8 th Globelics International Conference
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Claire POLO June 2010
Grenoble, FRANCE
8th Globelics International Conference,
Making Innovation Work for Society: Linking, Leveraging and Learning
1 - 3 November 2010
“Brain concentration by high technology clusters and North-South scientific cooperation: a
way to co-development? The case of Mexico-Europe nanotechnologists' networks.”
1. Introduction
1.1 World science and “knowledge-based economy”: a pinch/drop of/ introducing cooperation
into competition
1.1.1 Brain circulation as a factor/source of scientific creativity, economic prosperity and
collective/general well-being
The “knowledge-based society” paradigm1 has been expanding worldwide since the 1980. It
is based on the idea that a strong “knowledge-based economy” would bring unceasing innovation
providing long-lasting prosperity. In 2000, the General Assembly of the United Nations
significantly promoted science and technology (S&T) as efficient factors of development, in the 8 th
Millennium Goal of the Declaration, emphasizing international solidarity and technological
assistance from most developed countries to others. Such a concept involves performativity and
influences investment decisions. For instance the European Union Lisbon strategy (2000) aimed at
making European economy the “world most competitive and dynamic” 2 thanks to massive
investment in Research and Development (R&D). Mexico is taking part to this infatuation for the
knowledge society and the government has been undertaking policies for S&T development since
the mid-1990, after he became member of the OECD (1994) and implemented the NAFTA (1994)3.
This paradigm that inspires current visions of the future has deep historical roots. Actually, it
can be understood as a new incarnation of the old “world science” myth in which knowledge is
considered as a resource that multiplies at being shared 4. Consequently, scientific cooperation
would inherently enable the creation of new knowledge that would make possible a better control of
the environment and exploitation of resources for mankind's well-being. Since the world science
appears as an automatic positive-sum game, R&D activities and results must be shared for the
1 Catherine Agulhon also explains the diverse meanings of the concept: “algunas empíricas, otras ideológicas, algunas
sobre las cuales los estados occidentales pueden actuar, otras que son del orden de la imposición, o incluso de la
seducción” (some are empirical others are ideodeological, occidental countries can act on some of them, others are
imposed or belong to a seduction logic) in “La adaptación escolar y social de los estudiantes latinoamericanos en
Francia: ¿un proceso específico?”, in Sylvie DIDOU & Etienne GERARD Fuga de cerebros..., 2009
2 The Lisbona strategy had the purpose to get to a 3% of European GDP in R&D in 2010, which was not reached. A
renewal of this strategy is under negotiation.
3 NAFTA favoured the internationalization of Mexican universities, which favilitated international cooperation in
education and research. A great reference on this topic: Sylvie DIDOU-AUPETIT, L'internationalisation des universités
au Mexique, 2003. Some examples of the measures implemented by CONACYT (Mexican National Science and
Technology Council) from 1995: programs for the strengthening of companies' scientific and technologic capacities
(FIDETEC, FORCCYTEC Incubadoras,PREAEM) and the creation of Regional Research systems (SRI).
4 « Le savoir - transmissible, créateur, multiplicateur, cumulatif - serait devenu la source inépuisable du développement
collectif », thanks to a « amélioration de la productivité, de la rentabilité et […] une élévation globale des richesses
théoriquement disponibles pour la société » in Jean-Baptiste MEYER, “La société de la connaissance est-elle l’avenir
du (tiers) monde ? Voie luminariste et chemins de traverse,” Mimeo IRD (January 2000) p. 1-2benefits of all. Jean-Baptiste Meyer expressed it this way: “the logic of the knowledge society won't
be competition but cooperation”5.
1.1.2 Developing economy thanks to S&T business: the fight for nanotechnologies' market shares as
a zero-sum game
Focusing on nanoscience and nanotechnology (N&N) leads us to consider the other
dimension of the knowledge society, characterized by the pursuit of knowledge for profit 6. In the
current globalized economy, a high-level national research is a source of competitive advantage for
the commercial war.
The N&N are considered since 2000 as a strategic sector 7 for the next industrial revolution.
It is noticeable in both political discourse and public investment, not only in the United States,
Japan and Europe but also in some more countries (figure 1), with great Chinese effort8. An
estimation predicted that in 2014, nanotechnologies would be incorporated in a 15% of
manufactured products9. Such nano-revolution may affect international labour division, and be a
great opportunity for developing countries to make up for lost time 10, if they manage to “be in the
race” and increase their market share in this key sector. But obviously not everyone can increase his
market share simultaneously and the total game sum would always be a 100%.
As a result, intellectual property concerns become essential in the actors' strategies in order
to preserve as long as possible the new competitive advantage acquired by innovation. Moreover, in
the N&N brand new field, research is closely related to industry, at least in the leading countries
that tend to be organized by clusters (where the winner triangle applies: the concentration of
education, research and industry on the same site). Under such conditions, industrial transfer is
pretty quick and frequently the same institutions both produce patents and exploit it, a phenomenon
that makes even more strategic intellectual property issues.
Source: European Commission, Research DG, 2005
Figure 1: Public expenditure in N&N R&D (1997-2004)
5 Idem : « La logique de la société de la connaissance ne sera plus celle de la compétition mais celle de la
coopération »
6 Some authors even talk about the “commodification” of knowledge.
7 Creation of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative this year, which acted as an example to follow and lead to
national nanotechnology plans in multiple countries, with diverse levels of development.
