How challenging is Switzerland’s non-association with Horizon Europe?
June 2023 by Dragan Filimonovic, Matthias Niggli and Christian Rutzer
About
The analysis is part of Innoscape. The project is conducted by the Center for International Economics and Business | CIEB of the University of Basel and aims to investigate the Swiss innovation landscape from an economic perspective.
One third of current Swiss scientific publications are joint work with scientists from the EU. Not surprisingly, Switzerland’s non-association to the EU’s new research program Horizon Europe poses challenges for the Swiss research community, its economy and society as a whole. We shed light on the role of the predecessor program Horizon 2020 in promoting Swiss-European scientific partnerships to highlight the potential consequences of this non-association.
Switzerland’s current status with Horizon Europe may evoke the imagination of a science fiction novel, but unfortunately, it reflects our current reality. Although certain countermeasures have been implemented, such as reimbursement of costs for collaborative projects and the implementation of transitional financing for calls that are closed for Swiss participants, the situation remains challenging for Swiss researchers (see SBFI). Moreover, the efficacy of these measures to mitigate adverse effects of the non-association remain uncertain. Consequently, Switzerland is actively endeavoring to establish novel cooperation initiatives with countries including the United States, Israel, and Japan. For example, Prof. Martina Hirayama, Head of the State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI), expressed Switzerland’s commitment to diversifying its international alliances and reducing dependence on a sole partner (Science|Business, 2022). This reflects the significance of the challenge at hand. To further illustrate the magnitude of this issue, let’s look at the predecessor program, Horizon 2020.
How connected is Switzerland to the EU Research Community?
Substituting the well-established and proven collaboration networks between Swiss and EU research institutions would be highly challenging, as these networks are characterized by a high degree of “density”. As Figure 1 indicates, approximately one-third of scientific papers written by Swiss-based researchers between 2014 and 2022 had at least one EU-based co-author, a percentage closely resembling that of papers involving solely domestic cooperation.
Click here to get more information on the data sources
For the analysis in Figures 1-5 and Table 1, we leverage
data on scientific papers from the
Scopus
database.The Scopus database contains more than 82 million records
from over 41,000 journals and covers articles since the 18th century,
with very good coverage of articles published since 1966. For our
analysis, we include all scientific papers published in a scientific
journal between 2014 and 2022 with at least one co-author from a Swiss
institution. To assign authors to Swiss institutions, we only consider
the main affiliation of an author. We also consider the funding source
of these research papers. Specifically, a paper is recognized as being
funded by Horizon 2020 if the program is mentioned in the
acknowledgments section of the paper. For the analysis in Figure 6, we
additionally consider data from the EU, which contain for each Horizon
2020 project the leading country
(data.europa.eu).
We add to this data the H-index of the journal of where a paper has been
published as a measure of research quality.
Figure 1: Collaborating with the EU is important for Swiss science
Sources and notes
Our own calculations of the CIEB based on data from Scopus over 2014-2022. Only scientific papers with more than one author are taken into account. The share for Switzerland shows those papers that do not have co-authors from institutions abroad.
A closer examination in Figure 2 of Swiss partner locations across various scientific fields reveals that cooperation with institutions in the EU would nearly surpass the significance of local cooperation in the fields of Medicine and Natural Sciences/Mathematics. Hence the problem!
Figure 2: Collaboration with the EU is important for the Swiss natural and life sciences
Sources and notes
Our own calculations of the CIEB based on data from Scopus over 2014-2022. Assignment to scientific fields is based on the journal in which a paper was published. Only scientific papers with more than one author are taken into account. The share for the European Union shows the share of Swiss papers co-authored with scientists from institutions located in the European Union. The share for Switzerland shows the share of Swiss papers that do not have any co-authors from institutions in other countries.
