per cent of the sum total for
the business sector (Statistics Finland 2003). In 2002 the sector had a workforce of
around 67,900 (Statistics Finland, Labour Force survey, preliminary data). R&D staff
in the electrical and electronics industry accounts for over 40 per cent of the total R&D
personnel number in the business sector. The information industry is a more significant
employer in Finland than in any other OECD country. The numbers working in research
and development in computer and related services increased by 230 per cent from 1997
to 2001. (Statistics Finland 1999, 2003.)
Research in other fields is increasingly dependent on new advanced information

technology equipment and methods: the information industry sector as a whole has a
great catalytic effect on all areas of research. Finland has an impressive record in the
development of biomedical engineering and meteorological and space equipment, and
it is well placed to gain a prominent position in other fields as well. The sector has a
289
major indirect effect upon traditional industries such as wood processing, mechanical
engineering, and the process and construction industry, both in terms of boosting their
competitiveness and increasing their energy and materials efficiency. Furthermore, new
information technology innovations help to improve the quality of life of the ageing
population as well as disabled groups, for instance.
Optoelectronics in Tampere
Professor Markus Pessa and his research team at the Tampere University of Technology have long been studying
compound semiconductor materials and the production of optoelectronic components The research networks
created around Professor Pessa have received substantial funding from the Academy of Finland. In addition to
their academic outputs (PhDs, publications, etc.), these groups have produced several innovations in the areas
of semiconductor technology and optical telecommunications. The Tampere region has also seen the growth
of significant business ventures in optoelectronics: in 2002, two spin-off companies (Coherent–Tutcore Ltd and
Modulight, Inc.) showed a combined turnover of more than 15 million euros.
Academy-funded research programmes provide a showcase of the impacts of research

in the natural sciences and engineering. Table 2 describes the outputs of three such
programmes under the Research Council for Natural Sciences and Engineering, which
have included both scientific and social impacts. The programmes have produced
significant new information for business and industry, and their results have been and
will be used in Finnish research and development. The programmes have produced new
innovations and inventions such as new methods, processes, technologies, products,
methods of characterisation and mathematical models. Research programmes have also
produced spin-off companies, and enterprises have made intensive use of the research
results. Researchers working on these projects have also been highly successful in the
open job markets. (Research Programme for Electronic... 2002, Research Programme for
Process... 2002, National Programme for Materials... 2002.)
Table 2. The outputs of three research programmes according to the projects’ self-
assessments (Materials and Structure Research – MATRA, Electronic Materials and
Microsystems – EMMA and Process Technology – PROTEK). Some impacts are not seen
until after the programmes have been completed.
Research programme Funding, Number of Number of Number Number Number of

million euros articles conference of patents of PhDs Licentiates
publications
Materials and Structure
31 1,247 700 ? 107 82
Research (MATRA) 1994–2000
Electronic Materials and
Microsystems (EMMA) 5.1 361 208 5 31 7
1999–2002
Process Technology
2.5 51 63 4 4 6
(PROTEK) 1999–2002
There are 15 centres of excellence in the disciplines hosted by the Research Council
for Natural Sciences and Engineering (Appendix 1). These have helped to increase
awareness and add to the exposure of scientific research among the general public as
well. Most centres of excellence have close contact with industry, which is important
from the point of view of transferring research results into the practical domain.
Research at centres of excellence has also produced a number of spin-off companies.
290
From basic research in combustion processes to Finnish top expertise and business
In the late 1980s development efforts in combustion technology were heavily concentrated in the fields of chemistry
and chemical engineering: many of the problems with which scientists were working revolved around details in
the combustion process and particularly with their chemistry, such as emission compositions. Ahlström, Tampella
and Wärtsilä Diesel were some of the Finnish industry names that began to invest heavily in research and product
development. These companies also had a major part in launching the national research effort in combustion
and fuel technology at universities and the Technical Research Centre VTT. The focus in this effort was on an in-
depth investigation of various details in the combustion process, such as the chemistry of emission formation and
degradation, mathematical modelling of the combustion chamber process, new methods of measuring combustion
chamber events, pressurised combustion processes as well as determination of the properties of new fuels. Finland
emerged as the world leader especially in clean combustion technologies and in applications using new, non-
homogeneous fuels, such as biofuels, waste and mixed fuels. Research was organised into national programmes in
which development projects in the business sector were supported by basic research at universities. The Academy
of Finland has also contributed significantly, most notably through project funding.
As a result of this sustained, 15-year investment programme, the field now boasts an extremely high level of expertise.
More than 30 doctoral theses have been completed on the subject of combustion technology, and many of the PhDs
are currently working in the industry. There are several internationally recognised research groups in the field; one
example is the group under Professor Mikko Hupa at the Åbo Akademi University Process Chemistry Group, an
Academy-appointed centre of excellence in research. Exports of Finnish energy technology have benefited directly
from the high standards of R&D: throughout the 1990s exports showed sustained growth at an annual rate of almost
20 per cent, rising from 0.5 billion in 1990 to more than two billion today. Boilers and other combustion technology
products represent a significant fraction of these exports. Although new, international owners have now moved
in to take control, much of the technological know-how and the jobs in manufacturing have remained in Finland,
largely by virtue of the country’s highly efficient R&D infrastructure. Andritz (formerly Ahlström) and Kvaerner Power
(Tampella) are world market leaders in the manufacture of recovery boilers: in recent years they have together
accounted for more than 80 per cent of world deliveries in recovery boilers. Finnish technology also leads the world
in fluidised bed boilers and major diesel power plants (Foster Wheeler, Wärtsilä).
As well as having a direct impact on the surrounding society (contributing, among

other things, to the development of new innovations, patents and businesses), Academy
research funding also has a more indirect social impact: examples include its effects
that come through doctoral training and the training of future professors. The impacts
of funding awarded by the Research Council for Natural Sciences and Engineering are
also seen in the number of Academy Research Fellows who have moved on to take up
professorships (Table 3). By spring 2003, around 30 per cent of all Academy Research
Fellows appointed in these fields during 1999−2001 had left their position to take up a
professorship.
Table 3. Number of Academy Research Fellows in disciplines hosted by the Research

Council for Natural Sciences and Engineering who have left their position to take up
professorships. Situation as at 29 March 2003.
Year Academy Research Fellow appointments Number taking up professorships