8 European Commission, Some figures about Nanotechnology RD in Europe and Beyond, December 2005
9 The Nanotech Report (Lux Research, 2006).
10 In this respects, the Korea example is often emphasized.1.2 Strengthening and institutionalization of Mexico-Europe cooperation in N&N: a step
towards co-development?
1.2.1 Mexico-Europe cooperation in N&N: when world leader clusters work together with
“enclaves of excellence”11...
Some developing countries, mostly countries at medium-level development, massively
invested in N&N in order to catch up Northern economies on the nanorevolution wave, including
Mexico. This country ranges 2nd in Latin-America (Brazil is first) regarding the number of
publications in nanoscience (22,9% of all Latin-American publications in the period 1990-2006), in
spite of the fact that there is no national Mexican nanotechnology plan so far. Studies on the
development of N&N in Mexico showed 2 facts: it is a very fast-growing sector (Delgado, 2007;
Foladori et Zayago, 2007 ; Robles-Belmont, Vinck, de Gortari Rabiola, 2008) and there is a great
political support to the development of those activities. Actually, the N&N are considered as areas
of priority for all the main public initiatives financing R&D 12 and a national network of
nanotechnologists was created by the National Science and Technology Council (CONACYT).
Nevertheless, the Mexican investment is very low compared to European funding. We must
keep in mind that total R&D expenditure in Mexico reached 4.2 billion dollars in 2006, which is to
say 0.4% of GNP (less than Brazil, Chili and Cuba, the 3 only Latin American countries spending
more than 0.5% of GNP in S&T), whereas this figure was up to 2% of GNP in EU countries in
average, at national level13. Those figures are significant to draw a picture of relative positions of
Mexico and Europe in the scientific international scene. A look at the localization and concentration
of public expenditure in N&N worldwide completes the picture:
Figure 2: Absolute public expenditure in N&N R&D in 2004: a world picture
Source: European Commission, Research DG, 2005
11 Guillermo FOLADORI & Veronica FUENTES, “Nanotechnology in Chile : towards a knowledge Economy ?” in G.
Foladori and N. Invernizzi, Nanotechnologies in Latin America, Berlin, 2008, p. 69
12 For instance in the following programs: laboratorios de investigación nacionales (2006) ; Mega-projects (2007) (each
project is funded up to 200 000 dollars, twice the average budget of individual projects financed by CONACYT in
2006). Fuente: VILLAVICENCIO y INIZAN, Profil Mexique, 2008
13 Idem, p. 6Moreover, the EU funding added to national investment must be taken into account. Since 2000, the
European Commission has been increasing R&D effort in its Framework Programs, especially in
N&N, 14:
Source: European Commission, Research DG, 2005
Figure 3: FP funding devoted to N&N (1997-2005)
Source: European Commission, Research DG, 2005
Figure 4: Absolute public investment in 2004 (euros)
According to the international relations center-periphery analysis, the EU belongs to the
14 The two communications of the European Commission on this topic reveal an increasing interest of the UE in this
sector: Strategy (2004) y Action Plan (2005).“central science” whereas Mexico is part of “peripheral science” in which technological clusters are
“enclaves of excellence” (Foladori, Fuentes, 2008). A part of the South-North relations literature
describes a phenomenon of “subordinated integration” of developing countries in scientific
cooperation schemes (Kreimer, 2006). In the case of N&N, access to the latest research equipment
seems decisive and may be difficult for scientists of developing countries. In their study on
Argentine laboratories, Ana Spivak L’hoste and Matthieu Hubert showed that access to the latest
research instruments is a great motivation for international cooperation 15. Eduardo Robles-Belmont
detected the same strategy a facilitating factor of Mexico-USA cooperation in N&N 16. Such deals
are likely to create dependency for developing countries that cannot afford having key research
instruments in the national territory. The Science, Technology and Innovation IberoAmerican
Observatory noticed an alignment effect on Latin American research questions that tend to meet the
leader laboratories' research axis of priority without taking into account local concerns17. At the end
of the day, Mexican nanotechnologists are facing the same dilemma as most researchers of
peripheral science: articulate international visibility and local appropriation (Constanza Perez,
Dominique Vinck, 200818). In concrete terms, cooperation is occurring by a wide range of
relationships: long-term migration, student exchange, academic mobility, organization of a common
conference of summer school. Let's have a look at existing scientific cooperation links between
Europe and Mexico.
1.2.2 Current Mexico-Europe scientific cooperation
Today Europe-Mexico scientific relationships result of a long tradition of cooperation based
on strong scientific networks. Currently, they are been shaped by 2 main shifts: a quantitative rise of
collaborations and a growing institutionalization with the emergence of multiple institutional
measures aiming at strengthening those networks.
In 1988 was created the first institutional tool of scientific cooperation between Mexico and the EU,
the Mixt Subcommission for Scientific and Technical Cooperation, unified in 1994 to the other
bilateral agreements the EU had with no-European countries, in the INCO program. A key step was
made in 2004, with the specific agreement for Mexico on academic mobility, joint investigation,
and technological assistance in strategic sectors. Simultaneously was created a new bureau to
promote Mexican participation to FP7 (the UE-MEXCyT). Then a 20M€ mixt fund was established
to finance collaborative research projects (the FONCICYT, equally provided by the EC and the
CONACYT). The FONCICYT official mission was to “strengthen Mexico scientific and
technological capacities contributing to solve environmental and socio-economic problems, thanks
to the medium-term expected positive effect on competitiveness, growth and employment, favouring
local and regional development”19. The fact that the Mexican government often insists on this
cooperation is mentioned by European authorities as an evidence of the “win-win” nature of this
cooperation. Such an automatic conception of the “win-win” relationship is similar to sales
negotiation management literature20: the agreement on a deal itself means that each part has got an
interest in making it (“automatic side of win-win”).