Impact of non-association to Horizon Europe likely to vary by field and region
Switzerland’s non-association with Horizon Europe is of particular consequence for certain scientific fields that stand to be most affected. This is predominantly true for the natural sciences, engineering, and computer science, as depicted in Figure 3. Within these fields, papers from Swiss-based researchers linked to Horizon 2020 accounted for approximately 15% during the program’s peak publication years in 2019 and 2020. It’s worth noting that research and development (R&D) activities within these fields are likely to play a crucial role in maintaining the competitiveness of the Swiss economy. It is also interesting to note the high proportion of projects funded by Horizon 2020 in computer science, especially as Figure 2 shows that cooperation with the EU is generally considered less important in computer science than in most other fields.
Figure 3: H2020-funded research important for Swiss STEM
Sources and notes
Our own calculations of the CIEB based on data from Scopus over 2014-2022. Assignment to scientific fields is based on the journal in which a paper was published. A paper is considered to be funded by Horizon 2020 if the program is mentioned in the acknowledgements of the paper.
Moreover, certain Swiss regions are potentially more susceptible than others to the consequences of the non-association with Horizon Europe due to their compositions of universities and research activities. Our data shown in Figure 4 reveal that the Lake Geneva Region boasts the largest share of scientific papers financed by Horizon 2020. This suggests that the EPFL, CERN, the University of Geneva, the University of Lausanne, and other regional entities have achieved notable success in attracting Horizon 2020 projects. Following closely on the list is Zurich, home to two renowned research institutions—the ETH and the University of Zurich. Additionally, the region of Ticino, with the Università della Svizzera Italiana, Northwestern Switzerland, with the University of Basel and Espace Mitteland, with the University of Bern and Fribourg, also rank prominently.
Figure 4: H2020-funded research varies widely across Swiss regions
Sources and notes
Our own calculations of the CIEB based on Scopus data over the period 2014-2022. Assignment to Swiss regions is based on the location of the main affiliation(s) of the author(s) of a paper. A paper is considered to be funded by Horizon 2020 if the program is mentioned in the acknowledgements of the paper.
It is worth noting that in addition to universities, various regional entities such as firms, research institutes, hospitals, and other organizations also participate in research endeavors, and may also be affected by potential funding gaps (for more details, see Table 1, which shows the 50 Swiss institutions with the most scientific publications over the period 2014-2022 and their involvement in Horizon 2020). Consequently, many institutions that were actively engaged in the previous Horizon 2020 program may need to explore alternative sources of financing to sustain their research agendas.
Table 1: The importance of H2020 funding for key Swiss institutions
Sources and notes
Our own calculations of the CIEB based on data from Scopus. The table shows the 50 Swiss institutions with the most scientific work between 2014 and 2022. University hospitals have been assigned to their respective universities, although they are often independent economic entities. The first column shows the affiliation, the second column the region where the affiliation is located, the third column the total number of scientific publications in the period 2014-2022, and the last column the proportion of these publications funded by the European Horizon 2020 program.Top Swiss Research is Propelled by Horizon 2020 Funding
In addition to the acquisition of funds, the non-association with Horizon Europe poses an even greater threat to the quality of research in Switzerland. As Figure 5 shows, scientific publications resulting from Horizon 2020 projects exhibit higher quality compared to publications supported by other funding sources or those with no third-party funding altogether. The highest share of top publications among all Swiss publications of a particular field and year (the 10% most cited papers) comes from Horizon 2020 projects in the humanities and social sciences. But also in the other fields, such as medical research or natural sciences, Horizon 2020 projects led to a higher share of top publications than otherwise funded scientific papers.
Figure 5: H2020 led to high number of top publications by Swiss researchers
Sources and notes
Our own calculations of the CIEB based on data from Scopus over 2014-2022. Assignment to scientific fields is based on the journal in which a paper was published. The assignment of a paper to a funding source is based on the acknowledgements of the paper. The classification as a top publication is based on whether an article is among the ten percent of the most cited scientific papers co-authored by researchers from Switzerland for a given year and scientific field.
The non-association may also affect the entire EU research community beyond Switzerland’s borders. Switzerland’s current status within Horizon Europe does not allow Swiss institutions to take on project coordination roles (with two exceptional cases, which are detailed here). But exactly this leadership-roles of Swiss universities within Horizon 2020 has led to high-impact research. Our evaluation in Figure 6 shows that, on average, scientific papers funded by Horizon 2020 have been published in higher-ranked scientific journals when the project coordination was in the hands of Swiss institutions. Specifically, we observe that such scientific papers rank second overall, just behind papers written as part of projects led by institutions from Israel. This finding suggests that the absence of Swiss project leadership may have a negative impact on the overall quality of Horizon Europe outcomes, resulting in a lose-lose situation for all parties involved.