1999 15 4
2000 21 8
2001 15 3
Total 51 15
291
Contents
1.4 PhD employment in the natural sciences and engineering

PhDs in the natural sciences and engineering have had no difficulty finding
employment. During the 1990s, doctoral unemployment was much lower than at other
levels of education. In 2000, no more than 0.6 per cent of Doctors of Technology and 1.8
per cent of PhDs in the natural sciences (including biology and environmental sciences)
were out of work. In 1999, 75 per cent of natural science PhDs were engaged in the state
sector, 14 per cent in private businesses and 9 per cent in the local government sector.
The corresponding figures for Doctors of Technology were 61 per cent (state), 32 per cent
(private business) and 4 per cent (local governments). In industry, PhD employment was
at the highest level in the hi-tech sector. (Husso 2002.) In 1999, more than 70 per cent
of all PhDs working in industry had a degree in the natural sciences or engineering. In
1989−2002, the number of higher university degrees completed in engineering was four
times greater than in medicine, but no more than one in fifteen of those completing a
higher university degree in engineering proceeded to take the doctorate. In the 1990s,
unemployment among doctoral graduates in engineering fields was virtually zero.
(PhDs in Finland... 2003.)
Reports compiled by the Ministry of Education’s graduate schools in the natural sciences
and engineering indicate that almost two-thirds of their PhD graduates were employed
in universities and research institutes and one-third in the private business sector (Table
4; data primarily for 1999−2001). Employment in the university sector was made possible
by the sharp increase in external research funding and by the fact that not all current
office holders at university had a PhD. According to these reports doctoral graduates
in the fields of geo- and space sciences, mechanical engineering and manufacturing
technology and information industry related sciences, were most frequently employed
in universities and research institutes. Those with a degree in industrial engineering
and management, chemistry and process technology and mathematics, moved more
often than doctoral graduates from other fields to work in industry. At least one-fifth of
Table 4. Placement of PhDs from graduate schools in the natural sciences and
engineering according to the 33 graduate school reports filed with the Academy of Finland
in 2002. Data mainly for 1999−2001; information for 25 graduates not provided.
Main field PhDs reported Business Universities State, local Other

of graduate school and industry and research government,
institutes polytechnics
Physics 126 29% 60% 10%
Space sciences 21 5% 90% 5%
Geosciences 14 14% 86%
Chemistry and
161 44% 50% 4% 2%
process technology
Mechanical engineering and
27 19% 78% 4%
manufacturing technology
Mathematics 40 40% 55% 5%
Information industry
177 28% 71% 1%
related sciences
Industrial engineering
29 52% 45% 3%
and management
Total 595 33% 62% 4% 1%
292
Contents
those working at universities and research institutes had moved abroad. This was most
common in physics and space sciences.
The Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland points out in its recent report
(Knowledge... 2003) that new jobs are more and more often created in fields that require
high levels of expertise, meaning that people with a doctoral training are bound to
assume a far more prominent role in knowledge production in these fields. According
to a survey by Taloustutkimus Oy, business companies are now recruiting, and look
set to continue recruiting first and foremost people with an engineering doctorate
(particularly in the fields of electrical engineering, electronics, information technology,
automation technology and engineering physics). There is also some demand for people
with a PhD in natural sciences (particularly in chemistry in the chemical industry, oil
industry, and pharmaceutical industry). Most PhDs are recruited into research and
product development positions as well as into production and corporate management.
(PhDs in Finland... 2003.)
The Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers expects to see the demand for
knowledge and know-how in the information industry to grow even further. Indeed the
pressure is now to increase the amount of doctoral training in information industry
related sciences, both for purposes of maintaining a high standard of university
education and safeguarding the quality of R&D in this industry. (PhDs in Finland...
2003.) This is a highly research-intensive industry, and reasons of competitiveness
dictate that the number of doctoral degrees as a proportion of all university degrees
must be higher. The number of new students admitted to electrical engineering,
electronics and information technology programmes, for example, has been sharply
increased, but as yet there has been no corresponding investment to increase doctoral
training programmes.
2 Fields of research
2.1 Space sciences (space research and astronomy)

Space sciences have long been in the position where international cooperation has
been an absolute necessity: the running of modern ground-based observation sites and
space telescopes requires close collaboration among both research groups and funding
bodies. Existing ground-based telescopes have been built in multinational projects in
which Finnish researchers have played a central role. Many satellite projects are now
proceeding to the stage of scientific utilisation, and Finnish scientists and engineers have
an established place within the space science community. Space research is gradually
becoming everyday routine now, and many of its practical applications are assuming
priority status. A good illustration is provided by the joint space strategy adopted by the
European Space Agency (ESA) and the European Union.
Finland’s priorities and objectives in the field of space research are set out in the national
space strategy that has recently been updated (Avaruustoiminta Suomessa 2002). One of
the points stressed in the new strategy document is the continuity of high-quality space
science. Launched in 2001 by the Academy of Finland and the National Technology
Agency Tekes, the three-year ANTARES research programme has provided important
293
funding for this field. The field remains afflicted by the same weaknesses as before, viz.
the small size of research units, the lack of cohesion in the field of research and the
lack of administrative and technical support in large research projects. Appointed by
the Ministry of Education, the space research working group has recommended that a
national space research centre be set up under the auspices of the Finnish Meteorological
Institute to serve as a national forum for the preparation and implementation of major
projects in this field (Avaruustutkimuslaitostyöryhmän muistio 2000). However, the
necessary funds for the start-up of such a centre have not been forthcoming.
In 2002 Finnish space scientists worked a total of around 150 research-years, of