Actually, the shared will to cooperate has concrete results. The USA are still the first country
15 Matthieu HUBERT & Ana SPIVAK L'HOSTE, « Prendre la vague des nanotechnologies depuis la périphérie. »,
Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances 2, no. 3: pp. 441-468.
16 ROBLES, VINCK, de GORTARI RABIOLA, “Desarrollo de las nanotecnologías en México: una visón a partir de
las publicaciones científicas”, Nano’Mex 08, p11.
17 Argentin Center for Scientific and Technological Information (CAICYT-CONICET), Rodolfo Barrere (coord.), La
Nanotecnología en Iberoamérica, situación actual y tendencia, 2008.
18 Constanza Beatriz PEREZ MARTELO & Dominique VINCK, “Redes socio-técnicas de co-gestión de conocimiento
en nanotecnologias en Colombia: ¿entre la visibilidad internacional y la apropiación local ?” (VII ESOCITE – Sesión
12 Estudios Sociales de Ciencia y Tecnología, Rio de Janeiro, 2008).
19 CONACYT's website: http://www.conacyt.mx
20 Two sides of “win-win” are described: the automatic side (if an agreement is made, then the 2 parts do have an
interest in it) and an emotional side (the two parts have the feeling that they could not have made a better deal). See
Michael SCHATZKI, “Win-Win Negotiating, Myths and Reality”, HVAR Distribution Business, February 2008collaborating with Mexico in terms of co-publications in nanoscience (up to 35,3% of Mexican
scientists' co-publications in the 1995-2007 period), but summing up co-publications involving
colleagues from only 4 European countries (Spain, Germany, France and the UK), Europe is doing
best and reaches 49,1% of all the co-publications.
In terms of academic mobility, the great flux of Mexican students and researchers going to
the USA (for each 3 Mexican PhDs in Mexico, one more is living in the USA) must not hide strong
long-existing flux between Mexico and Europe, which have been increasing for a decade. Mexico
has had a program financing grants for studies abroad since the 1970s managed by the CONACYT.
In 30-year time, more than 125,000 grants were given, part of them to students heading to Europe.
This program still counts for 60% of today's CONACYT budget for research development.
On Mexican side, there is a strategic interest in reducing dependency to the USA and diversify
scientific partnerships: following a dramatic fall of the number of grants for studies in the USA,
66% of the grants are currently devoted to Mexicans going to Europe to study. Nevertheless,
Mexican government's attitude towards scientific mobility and migration is ambiguous. Sending
students abroad has been considered since the 1990s as a an efficient way to modernize public
universities and develop national university offer, a vision that leads to the creation of the Program
for the Strengthening of Academic Body (the PROMEP) and to federal policies promoting
participation to international scientific networks. A significant step was the reform of the National
Research System (SNI) in charge of managing the career of researchers and professors, which
awards very positively participation to international cooperation projects or academic stays abroad.
A part of the great emigration of talents is a pernicious effect of such policies, especially those that
consisted in post-graduate study grants abroad21. Still, no evidence are available to rigorously
estimate total pros and cons and global negative or positive impact of this phenomenon. Some
authors better reckon that this type of policies are based on a “calculated but unavoidable risk”22.
On European side, the lack of young European scientists make it more and more strategic to attract
foreign PhDs. The UE started a deep reform of the university systems in order to be more visible in
the international competition for brain capture, aiming at a higher mark in international rankings as
the Shanghai one, for instance23. Concerning cooperation with Mexico, a few European countries
have shown a great interest and elaborated bilateral agreements for scientific cooperation consisting
of student mobility and collaborative research projects (Spain, Germany, France, the UK, Belgium
and Italy). France, the UK and Germany even provided grants to Mexican students willing to study
in their universities. It is interesting to notice that the German cooperation agency located in Mexico
city mentions N&N amongst the strategic areas of cooperation. An original initiative of trilateral
cooperation also must be mentioned, including in the same program Mexico, Germany and France.
Apparently, those two strategies of development could meet each other and there could be an
opportunity of scientific cooperation between Mexico and Europe able to benefit to both parts. The
institutional discourse on both sides emphasizes this “win-win” characteristic of cooperation
initiatives, which became a leitmotiv. This tends to make of international cooperation a great and
indispensable element of the construction, maintenance and modernization of a good-quality
national techno-scientific system. Such vision is concomitant with a renewed analysis of the
circulation of scientists, and the contemporary discussion on its determinants, implications and
effects, which refers to “conceptual references that were structured for the understanding of
21The principal stimulating institutions were CONACYT and the Ministry of Public Education (Secretaría de Educación
Pública - SEP) through the PROMEP and PIFOP programs, and the Mexico-United States Commission for Academical
and Cultural Exchange (COMEXUS).
22 Francisco MARMOLEJO, “Redes, movilidad académica y fuga de cerebros en América del Norte: el caso de los
académicos mexicanos”, in DIDOU y GERARD, Fuga de cerebros..., 2009, p. 107-109
23 The OECD analyzed this trend of higer education institutions to offensively attract and retain academical talent, in a
global competition (OCDE, 2008, quoted by Fransisco MARMOLEJO, “Redes, movilidad académica y fuga de
cerebros en América del Norte: el caso de los académicos mexicanos”, in DIDOU y GERARD, Fuga de cerebros...,
2009, p. 105globalization, knowledge-based societies and co-development”24.