Figure 6: High impact publications from Swiss-led H2020 projects
Sources and notes
Our own calculations of the CIEB based on data from data.europa.eu over 2014-2020. In the graph, we included only projects consisting of at least one other project partner in addition to the project leader/coordinator. It shows, for all papers funded by Horizon 2020, the average h-index of the journals (a measure of a journal’s scientific impact) in which the papers were published and categorizes these papers by the country of the coordinating researchers.
What lesson can we learn from Horizon 2020?
Switzerland has established a longstanding tradition of research and innovation cooperation with the European Union, actively participating in EU Research Framework Programs since 1988. Consequently, the sudden change in Switzerland’s status as a “non-associated third country” within the Horizon Europe program does surely not mean an immediate halt to such research collaboration. Moreover, the Swiss government has implemented countermeasures to mitigate potential negative effects. While it’s difficult to determine the exact impact of Switzerland not being a fully associated member of Horizon Europe - including, for example, the number of projects potentially won or top scientists attracted - our analysis sends a clear message. It suggests that the Swiss public and policymakers should be prepared for negative consequences until a comprehensive solution is found.
The negative effects may be less related to the lack of resources available to certain Swiss institutions to pursue cutting-edge research agendas, as these can in principle be compensated by Swiss funding. Rather, the negative effects relate to the inability to actively influence European research priorities and policies, limited access to European research infrastructure and networks, and, consequently, a potential decline in the overall quality of Swiss research output. Furthermore, due to their “third country” status, Swiss institutions can only be collaborators, which means that they have to be invited by others to participate in a Horizon Europe project, despite the existence of a substitute funding scheme from the SNSF. And inviting Swiss institutions to participate in projects may be more challenging for potential partners due to administrative barriers such as complex funding schemes and quota-related conditions. Metaphorically speaking, Switzerland finds itself no longer in the driver’s seat, instead it has to rely on its hitchhiking skills to reach its desired research destination.
Bilateral collaboration with institutions from the European Union certainly offers valuable opportunities to continue cultivating these networks, and collaboration with other countries can also be expanded. In fact, previous analysis has shown that collaboration with countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. can lead to improved innovation performance (Filimonovic/Rutzer, 2021). However, even if an intensification of such cooperations would succeed it is crucial to acknowledge that the comprehensive scale, diverse funding sources, network density, policy influence, and access to European research infrastructure provided by a large-scale research program like Horizon Europe cannot be fully replicated through bilateral partnerships alone. Moreover, Swiss research institutions have invested significant time and resources over the years in cultivating their collaborative networks with EU partners. The creation of similarly strong ties with other regions could potentially be a time-consuming endeavor.
Finally, the Swiss scientific community highlights the exclusion from individual funding schemes (e.g. ERC grants, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellowships) as potentially the greatest issue (ETH, 2022). The main argument here is that the Swiss substitute programs - SNF Starting Grants, SNF Consolidator Grants, and SNF Advanced Grants - are not evaluated by comities that have the same global recognition as those of Horizon Europe. This may decrease the perceived research excellence of researchers in Switzerland usually signaled by obtaining an ERC grant. Ultimately this may impact the decision of both young and experienced scholars considering their location for continuing their research in the long run. They may be perhaps more willing to move to a country that is fully associated with Horizon Europe and where they can apply for prestigious individual fellowships. Since scientists in the early stages of their careers tend to contribute more to creating breakthrough ideas (Kaltenberg et al., 2023, Yu et al., 2022) – the long run effects of the non-association could indeed be tangible if no political solution can be found in the nearer future.
This article was written using R Markdown, R shiny, and Plotly. We would like to thank Dr. Eve Silfverberg from the Grants Office of the University of Basel for her valuable insights. Any errors are ours.