which some 80 were doctoral years. In all there are some 70 active postgraduate
students in the field. (Koskinen & Valtaoja 2003.) Many research units in the space
sciences currently operate in conjunction with physics departments at universities,
providing an added dimension to basic education in physics and new opportunities
for research cooperation. Researchers in space sciences have a broadly-based,
international and high quality education. Space technology, the development of
scientific instruments and the use of highly efficient methods of dataprocessing and
modelling provide graduates with a solid foundation for employment in business
and industry.
Space sciences add to our understanding of the universe and its various phenomena
and in so doing shape our image of the world around. Much of the work in these fields
consists of making observations, which also involves developing high-quality space
technology. The growth of the Finnish space industry and Finland’s involvement in the
ESA can also be attributed to space research. Research projects in these fields involve
large numbers of business companies; projects in the ongoing ANTARES research
programme, for instance, involve 12 Finnish companies.
Space research holds great fascination in the public’s eye, and space sciences have
provided inspiration for many youngsters keen to study mathematics and the
natural sciences. ANTARES projects have included a special programme to support
communication about research results. The SPACE 2001 exhibition also gave much
exposure to space sciences, attracting 25,000 visitors in three days.
Recommendations
1. In order that Finland can make the best possible use of ESA science programmes
and her possible membership of the ESO, a firm national commitment is required
to long-term projects. That, in turn, requires a sound financial basis. The Academy
of Finland is not in the position to support these kinds of projects because all its
funding decisions are based on open competition and the scientific standards of
research, and its grants are intended for fixed periods only.
2. Researcher training in space sciences provides a useful set of skills and competencies
for teaching, research and engineering jobs. People graduating with Master’s degrees
and doctorates should be encouraged to seek employment in other fields as well
where they can make good use of their knowledge and expertise.
3. Since there are no more than three departments of astronomy in Finland, they need
to continue work to develop their cooperation and mutual division of labour.
294
Contents
2.2 Physics
Modern physics has become an increasingly important base for applications
development in other disciplines. At the same time, it has been showing a stronger
interdisciplinary orientation and worked more and more closely with industry. Materials
physics, chemical, medical and biological physics, modern optics and optoelectronics,
future electronics and sensor and instrumentation technology have become prominent
areas of Finnish physics research.
Measured in terms of relative citation impact figures, Finnish physics has retained its
position above the world average (Figure 1), but the declining trend towards the end of
the 1990s does raise questions: Is this a reflection of the lowered level of resources made
available to physics research, or is Finnish physics research concentrating too heavily
on subjects that have lost their international appeal?
Experimental physics continues to suffer from the ageing of university infrastructures,

which is why it is now gathering into a smaller number of units with sufficient
critical mass. The amount of funding available for investments in equipment has not
increased, but on the other side of the coin both the Academy of Finland and many
private foundations have included an overheads share in their grants that departments
can use to cover the infrastructure costs of research groups. Computational physics
has emerged strongly as a field with national and international significance. Particle
physics gained some stability from the decision to concentrate research in this field into
the Helsinki Institute for Physics (HIP) at the University of Helsinki.
In times of strong economic growth physicists have had plenty of job opportunities
even in the fields of electrical engineering and electronics, and physics PhDs have had
no difficulty finding work in either business or the public sector. However, the base for
potential physics students is no longer as strong and broad as it is used to be because
both universities and polytechnics have also increased the intake of students in other
fields that require the same background of secondary school physics and maths. The
proportion of women involved at different stages of physics researcher training has
increased, but still remains far too low.
Steps have been taken to support professional careers in research. Universities

have begun an active competition for appointing talented young researchers to
professorships. The number of professorships has been increased, partly by creating
posts in new, interdisciplinary fields of research. This gives more and more young
researchers the chance to consider an academic career and also ensures a balanced age
structure in the profession of physicists.
Recommendations
1. The most important factors must remain the priority: to maintain a high standard of
research and to formulate intellectually inspiring research problems. Physicists must
also show the intellectual audacity to tackle new and current issues, even if the old
problems have not yet been fully exhausted.
295
Contents
2. More funding shall be made available for investment in equipment.

3. Contacts and cooperation within the context of CERN, particularly in the field of
experimental particle physics, shall be increased so that maximum benefit can be
gained of membership.
2.3 Geosciences (geology, geophysics, meteorology)

Research in the geosciences is conducted at university units and at a number of
significant government research institutes, which include the Finnish Meteorological
Institute, the Geological Survey of Finland, the Marine Research Institute, and the
Geodetic Institute. There are strong signs of promising cooperation between universities
and research institutes in the areas of both basic education and research. This is seen
among other things in the number of joint applications received by the Academy of
Finland for research funding. Another indication of the increased cooperation and
multidisciplinarity is the close involvement of geosciences researchers in the Academy’s
Finnish Global Change Research Programme (FIGARE). Steps taken to strengthen
national cooperation include the programme drafted for the national graduate school
and the start-up of the major Finnish Reflection Experiment (FIRE), which involves
several research units. A discipline assessment of geosciences is now under way and will
be completed during 2003.
Although much of the research in this field revolves around national problems, it
still has a strong international flavour about it. Finnish geosciences researchers and
research units are well-respected partners in international projects. A good example
of international networking is provided by cooperation with foreign ore prospecting
organisations. Finnish geoscientists are involved in many ESF projects, EU framework
programmes and IGCP (International Geological Correlation Programme) projects.
Finland is also involved in Antarctic research.
Geosciences know-how has extensive application in modern society: examples include

the use of natural resources, environmental protection, urban and regional planning
and weather services. Geoinformatics has growing use in many sectors of society and
business. From a geoscience point of view the natural environment in Finland is in
many ways quite unique, providing a broad range of interesting problems for research
to tackle. Close cooperation between research institutes and universities has helped to
steer dissertation writers towards subjects that have immediate social relevance. The
growth of social impact has also increased the demand for research and qualified
research staff. However, the average age of PhD graduates in this field is relatively high
when compared to other natural sciences.
Recommendations
1. The results of the geosciences discipline assessment in 2003 have to be carefully
analysed in order to take concrete steps forward and to create a national strategy of
development.
2. Strengthening cooperation between different disciplines within the geosciences and
between different university units and research departments provide an important
opportunity for developing research and education in these fields.
296
Contents
3. Science popularisation is crucial so that a sufficient number of talented young

students can be attracted into the geosciences.
2.4 Chemistry and process technology