2. Research questions
2.1 Brain concentration by high technology “clusters” and scientific cooperation networks:
outpassing the debate opposing spontaneous drain and gain
The metonymy that consists of naming “brains” the high qualified migrants is based on the
famous “brain drain” expression used by the British Royal Society to describe the exodus of British
scientists and technologists to North America in the 1950s and beginning of the 1960s. The term
rapidly became used to qualify massive emigration of high qualified people from developing
countries to Northern countries, with a negative meaning (the “drain” is considered as a lost for
origin countries, and an obstacle to its development).
Another analysis of the phenomenon appears with Theodore Schultz and Gary Becker's theory of
human capital. As well as material capital, high qualified workers would tend to concentrate where
they can better develop their potential. At the end of the day, concentration would guarantee the
biggest possible gain from human capital exploitation, a winning situation for the whole humanity.
Pellegrino (2006), distinguished this “internationalist” optimistic analysis from the “nationalist”
thesis that emphasizes detriments for emigration countries. The latest analysis prevailed in the
1970s25 and got even stronger in the 1980s with the emergence, in most developed countries, of
policies aiming at attracting “brains”, in a context of increased competition for talents and high-
level human resources in the globalized economy.
The present article is rather referring to the renewed academical analysis of “brain
circulation” initiated in the 2000s, following the re-appearing of the issue on public and political
agendas. High qualified migration is considered as a multiple-gain game, from which any of the
participant can benefit. Some clear advantages can be pursued and found for emigration countries,
thanks to remittances, higher level of schooling, and connection with/to international knowledge
and business networks. Terms like brain gain or optimal brain drain aim at describing this
situations in which developing countries manage to maintain a controlled optimal planned level of
talent emigration or a minimum brain return rate that makes possible the integration into global
knowledge economy26.
Still, such optimum is not always reached. Lowell and Findlay's typology of brain drain (2001)
describes clearly the 3 sub-phenomenons involved: brain waste occurs when migrants do not get
opportunities to use and develop their abilities in their new country of residence and have to
dedicate themselves to activities requiring less abilities; brain exportation proceeds from another
phenomenon: the talent exodus benefits the emigration country in many ways (remittances,
technology transfer,...) ; to end up, brain circulation or brain exchange (translated as “globalization
of brains” in Spanish) only concerns executives working for multinational firms and international
organizations characterized by high and multidirectionnal world mobility27.
This extensive conception of brain drain includes diverse forms of links and relationships 28, of
diverse time-schedules (episodic contacts, lasting relations or even permanent cooperation). In
recent studies, the term of “reverse brain drain” has even been suggested, in reference of massive
24 Sylvie DIDOU-AUPETIT, “¿Pérdida de cerebros y ganancia de saberes?: la movilidad internacional de recursos
humanos altamente calificados en América Latina y el Caribe” in DIDOU y GERARD, Fuga de cerebros..., 2009, p. 26
25 Jagdish Bhagwati, Columbia University, even proposed an international tax for reception countries used to pay a
compensation to developing departure countries (Bhagwati & Douglas, 1989).
26 Elizabeth BALBACHEVSKY and Fabrício MARQUES, ““Fuga de cerebros” en Brasil: los costos públicos del
errado entendimiento de una realidad académica”, DIDOU y GERARD, Fuga de cerebros..., 2009, p.163
27 This last use of the concept does not fit in his strict definition (Davenport, 2004) but it is right according to the
International Migration Organization”s glossary: “emigration of qualified or talented people from their origin country
to another one, motivated by conflicts or lack of opportunities”.
28Sylvie DIDOU, Etienne GERARD, Introducción, Fuga de cerebros..., 2009, p22return of high qualified individuals to the origin country, detrimental for the hosting country.
The OECD explicitly supported this emphasis on potential benefits from scientists flows for
developing countries: “High skilled mobility is not a simple zero-sum game in which destination
countries win and departure countries lost. High-skilled human resources mobility can benefit all”
(OCDE, 2008: 5). But the potential gains from scientists flows, are nothing but spontaneous. In the
origin country as well as in the reception country, the impact of scientific migration results of
desired or pernicious effects of the policies implemented on both sides. According to Meyer and
Brown (1999), there is two winning options for emigration countries: encouraging talent returns
through repatriation programs – a strategy implemented since 1980 in Singapore, South Korea or
India, for instance – and distant-mobilizing of scientific diaspora. The named “scientific
diasporas”29 appeared in the 1990s. They question the traditional negative brain drain model
considered as a lost for emigration countries: “the "brain drain" model […] is exhausted; [...] new
experiments showed that developing countries have, through their “escaped brains”, resources for
expansion”30. Based on the idea that it is possible, even at distance, to take advantage of human
capital of emigrated professionals, (Vertovec, 2002; Turpin et al., 2002; Turpin, 2004), the diaspora
option has developed simultaneously to New Technologies of Information and Communication
(NTIC). The dramatical rise of collaborative research projects, not only including universities but
also industries (Thorn & Holm-Nielsen, 2006) seems to confirm this trend. What occurs in those
collaborations? How do cooperative networks participate to structuring, destructuring or
restructuring local techno-scientific systems that tend to be cluster-organized? Are the clusters only
nodes of the networks, only global points where high-qualified human capital is concentrating
(Lowell & Findlay, 2001)?
2.2 Research questions and sources
The ambition is not to reopen the long-lasting debate on economic effects of flows of
scientist proposing a new method to measure loss and gain in dollars of points of GDP.