The Finnish chemical industry is in the process of accommodating to major structural
changes. More and more often now, new products are tailored to specific customer
needs. Research, development, standardisation, manufacturing and marketing are
all simultaneous processes with mutual interactive effects. Growth in the chemical
industry derives mainly from the changeover from bulk production of raw materials
to specialised hi-tech products. This, in turn, requires serious investment in research
and know-how. In Finland R&D investment is in fact third highest in the chemical
industry (Statistics Finland 2003). A growing proportion of the research investment
in the fields of chemical engineering and process technology is in long-term basic
research.
Key areas of future know-how in the chemical industry include functional and smart
materials, receptor-targeted drugs, forest industry chemistry and other special and
fine chemistry (special oil products, special metals, food industry components). Key
technologies of the future include synthesis technology (e.g. combinatory chemistry),
applied materials technology, catalyst technology (e.g. custom-tailored catalysis
and biocatalysis), process technology (e.g. modelling and simulation), bioprocess
technology and separation techniques, environmental technologies (e.g. recycling
and energy technologies and water chemistry), surface chemistry, miniaturisation
and biomimetics. These new technologies and the application of interdisciplinary
technologies open up various interesting opportunities. It is expected that from
around 2010, environmental technologies as well as energy and natural resources
technologies will be among the world’s leading technology branches (Tekniikan
näköalat 2002). Energy and environmental technology are emerging fields with
important implications for sustainable development. Publishing in these fields is
currently very active.
Close links of cooperation between universities and business and industry are no
doubt one of the main strengths of chemistry and process technology; witness the
increasing number of joint R&D projects. There is ever closer integration between
different fields of chemistry research (e.g. experimental, computational and technical
expertise, interdisciplinary cooperation). Scientists in both chemistry and process
technology are more and more often publishing in higher profile and higher
quality journals. A number of new fields have rapidly grown up to complement
the traditional range of chemistry disciplines. Increasingly, scientific articles are
published in journals that fall outside the scope of one’s own discipline. A sound
knowledge of the basics of chemistry allows for the application of that knowledge in
many other disciplines as well. Indeed chemistry now has a prominent role in many
multidisciplinary research projects: the electronics and bioindustry, for instance, offer
numerous potential applications. Chemistry and process technology researchers are
actively involved in numerous multinational research projects and multidisciplinary
research programmes launched by the Academy of Finland. Long-term basic research
funding has been allocated among others to research in process technology, green
297
chemistry and industrial ecology as well as materials technology. By contrast
the amount of funding available for investment in research equipment has not
increased.
University education is producing more and more experts with a broad range of skills and
competencies for the needs of industry and the public sector. In some cases researcher
training is started early on during studies leading to the first university degree. The size
of research groups has continued to grow, and the researcher profile is more diversified
than before. If these trends can be sustained, they are bound to create a more inspiring
research environment for researcher training and for new, research-driven innovations.
The Academy of Finland’s support for professional careers in research is crucially
important for researchers working in chemistry and process technology. There are now
15 Academy Research Fellows, appropriations for 33 postdoctoral researchers and three
centres of excellence in the fields of chemistry, chemical engineering and process and
materials technology.
There is a strong demand for top experts with a doctoral training. According to a
survey commissioned by the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers in
spring 2002, the chemical industry reported the highest demand for new people with
a PhD or Licentiate (around 105 during 2002). It was also reported that recruitment
of research staff in the chemical industry is set to increase sharply, whereas in
other branches the figures would remain unchanged or even decline from 2001.
(Osaamistarveluotain 2002.) Forty four per cent of PhDs graduating from chemistry
and process engineering graduate schools in 1999−2001 were employed in the private
sector (Table 4). One potential threat with regard to the future supply of top experts
in these fields is the lack of interest shown by young people in chemistry and process
technology studies.
Recommendations
1. Adequate funding must be secured for future research projects in basic chemistry. On
the other hand, steps are needed to promote multidisciplinary work, and more risk
funding is needed from public sources. Funding must also be made available for new
equipment.
2. New, multidisciplinary applications can only be produced on the strength of a high
standard of research and education in chemistry and process technology as well as
long-term research funding.
3. Further efforts are needed to support the internationalisation of research. Young
researchers shall be encouraged to study and work abroad, and new opportunities
shall be created for foreign researchers to work in Finland.
4. Steps are needed to increase cooperation between universities and business and
industry in the fields of research and education because hi-tech companies need
competent experts and partners for their research.
5. Biotechnology research funding should also be made available for the chemistry of
biotechnical products and for the design and development of industrial production
processes.
298
Contents
2.5 Mathematics
The current state and quality of Finnish mathematics is good. Figure 2 shows that
during the period under review, Finnish articles in mathematics have received at least
as many citations as mathematics articles in the world on average.
According to MathSciNet, a database maintained by the American Mathematical Society,

the annual number of international articles published by Finnish mathematicians has
increased by around 60 per cent during the past decade. At the beginning of the 1990s,
the figure stood at around 250 articles per annum, by 2001 it was more than 400.
During the same period the annual number of all international mathematical articles
published has increased by no more than 17 per cent. In 1991, 0.45 per cent of all
mathematical articles were by Finnish scientists, in 2001 the corresponding proportion
was 0.62 per cent.
Finnish mathematics grows out of the theory of complex functions, and research is
still heavily focused on analysis. In some areas of analysis and mathematical physics,
Finland ranks among the top countries in the world. Likewise, we have extremely strong
research groups in mathematical logic and certain applied fields (inverse problems,
modelling of biological processes, numerical analysis). Other areas of strength in
Finnish mathematics include stochastics and number theory.
The work of high-quality research groups and their development have been supported
through the centre of excellence in mathematics and through Academy project funding
and research posts. International cooperation has been promoted by launching an
international visitor programme, a brainchild of the Finnish Mathematical Society. The
theme for the first year of the visitor programme in 2003−2004 is inverse problems; next
year’s theme will be stochastics.
The weakness of Finnish mathematics lies in its narrow scope. In spite of the dominant
position of analysis in Finnish mathematics, there is hardly any research into harmonic
analysis. Other fields where there is very little research include algebra, differential
geometry and topology. (Evaluation of Finnish Mathematics 2000.)
One of the distinctive features of pure mathematics is its independence of the world
around. The motives for research often come from within mathematics itself, and it is
very rarely that the aim is to resolve a given problem in the real world. Truly significant
mathematical results always have their practical application, although it often takes
some while for that application to be discovered. However, that time lag is growing
shorter all the time. By now mathematicians have a clear understanding as to which
areas of pure mathematics are important to the development of the information
industry, for example.
Finland is one of the world’s leading hi-tech countries, particularly in the information
industry, yet there are many areas of pure mathematics that are important to the
information industry and in which there is no research at all. The Academy research
programme on Mathematical Methods and Modelling in the Sciences (MaDaMe, 2000–
2003) has provided important support to research in applied mathematics and added to
its impact.
299
Contents
Recommendations
1. Continued funding must be secured for research in applied mathematics.
2. The scope of research in Finnish mathematics should be expanded: support is
needed most particularly in fields of pure mathematics that are important to the
information industry.
2.6 Disciplines related to the information industry