This article rather pretends to sum up the few available data on the diverse types of flux (academic
mobility, professional emigration, regular academics circulation, etc.) and to cross it with a micro-
sociological qualitative analysis of migrants trajectories. The objective is to study the impact of
such flows on research communities, “that compose the sediment necessary to develop and value
knowledge” (Sylvie Didou, 2009)31.
First comes a review of available data on brain drain phenomenon and public management
in Mexico, in order to draw the general picture and situate Mexico-Europe nanothechnologists'
networks in the global dynamics. This leads us to the hypothesis that such networks proceed of 2
types of factors: more or less favorable conditions created by institutional policies aiming at
developing a win-win cooperation, and non-institutional factors that do not depend on those
measures. The NanoforumEULA case is a good opportunity to further study those non-institutional
factors, because it is a very specific program that pretends to build entirely new networks from an
institutional procedure per se. Observing and analyzing how such program was implemented at
actors' level is a good way to question determinants of the effective formation of networks,
distinguishing elements proceeding of institutional opportunity from other factors. Those undefined
factors are not to be theoretically imagine ex ante, they must be empirically defined thanks to the
meaning actors are giving them.
29Jean-Baptiste MEYER, ““Les diasporas de chercheurs, un atout pour l’avenir?”,”
Pour la science, 328, 2, 2005.
30 « le modèle du "brain drain" […] est épuisé [...] de nouvelles expériences montrent comment des pays en
développement détiennent, par leurs "cerveaux enfuis", les ressources d'une expansion. » CHARUM J, MEYER J-B,
« La "fuite des cerveaux" est-elle épuisée? Paradigme perdu et nouvelles perspectives », Cahiers des sciences humaines
vol 31, n°4 : 1003-19, 1995, p. 1
31“que componen el sedimiento para desarrollar el conocimiento y valorarlo” in Sylvie DIDOU, Etienne GERARD,
Introducción, Fuga de cerebros..., 2009, p22The NanoforumEULA case study is based on both secondary sources and exploratory
primary sources.
The secondary sources consist of two main types. First, has been analyzed the final report of the
facts finding mission held by European experts in Mexico and its executive summary. Malsch
TechoValuation, contracted by the European Commission for promotion and evaluation consulting
work, also elaborated interesting documents. Interviews of almost all the Latin-American
researchers and students who came to Europe through the NanoforumEULA is of a special interest.
The primary data comes from both e-mail exchanges with some Latin-American participants, and
face-to-face semi-directive interviews with some of them.
Other primary sources include three exploratory semi-directive interviews with persons involved in
the NanoforumEULA at different levels: the Malsch TechnoValuation expert who participated in
implementing and posterior valuating the program for the European Commission (she made short
interviews with almost all the Latin American participants, which are used as secondary sources); a
MINATEC executive in charge of organizing Latin American stays in Grenoble (France), who also
participated to the mission to Mexico aiming at identifying cooperation opportunities; and a
researcher who directly received as an tutor a Brazilian student in his laboratory (unfortunately, I
could not interview a researcher who had received a Mexican participant so far).
The objective of those interviews is to build on hypothesis on 3 types of cooperation
determinants:
– motives determining why and what for actors decided to participate in this link-creating, network-
building initiative
– motives actors believe to be those of their counterparts for participating in this initiative (motives
of the Latin Americans as they are seen from Europeans' perspectives and Europeans' motives
described by Latin-American participants)
– key factors determining successful cooperation, according to the interviewees, when possible a
description of the criteria they use to qualify a good or even a “win-win” cooperation, based on a
reflexive look at their participation to the NanoforumEULA.
3. Mexico-Europe networks and flows of scientists
3.1 Mexican flows of scientists to Europe
Mexico is not escaping the global increase of flows of scientists expected worldwide in the
years to come32. The thematic of brain drain (in its extensive conception) resurfaced at the regional
political agenda 15 years ago, with the work of organizations like the Economic Commission for
Latin America and the Caribbeans (CEPAL) – especially the IMILA project (Research on
International Latin American migration) – or the Ibero American States Organization (OEI), and
also national rectors associations (cases of Chile, Mexico and Argentina), national science
academies and regional associations or university networks33.
Though, still very little data is available on Mexican flows of scientists. Figures from the
CONACYT (Felix, 2003) reckon that 5% of the students granted to study abroad definitely stay in
the country where they study. Half of them are studying a master degree, and the other half are PhD
students. European countries receive about 26% of them. Applying the 5% average rate to those
studying in Europe, the Mexican students staying in Europe after finishing their study there is
estimated to reach 1,3% of all the students granted by the CONACYT. Even if a great number of
Mexicans go study to Europe on their own resources, without counting with a CONACYT grant,
such figure is interesting and gives an idea of the phenomenon magnitude. Moreover,
32 Francisco MARMOLEJO, “Redes, movilidad académica y fuga de cerebros en América del Norte: el caso de los
académicos mexicanos”, in DIDOU y GERARD, Fuga de cerebros,..., 2009, p. 105
33Sylvie DIDOU-AUPETIT, “¿Pérdida de cerebros y ganancia de saberes?: la movilidad internacional de recursos
humanos altamente calificados en América Latina y el Caribe” in DIDOU y GERARD, Fuga de cerebros..., 2009, p. 25nanotechnologists represent an even minor part of Mexican students, and no precise data is
available on that particular population. Such category is also brand new, which means that even if
there were data on N&N Mexican students living abroad, it would be impossible to predict now
how long they would stay abroad and whether their migration is only shot-term mobility or whether
they are likely to stay abroad on the long-term.