For the present purposes, the information industry sector is defined as an area of
hardware and software technology that comprises the traditional disciplines of
electronics, electrical engineering, telecommunications technology, information
technology and computer science. Unprecedented growth in the electrical and electronics
industry during the 1990s has created for research an operating environment that is in
a constant state of flux. One of the key driving forces of development has included
miniaturisation, which has seen electronic operations become packed into ever smaller,
more powerful and less expensive circuits. Computation-intensive tasks that used
to be too demanding have now become possible even in ordinary desktop PCs, and
new methods of data mining have in many fields (such as bioinformatics, medicine,
geology) allowed scientists to explore huge data masses and on that strength to produce
new information.
A strong Finnish research tradition has developed in the information industry sector
over the past couple of decades. The influx of talented students remains strong, and
graduate schools have produced good results. Many universities offer doctoral and
Master’s training programmes in the English language, with the number of applicants
running into hundreds. However, Finland seems to hold scant appeal among visiting
researchers, and there are still very few women among students and researchers in this
field.
The growth and expansion of the information industry sector has also brought a
sharp increase in the number of publication channels. Unusually, publishing in
refereed conference publications is at a very high level among scientists in these
fields, which is why traditional citation impact figures do not provide a very reliable
picture of the impacts of research. Electronics and information technology are also
exceptional fields of research in the sense that they cut across research in virtually
all other disciplines: interdisciplinary research programmes and projects involving
information industry sectors are therefore bound to increase in the future. Computer
science provides useful tools and methods for the development of a wide range of
other fields of research.
In the near future system-on-chip technologies are expected to throw up challenging

new research problems in circuit design, system description languages and integrated
circuit synthesizers. The American Semiconductor Industry Association SIA, the leading
interest organisation in the field, forecasts that in 2016, manufacturers will be able to
produce 8.8 billion transistors on one chip, over a thousand times more than today. The
application potential is mind-boggling: today’s PCs, smart phones and home electronics
are just the first steps of development.
300
Sensors and active optocomponents hold promising opportunities for technology
miniaturisation. There is significant application potential in human health
technologies, such as pacemakers, artificial muscles and other prosthesis technology, as
well as in various microinstruments in medicine, biology and chemical research.
So ubiquitous are electronics and information technology in modern everyday life

that the question of how people manage in their IT environment has become more
and more important. Questions related to data security, interaction between humans
and technology and monitoring the operation of different systems underline the role
and importance of social sciences and behavioural science in the development of IT
applications. A new challenge for software technology lies in the operation of systems
in dynamically changing environments and communication with systems on which no
detailed information has been available at the stage of design.
Information industry related sciences have recently accounted for about one-third
of the research funding granted by the Research Council for Natural Sciences and
Engineering. In general call for research appropriations in 2002, the total value of
applied funds in proposals received from these fields was significantly higher than in
previous years. Over the past three years there has been growing demand for funding
most notably in computer science. Public funding is crucially important for basic
research, even though the amount of monies available through these channels is no
more than a fraction of R&D investment by industry. In relative terms the amount of
research funding received through public sources is far below the average figures for
the OECD countries.
Since 1998 the Academy of Finland has each year launched one research programme in
the information industry sector. There has been increased cooperation among funding
bodies. The Proactive Computing Research Programme (2002−2005) is a joint effort
with the French Ministry for Research. The EXSITE programme, for its part, is jointly
funded by the Academy of Finland, the National Technology Agency Tekes and Swedish
funding bodies. The Academy of Finland has continued to work closely with Tekes
both in funding and in evaluating research programmes, and this collaboration will
continue in forthcoming programmes that are now under preparation.
Recommendations
1. There is an urgent need in information industry related sciences for more young
postdoctoral researchers who can provide supervision for graduate and postgraduate
students. These young PhDs also need supervision in their own researcher training.
2. The Academy of Finland should continue to support research in information
industry related sciences in keeping with its existing policy lines.
3. Special measures of support are needed among others in research in bioinformatics
and neuroinformatics. In addition, the utilisation of information industry related
sciences in traditional industries needs to be supported.
4. In projects that are close to applied research there is a great temptation to look to
the short term only. The Academy of Finland should continue to provide funding for
long-term basic research, including higher risk research.
301
Contents
2.7 Industrial engineering and management

Industrial engineering and management is a multidisciplinary field of research which
is concerned to explore the operation of industrial companies in broad terms as a
technological, economic and behavioural science process. As well as having scientific
objectives, research in industrial engineering and management is geared to promoting
the competitiveness of Finnish industry.
International cooperation and networking has continued to increase in industrial

engineering and management as a result of growing involvement in research
programmes. New areas of research include knowledge management and product
development. Six new professorships have been set up in the discipline over the past
two years.
The number of doctoral degrees completed in industrial engineering and management

has increased in recent years, at least in part by virtue of the national graduate
school. Almost all graduate school students have spent periods studying abroad. The
proportion of women among PhD graduates has increased; today more than one-third
of all graduates are women. PhD employment is also at a high level. Half of the PhD
graduates from the national graduate school in 1998−2000 went to work in the private
business sector, the other half in research institutes and universities. The age distribution
of PhD graduates in industrial engineering and management is quite sharply divided:
some go on to take the doctorate straight after their first university degree at a young
age, others pick up their postgraduate studies while working in industry, sometimes
decades later.
Recommendations
1. Steps are needed to develop research management practices in industrial engineering
and management, to promote cooperation between research groups in this field and
to foster cutting edge research.
2. Further efforts are needed to intensify cooperation between industrial engineering
and management and different technology branches so that the distinctive features
of industrial engineering and management can be put to the best possible use.
3. Continued support must be made available for scientific research and the supervision
of doctoral theses. The six new professorships in the field are still not enough when
compared against the number of postgraduate students.
4. Teaching and research in product development must be increased within the field of
industrial engineering and management.
2.8 Mechanical engineering

Many Finnish companies in mechanical engineering and the metal industry are world
market leaders in their respective fields – a position they would not have been able
to achieve without a sound foundation in research and technological application.
Mechanical engineering industries generally have greater immunity to fluctuations
in business trends than many other, more sensitive areas of business and industry.
In Finland the whole business environment of mechanical engineering is changing
302
Contents
dramatically as the biggest players in the field are upgrading from their traditional role
of equipment supplier and expanding into the business of developing their customers’
core process technologies, machinery and services. These changes are affecting the
structure of the whole business and putting companies under greater pressure of
networking. Electronics, information technology and materials technology have all
taken on a much more prominent role in research and development in mechanical
engineering: the integration of these technologies has provided a major boost to Finnish
mechanical engineering. Finnish know-how in machine automation commands
worldwide respect, both within the academic community and among end-users. There
is one national centre of excellence in this field.
Future growth and development in mechanical engineering will require the seamless
integration of basic and applied research. One of the consequences of the closer
cooperation that there is now between the Academy of Finland and Tekes is that a
growing proportion of funding is channelled through larger research projects. Graduate
schools have expanded and established a firm footing, but all the necessary technology
branches are not yet involved. Research in mechanical engineering is still carried on
in units that are too small and with resources that are too scattered, which inevitably
reflects badly on the quality of research. Multidisciplinary research in mechanical
engineering requires that internationally significant research units are set up that have
sufficient critical mass and that are capable of producing significant basic research and
working closely with the industry sector.
Recommendations
1. Cooperation between different technology branches and with other fields of research
needs to be stepped up in order to strengthen and provide direction for research in
mechanical engineering.
2. Public research funding must be secured so that multidisciplinary and long-
term research in mechanical engineering can continue: this is vital for sustained
technology development in industry.
3. The international visibility of Finnish research in mechanical engineering shall be
increased by developing contacts with leading research institutes in the field and by
supporting the presentations of Finnish researchers in international conferences and
the publication of research results in significant journals.
4. Graduate schools in mechanical engineering shall be expanded to those technology
branches that are not yet involved.
2.9 Construction technology and municipal engineering

New emerging fields in construction technology include life-cycle engineering and real-
estate management. There has been important progress in the modelling of building
physics phenomena as well as in their application in the design process, and new
openings have been made in IT applications as well as in the development of smart
structures.
Many areas of research in Finnish construction technology are of a high international

standard, and there are more and more multidisciplinary research projects in this field.
303
Contents
The main strength of the construction technology sector is that it has close contacts
with industry, making the transfer of research findings easy and flexible. Research has
focused upon topical issues. Research and development at university level and efficient
training has helped among other things to support repair technology, which has
become a significant line of business.
Researchers in construction technology have plenty of international contacts and EU

funding, but nonetheless further steps are needed to promote the internationalisation
of research. Financial stringency has meant that the research equipment at universities
is somewhat outdated, although some investments in state-of-the-art equipment have
been possible thanks to project funding. Funding for basic research, however, is still
inadequate.
As for research in municipal engineering (high-way engineering, transportation

engineering, water engineering and environmental protection at community level),
prominent trends have included the growth of multidisciplinary cooperation and the
systems perspective. Recent advances in information technology have paved the way for
important progress in such areas as telematics in transportation, the use of positioning
data and new, soft calculation methods.
Standards of scientific research in municipal engineering are continuing to rise as

the discipline builds up its own research culture. There is a good balance between
experimental and theoretical research: experimental work provides a sound basis
for systems theoretical approaches. Weaknesses in the field include the small size of
research units and the lack of funding for basic research.
Expertise in several areas of municipal engineering (e.g. traffic control/transport

telematics and applied hydrology) is by now of an internationally competitive standard,
and researchers in the field have good contacts of cooperation with colleagues abroad.
Research also has a strong social impact: funded as it is by various sectors of society,
research in municipal engineering feeds back its results to those sectors straightaway.
Recommendations
1. Funding for research in construction technology and municipal engineering shall be
increased and the research culture in these fields further strengthened.
2. Further efforts are needed to increase and develop international research projects
and research results shall be published in high-quality international journals.
3. Research equipment must be upgraded to modern standards.
2.10 Architecture and industrial design

Research in architecture and industrial design is typically a multidisciplinary exercise,
involving such fields as technology, business administration, the social sciences and
environmental sciences. New areas of interest include the integration of traditional
know-how in the fields of industrial design and architecture with the possibilities of new
technologies and questions of design consumption. Many new products of industrial design
tie in with new technology applications, and the design process itself requires a closer
304
knowledge of information technology than before. Research in architecture is exploring
new avenues of technical system development as well as working to create new software.
National research traditions in architecture are well established, but there is still room
for improvement with regard to methodological know-how. Architecture research, at
the top end of the scale, compares very favourably with work internationally. Major
research projects in the field and most doctoral students have international contacts,
but researchers in the field could still be more active in seeking international funding.
Debate on the most appropriate format of the doctoral thesis in architecture is still
ongoing. Although new forms of study have been introduced that combine further
vocational training and academic postgraduate studies, it is still primarily from the
traditional academic line of study that most degrees are completed. The field of research
in landscape architecture has expanded and the need for research increased among
other reasons as a result of recent changes in legislation, but the resources available
have not been increased.
Research in industrial design focuses on product and service production as well as design
consumption. At the beginning of 2003, an estimated 30 researchers were engaged
full-time in industrial design research. This is more than ever before, and the figure is
still rising. One of the contributing factors has been the launch of the Tekes Industrial
Design Technology Programme in 2002, which is complemented by the Academy’s
Industrial Design Research Programme that will be starting up in 2003. The broader
concerns of research groups and research institutes in industrial design are beginning to
take precedence over projects based on the interests of individual researchers.
Measured in terms of degrees completed and articles published, research in industrial

design lags some way behind more established fields of research. This is due to the small
size of the research community and the lack of coherence and unity in the international
field of research. However, several research groups have good international contacts.
The development of researcher training remains a major challenge in the field because
there are only few competent supervisors in industrial design and only limited resources
are made available to researcher training.
Research in industrial design is aimed at promoting the competitiveness of Finnish