Still, Etienne Gérard and Rocio Grediaga Kuri tried to find out a few data on this pretty
unknown topic and they worked on the specific places where Mexican researchers get their degrees.
Their results are very interesting to have an idea of the dynamics of the formation of researchers
abroad. First things first, the fact that a great majority of researchers got their last degree in Mexico
(83.7%) reminds us that a cautious treatment of the statistics done on only a fifth part of Mexican
researchers (16.3% of them had their last degree abroad) is needed. It is also noticeable that the higher
the level of the last degree, the higher the number of degrees obtained abroad. This trend is even
stronger for hard sciences, independently on their distance to application. More than half of the PhDs
were obtained abroad (52%) and 90% of dost-doctoral positions were studied out of the country 34.
We can assume that this trend is to be considered for nanotechnologists since all of them are
specialists of hard sciences fields35.
Source: Gérard & Grediaga Kuri, 2009
Figure 5: Mexican researchers by place of last degree study
Another interesting result is the fact that researchers who studied their last degree abroad tend to
have more complete teaching and investigation activities than the ones who got it in Mexico:36
34 Etienne GERARD & Rocio GREDIAGA KURI, “¿Endogamia o exogamia científica? La formación en el extranjero,
una fuerte influencia en las prácticas y redes científicas, en particular en las ciencias duras”, DIDOU & GERARD,
Fuga de cerebros..., 2009, p. 147
35 Even if we adopted a larger focus in this study, including nanoscientists, nanotechechnologists correspond to an
interesting subcategory since they more directly participate to the development of new products and activities related to
intellectual property rights, in the competitive perspective of the knowledge society. Here is where cooperation seems
the most problematic in terms of “win-win” creation.
36 Etienne GERARD & Rocio GREDIAGA KURI, Op. Cit., 2009, p. 151Figure 6: Professional activity related to the place of last degree studies.
Source: Gérard & Grediaga Kuri, 2009
The authors analyze this trend referring to a bunch of factors: “academics who have higher
qualification level [...]are more internationally-oriented, both for the study of those last degrees
and for developing daily exchanges on the teaching and research work they do with colleagues out
of the institution they are contracted by: they have established external and international exchange
networks, with higher frequency, diversity of contents, more systematically”37. This observation lead
the authors to formulate the hypothesis of the existence of a “network effect” (efecto red) due to
studies abroad as a structural phenomenon shaping academical system.
Fuente: Etienne GERARD y Rocio GREDIAGA KURI, 2009
Figure 7 : Collaboration with other institutions by knowledge field
37“los académicos que han obtenido los niveles más altos de titulación [...]están más orientados hacia el extranjero,
tanto para la adquisición de dichos diplomas, como para desarrollar cotidianamente intercambios en las labores de
docencia e investigación que realizan con colegas fuera de la institución en que están contratados: han establecido
redes de intercambio con el extranjero, caracterizadas por su mayor frecuencia, diversidad de contenidos y
sistematicidad”, Idem, p. 153Nevertheless, the qualitative study that completes their work shows that migrating does not equal social
ascension for all. The risk of “brain waste” clearly appears, since the most qualified are those who
migrate. Consequently, their insertion to knowledge networks and the advantage Mexican research
system can take of it are strategic. The authors sorted out a few key “success factors” (predictores
de éxito) to be taken into account for public policies on brain drain : to have studied in national
accredited institutions or programs; to have studied abroad at early university education stages; to
previously speak reception country's language or to count with enough time to learn it; to be used to
traveling and to be able to adapt to intercultural interactions and situations and to count with
financial support (mobility grants)38.
3.2 Policies aiming at benefiting from emigrated and moving brains
Mexican authorities recently started to implement programs aiming at making Mexican
scientific diaspora a resource for the national R&D system. They simultaneously created
dispositions to facilitate high-skilled emigrated people return to Mexico after they integrated
strategic techno-scientific networks. Sylvie Didou summarized such initiatives having first results
into four strategical options (Marmolejo, 2009). The objective of a first set of measures is to reduce
post-graduate students' intention to stay abroad. For instance, CONACYT grants were modified and
now imply return and incorporation into government or university positions outside Mexico city (in
relation with the decentralization policy). Similarly, COMEXUS grants are linked to a limited visa
that oblige the return to Mexico after the studies finished . But such policies had very limited impact
since the rules became more flexible from 200039. From 2005 another objective was pursued: to
build networks with Mexican scientists living abroad, through the Mexican Talents Network (Red
de Talentos Mexicanos en el Exterior), which aimed at “co-helping high qualified Mexicans living
abroad who are linked to high added value creating sectors or business to contribute to a better
insertion of Mexico to the global economy and in particular to the named knowledge-based
economy”40. Another kind of measures promote and facilitate academics repatriation to Mexico,
retention of those working in the country, and attraction of foreign researchers, a policies
implemented through the Repatriation Program. In operation since the 1990s , it supported 1 321
Mexican academics and 934 foreign researchers between 1991 and 2002. More recently, a fourth
strategy was held by CONACYT, focusing on brain circulation. The idea is to attract Mexican
expatriate scientists to Mexico, even for a limited time, to facilitate their connection to national
research team, for further cooperation. This allowed Mexican scientists living abroad to be
registered in the National Researchers System (Sistema Nacional de Investigadores, SNI)
honorifically, which can lead to financial incentive, if they come for a temporary research stay in
Mexico. The fist call for applications gathered very few applications and the deadline was postpone
till August 2009.
Such evolution of Mexican authorities' strategy reflects a gradual change of perception of
brain drain. Now prevails the idea that it is more efficient to develop dispositions to capture
advantage of expatriate Mexicans' talent, even at distance, for the country's benefit, than to try to
force them to physically and definitely return to Mexico (Marmolejo, 2009). Moreover, Monica
Casalet's study shows that emigrated Mexicans have a real interest in participating to seminars and
workshops in Mexico (53.4%), or directors' meetings (46.6%), or even to bring information and
advise on business opportunities (42.1%) and to organize conferences to transfer the knowledge
38 Sylvie DIDOU, Etienne GERARD, Introducción, Fuga de cerebros..., 2009, p16-17
39Brazil developed another strategy and kept a very strict position in this aspect, which did not prove to be much more
efficient to benefit from Brazilian student flows. See Elizabeth BALBACHEVSKY and Fabrício MARQUES, ““Fuga
de cerebros” en Brasil: los costos públicos del errado entendimiento de una realidad académica”, DIDOU y GERARD,
Fuga de cerebros..., 2009, p.166
40“coadyuvar a que los mexicanos altamente calificados que residen en el exterior y están vinculados a negocios o
sectores que generan alto valor agregado puedan contribuir a una mejor inserción de México en la economía global y,
en particular, en la llamada economía del conocimiento” (IME-FUMEC, 2007).they acquired in the reception country (42.1%)41.
3.3 Study case: the NanoforumEULA
3.3.1 The NanoForumEULA is symptomatic of the increasing interest of the European Commission
and the Mexican government to cooperate in N&N
High technology areas, and specifically N&N are considered as strategic priorities of the
institutionalization and strengthening of Europe-Mexico cooperation. The NanoforumEULA,
launched under FP6, is symptomatic of this increasing interest of the EC to cooperate with Latin
America in N&N. In 2006, the EC invested 500k€ fin a two-year plan of actions to identify new
opportunities of cooperation and to strengthen existing relationships with Mexico, Argentina y
Brazil (mostly, some nationals of other Latin American countries could also get some of the
mobility grants offered for research stays in Europe).
The program has two official objectives: to connect N&N European research teams with those of
Latin-America and to identify cooperation opportunities on specific common axis of R&D, in order
to define coordinated calls for collaborative research projects specific to each country, within FP7.
It is explained as follows: “to promote permanent links between European and LA organizations
developing scientific research in nanoscience, nanotechnology and nanomaterials in order to
enhance the building up of joint research consortium enabled to compete for EC Funding ; in
particular, within the FP7 of the EC for 2007-2013”42.
Actually, by the end of July 2009, the EC published the first specific coordinated call dedicated to
cooperation with Mexico. With a 11 million-euros budget (6 financed by the EC and 5 by the
CONACYT43), the call is focusing on « Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and new
Production Technologies » and more specifically on the use of new materials from minery for
energy production. Still, rather the NanoforumEULA really constituted a decisive step towards the
definition of this call or not is still to be investigated.
An interesting characteristic of this cooperation evolution is the way the coordinated call
was elaborated, which reveals a strong concern for strengthening the “win-win” feeling (Schatzki,
2008), at least of Mexican side . For instance, it is claimed that N&N cooperation between Europe
and Mexico would give birth to a free access online database 44, in order to make the creation of
international networks easier, maintaining links between expatriate academics and national
scientific community of their country of origin, in a “diaspora strategy”. Actually, the coordinated
call for Mexico was defined in a procedure of mutual benefits search with a one-year negotiation
process involving European and Mexican experts.
3.3.2 The NanoForumEULA in Mexico.
The NanoforumEULA consisted of two initiatives concerning Mexico: a mission of
European experts to Mexico in charge of evaluating the country's potential in N&N and cooperation
opportunities; and some grants for Mexicans to visit European research centers for 4-month
research stays.
41 CASALET, M., “La diáspora calificada: un recursos crítico en la construcción de la sociedad del conocimiento”, in
G. VALENTINI NIGRINI (Coord.), Ciencia, tecnología e innovación: hacia una agenda de política pública, Mexico,
FLACSO, 2008
42NanoForumEULA, Facts finding mission to Mexico, executive summary, 2008 p. 1
43 The bigger amount brought by the EC is due to the will to also finance the participation of other Latin American
countries.
44 European Commission COM(2007) 505 « Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005-
2009, First Implementation Report 2005-2007 », Brussels, 2007The mission to Mexico lasted one week, in August 2007 45, and was reported in two
documents: a diagnostic and a road-map to favour cooperation. In the 30-pages-long final report are
described the two main objectives of the mission: to identify and characterize R&D in N&N in
Mexico with a special focus on aspects of European interest (institutions of excellence, research
areas, type of equipment, governmental support, industrial ecosystem) and to deepen diplomatic
relations (to encourage Mexican public investment in the sector as well as industrial activities and
to promote relevant agreements for scientific cooperation between Mexico and the European
Union). This document includes a detailed description of the mission program, a list of universities
and higher education institutions working on N&N, geographically organized (“North” region
including Saltillo and Coahuila ; “Central region” with Leon, Guanajuato and San Lui Potosí ; and
Mexico city together with Southern institutions and industries that came to the capital city for the
meeting), and a list of areas of potential cooperation.
It's worth mentioning the following experts' assertion in this final report: “The most important
advantages for investing and making nanoscience in Mexico are the avaibility of natural resources
and human resources”46. On that precise point, and even if they recognize that there are some
research centers of excellence, the experts' main recommendation is to increase student mobility
inside and outside Mexican national borders in order to facilitate access for more people to research
infrastructure. Then is suggested an increased cooperation for student formation in Europe. Another
interesting conclusion of the report is that what is considered as the main weakness of Mexican
research system is the lack of relations between the academical community and industrial needs,
and the scarceness of university-industry cooperation and industrial transfer47.