industry; strengthening the distinctive features of our national culture; and improving
the quality of the environment. The transfer of research results into industrial practice
is ensured by close cooperation with business and industry. The social impacts of
architectural research have clearly been increased by the closer links of research with
the real world. The promotion of experimental building and product development
requires close collaboration with related fields, such as construction technology.
Effective development of construction processes also requires cooperation with various
agents in society (administration, industry, etc.).
Recommendations
1. The methodological competencies of researchers in architecture, landscape
architecture and industrial design need to be strengthened through increased
investment in research training, for example.
305
Contents
2. Steps are needed to develop the cooperation of architectural research with closely
related disciplines as well as agents in society.
3. Researcher training in industrial design shall be developed among other things by
increasing the availability of resources for supervision.
4. Particularly technology know-how needs to be strengthened in research in industrial
design.
5. Longer-term researcher exchange and international publishing both need to be
increased in industrial design.
3 Recommendations
Research funding
• Continued support should be made available for long-term basic research in the
natural sciences and engineering.
• Adequate public funding for multidisciplinary basic and applied research in
engineering must be secured for reasons of sustained technology development in
industry.
• The Academy of Finland should continue to support the information industry
related sciences in keeping with its existing policy lines and promote the use of these
sciences in other research fields.
• Further steps are needed to develop multidisciplinary approaches in research
projects, and support should also be made available for higher risk research.
• Experimental disciplines must be guaranteed adequate funding for investments in
new equipment.
Researcher training and the research career

• Special measures are needed to support schoolchildren’s knowledge in maths and
natural science subjects and to inspire greater interest among young people in
mathematical subjects.
• In order that the university system can produce a continued supply of competent
experts in the natural sciences and engineering, steps are needed to secure the high
quality of training and to make university education more attractive.
• Much stronger efforts are needed to recruit talented young students and postgraduate
students, women in particular, into the natural sciences and engineering.
• In order to make a career in research a more attractive proposition for young
researchers, long-term funding must be made available for doctoral students and
researchers and they must be offered a competitive pay package.
• Postdoctoral researchers are needed in greater numbers to supervise young people
in the early stages of their research career, particularly in the information industry
related sciences. These postdoctoral researchers are also in need of supervision
themselves. This should be taken into account when planning universities’ new
system of teaching and research posts as well as when planning the cooperation of
universities and business and industry.
• Further support is needed for the international training of Finnish researchers and
their involvement in leading international research teams. On the other hand, steps
are also needed to support the integration of foreign senior researchers into research
teams at Finnish universities.
306
Cooperation
• Research cooperation among different disciplines in the natural sciences and
engineering should be further strengthened in certain areas, such as construction
technology and municipal engineering as well as mechanical engineering and
manufacturing technology.
• Continued efforts are needed to support interactive cooperation among universities,
research institutes and industry with a view to promoting research education and
the practical application of research results.
• It remains a key priority to promote networking among the Academy of Finland,
Tekes, universities and business and industry.
• Researchers must be encouraged to network with top international researchers and
research groups.
307
Contents
References
Avaruustoiminta Suomessa (2002). Kansallinen strategia ja kehittämisen tavoitteet.
Kauppa- ja teollisuusministeriön neuvottelukuntaraportteja 1/2002. (English summary:
Space activities in Finland, national strategy and objectives.)
Avaruustutkimuslaitostyöryhmän muistio (2000). Opetusministeriön työryhmien

muistioita 24: 2000.
Evaluation of Finnish Mathematics. Report of the evaluation panel (2000). Publications

of the Academy of Finland 5/00.

Education seminar on ”Challenges and opportunities of the research career”. Helsinki,
22.11.2002.

Koskinen, H. & E. Valtaoja (2003). Avaruustieteen tila Suomessa 2003. Unpublished

report for the Space Science Committee.
MathSciNet. Mathematical Reviews on the Web. American Mathematical Society.

3.6.2003. <http://www.ams.org/mathscinet>.
National Programme for Materials and Structure Research 1994–2000. Evaluation

National Science Indicators on Diskette (1981–2002). Institute for Scientific Information,

Philadelphia, PA.
Osaamistarveluotain. Rekrytointi jatkuu – riittääkö työvoima? (2002). Teollisuuden ja

Työnantajain Keskusliitto.

Research Programme for Electronic Materials and Microsystems 1999–2002. Evaluation

Research Programme for Process Technology 1999–2002. Evaluation Report (2002).

Statistics Finland (1999). Tutkimus- ja kehittämistoiminta 1997. Taulukot. Science and

Technology 1999: 1.
308
Statistics Finland (2003). Tutkimus- ja kehittämistoiminta 2001. Science, Technology and
Research 2002: 3.
Tekniikan näköalat (2002). Japanilaiset raottavat tulevaisuuden verhoa. Tekniikan

näköalat 2, 30–32.
309
Contents
Appendix 1. Centres of excellence, Academy Professors and

research programmes under the Research Council
for Natural Sciences and Engineering
Centres of excellence under the Research Council for Natural Sciences and
Engineering 2000−2005
Institute of Hydraulics and Automation (IHA) (Tampere University of Technology)
Nuclear and Condensed Matter Physics Programme at JYFL (University of Jyväskylä)
Low Temperature Laboratory: Physics and Brain Research Units (Helsinki University of
Technology)
Computational Condensed-matter and Complex Materials Research Unit (COMP)
(Helsinki University of Technology)
Research Centre for Computational Science and Engineering (Helsinki University of
Technology)
New Information Processing Principles (Helsinki University of Technology)
Tissue Engineering and Medical, Dental and Veterinary Biomaterial Research Group
(Tampere University of Technology, Helsinki University of Technology, University of
Helsinki)
Åbo Akademi University Process Chemistry Group (Åbo Akademi University)
Signal Processing Algorithm Group, SPAG (Tampere University of Technology)
Centres of excellence under the Research Council for Natural Sciences and
Engineering 2002–2007
Formal Methods in Programming (Åbo Akademi University)
Research Unit on Physics, Chemistry and Biology of Atmospheric Composition and
Climate Change (University of Helsinki, University of Kuopio, Finnish Meteorological
Institute)
Research Unit of Geometric Analysis and Mathematical Physics (University of Jyväskylä,
University of Helsinki)
Smart and Novel Radios Research Unit (SMARAD) (Helsinki University of Technology)
Bio- and Nanopolymers Research Group (Helsinki University of Technology, University
of Helsinki, University of Turku)
From Data to Knowledge Research Unit (University of Helsinki, Helsinki University of
Technology)
Academy Professors under the Research Council for Natural Sciences and
Engineering 2003
Helena Aksela, University of Oulu (atom and molecular physics)
Jaakko Astola, Tampere University of Technology (methods of signal processing)
Ralph-Johan Back, Åbo Akademi University (formal methods in programming )
Bjarne Holmbom, until 31 July 2003, Åbo Akademi University (forest products process
chemistry)
Kimmo Kaski, Helsinki University of Technology (computational physics and
computational information technology)
Matti Krusius, Helsinki University of Technology (low temperature physics and
technology)
310
Antti Kupiainen, University of Helsinki (mathematical physics and statistical
mechanics)
Risto Nieminen, as from 1 August 2003, Helsinki University of Technology
(computational materials physics)
Erkki Oja, Helsinki University of Technology (information processing technology,
particularly neural networks)
Jukka Pekola, Helsinki University of Technology (nanophysics)
Pertti Törmälä, Tampere University of Technology (biomaterials technology, particularly
bioactive composites)
Esko Ukkonen, University of Helsinki (efficient computational methods, algorithms)
Research programmes launched in 2000−2003 under the Research Council

for Natural Sciences and Engineering
Mathematical Methods and Modelling in the Sciences, MaDaMe (2000–2003)
Future Mechanical Engineering, TUKEVA (2000–2003)
Space Research, ANTARES (2001–2004)
Telecommunication Electronics II, TELECTRONICS II (2001–2003)
Proactive Computing, PROACT (2002–2005)
Future Electronics, TULE (2003–2006)
311
Contents
Appendix 2. Research Council for Natural Sciences and

Engineering in 2001−2003
Chair
Riitta Keiski, Professor
University of Oulu
Mats Gyllenberg, Professor

University of Turku
Iiro Hartimo, Professor

Pekka Hautojärvi, Professor

Jorma Kangas, Professor

University of Oulu
Markku Kivikoski, Professor

Tampere University of Technology
Kaisa Nyberg, Docent

Nokia Research Center
Marja-Liisa Riekkola, Professor

Ulla Ruotsalainen, Docent

Tampere University of Technology
Kari-Jouko Räihä, Professor

Markku Tuominen, Professor

Lappeenranta University of Technology
Science Adviser Eeva Karjalainen and Director Susan Linko from the Academy’s Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Unit were involved in preparing the Research
Council’s report.
312
SuTi_Englanti_Kansi_OK.FH10 Mon Oct 06 11:00:41 2003 Page 1
10/03
This Academy review of the state and quality
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN FINLAND

of scientific research in Finland focuses on
developments in the early years of the twenty-first
century. Key themes include the social impact and
the human resources of research. The review also
assesses the impacts of research funding and
science policy measures on the development of
science and research, and on society more
generally. The scientific results and impacts of
research are evaluated against different indicators
and compared internationally.
In addition, the review charts the progress

that has been made in the biosciences and
environmental research, in cultural and social
research, in the natural sciences and engineering
as well as in health research.
ISBN 951-715-466-6 (print)

ISBN 951-715-467-4 (pdf)
ISSN 0358-9153
Orders:
Academy of Finland
P.O.Box 99, FIN-00501 Helsinki, Finland
Phone +358 9 7748 8346, Fax +358 9 7748 8372
viestinta@aka.fi
www.aka.fi
Composite

TX Finland 2993 Scientific Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TX Finland 2993 Scientific Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TX Finland 2993 Scientific Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SuTi_Englanti_Kansi_OK.

FH10 Sun Nov 02 12:09:09 2003 Page 1

PUBLICATIONS OF THE ACADEMY OF FINLAND 10/03

Editors: Timo Oksanen, Annamaija Lehvo & Anu Nuutinen

Reports by the Academy’s Research Councils

Biosciences and Environmental Research

The main focus of the Academy’s development activities is on improving opportunities

The Academy has a number of funding instruments for various purposes.

Each year Academy-funded projects account for some 3,000 researcher-years at

For more information on the Academy of Finland, go to www.aka.fi/eng.

Translation: David Kivinen

Cover illustration: Hanna Varis (1988): ”The World”

ISBN 951-715-466-6 (print)

Printed by Painotalo Miktor, Helsinki, Finland 2003

Editors: Timo Oksanen, Annamaija Lehvo & Anu Nuutinen

1 Research infrastructure and environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3 The human resources of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4 Measures of science policy aimed at supporting research . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

5 Scientific and social impact of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Appendix 1. Description of the National Science Indicators database . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Gender in the Finnish research system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

The impact of social research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

The social impact of research and knowledge application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

REPORTS BY THE ACADEMY’S RESEARCH COUNCILS

Biosciences and Environmental Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

1 Research infrastructure and environment

Research as part of society

Research as part of the national and international research system

Research as part of the innovation system

2.1 R&D expenditure and sources of funding in Finland

R&D investment by business enterprises has contributed significantly to the development

Administrative branch 1999a 2001a 2003a

Sources: Kolu 2000 & 2002, Statistics Finland 2003a.

Development of R&D expenditure

Year Business enterprise Public sectora Higher educationb Total

Source: Statistics Finland 1999 & 2003b.

Table 2.3 provides an overview of R&D expenditure by organisation. Although

Table 2.3. R&D expenditure by organisation in 1997 and 2001.

Organisations 1997 2001

Source: Statistics Finland 1999 & 2003b.

Sources of R&D funding

Table 2.4. R&D expenditure by source of funding in different sectors of performance

Source: Statistics Finland 2003b.

2.2 Funding organisations

2.2.1 Academy of Finland research funding

Type of funding 1998 2000 2002

Centre of excellence programmesb 3.0 2 – – 30.3 17

Researcher training 16.5 12 16.8 11 23.7 13

Source: Academy of Finland Annual Operating Review 2002.

Figure 2.4. Breakdown of Academy of Finland research funding decisions by major

2.2.2 Technology funding from the National Technology Agency

Tekes funding 1998 2000 2002

2.2.3 Other funding bodies

2.3 Higher education sector

2.3.1 Universities and university hospitals

External R&D funding by sources of funding

Sources of funding 1997 2001 Real growtha %

Source: Statistics Finland 1999 & 2003c.

University research expenditure by major fields of science