Concerning the academical mobility side of the program, 21 people were granted for short
research missions to Europe, between September 2007 and May 2008, of which two thirds were
Mexicans (14 of Mexican applicants were supported out of 15 applicants) 48. Amongst all Mexicans,
there was 3 professors, 2 researchers, 1 research assistant, 3 post-doctorates, 3 doctorates and one
student in his master degree. Six of them visited the University of Twente (Enschede, Netherlands),
three went to the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain), three worked at the Fraunhofer IWS
(Dresden, Germany), and two headed to the French research center MINATEC (Grenoble, France).
The below-presented results is based on a preliminary study of Mexican participants' experience of
this mobility program and interviews of people people working at MINATEC who were involved in
the NanoforumEULA project at different levels (one of them took part of the fact finding mission to
Mexico and was also in charge of the selection of applicants to stays in the French institution ; the
other one was the tutor of a Brazilian participant who visited his laboratory thanks to this program).
3.3.3 Determinants of networks formation: a perspective from the actors
There seem to be a great diversity of motives to participate to the program and expected
benefits on European side. Determinants of cooperation vary on the actors' level of participation.
At the very global level, the Malsch TechnoValuation expert working for the EU considers the
program creation as a way to compete with the USA, which historically developed strong scientific
cooperation with Mexico:
“Traditionally Mexico collaborated a lot with the US... There is collaboration with Europe that the European
Commission wanted to stimulate.”
The viewpoint of the MINATEC expert who participated to the fact finding mission to Mexico
45 The mission was held by the Instituto Potosino de Investigacion Científica y Tecnológica (IPICYT) jointly with the
Bureau for European and Mexican Science and Technology Cooperation (UEMEXCyT) of CONACYT.
46 NanoForumEULA Facts finding mission report, p. 19, 20-24
47 NanoForumEULA, Facts finding mission to Mexico, executive summary, 2008, p.6
48 Other participants counted with 3 Argentins (out of 3 applicants), 2 Brazilians (out of 5 applicants), 1 Chilien (the
only applicant) and 1 colombien (out of 3 applicants). Five people from Venezuela also applied, without success.confirm the literature we reviewed on how much networking counts for research activities:
“un moyen de favoriser le développement de la coopération, c'est au moins de mettre les gens en
relation” (a way to favour cooperation development, is, at least, to put people into contact).
According to him, receiving Latin-Americans to Europe is both a way to build networks and an
objective per se for European partners, since their main interest is to attract foreign good students:
“une manière de mettre les gens en relation c'est de les acceuillir” (a way to connect people is to receive them) ; “Je
pense que le 1er intérêt que l'on a, nous, en tant que CEA, égoistement, à développer les relations [...]c'est, pour, euh,
les perspectives d'accueil d'étudiants.” (I think that the 1 st interest the CEA has, a pretty selfish one, to develop those
relations, is the perspective to receive students).
The Latin-Americans' visits through the NanoforumEULA were also considered as an opportunity
to elaborate an common proposal involving MINATEC laboratories to European funding dedicated
to cooperation with Latin-America. This expert is particularly concerned by this question since it is
part of his job to help researchers to rise funds:
“à l'époque, y'avait le, euh... le, euh, l'Europe et le, et l'CONACYT, euh, préparaient le lancement d'un appel d'offre,
[...] y'a eu c't'appel d'offre,[...]et j'leur avait dit : « écoutez, profitez de votre passage chez nous, pour monter un
programme de coopération à soumettre à c't'appel d'offres »” (By this time, Europe and the CONACYT were preparing
a call for proposal. This call was launched, and I told them: “listen, you should take advantage of your stay here with
us to make a proposal and submit it””).
But he considers his own participation to the NanoforumEULA as a different, larger mission, which
is part of the European Union's strategy that he describes as the will to increase cooperation with
Mexico thanks to a better mutual understanding of each partner's needs:
“L'idée était un p'tit peu, euh, de c'que j'en ai compris, euh, c'est un peu comme ça que, euh, se sont déroulées, euh, les
deux missions qu'on a menées là-bas : c'était vraiment « essayons de voir s'il n'y a pas des opportunités à aller plus
loin en direction de, ben de pays comme le Mexique, par exemple, et de faire qu'on puisse avoir un appel d'offre Union
Européenne- Mexique, sur des objectifs communs, qui auront été définis à la fois par le Mexique et l'Union
Européenne. […] Là c'était un appel ciblé entre le Mexique et l'Europe, où, euh, le, euh, l'appel d'offre reprenait
finalement les priorités mexicaines et européennes. Et pour ça, ben il fallait, euh, au-delà, donc, de ce simple accueil de
scientifiques chez nous, que des, des experts européens puissent aller voir sur place, hein” (The idea was a bit
to...according to what I understood, that's how were organized the missions we did there: it really was“let's try to find
if some opportunities exist to further cooperate with countries like Mexico, for instance, and to make possible a
coordinated call EU-Mexico, based on common goals, that would have been defined jointly by Mexico and the EU.
There it was a specific call for proposals between Mexico and Europe, and the call for proposals would finally include
Mexican and European priorities. That's why, more than just receiving scientists in Europe, some European experts
also must go there and see).
At the laboratory level, two elements seem decisive to motivate the participation to the program and
the acceptance of a Latin-American scientist's visit: financial compensation and the existence of
scientific common projects or interests:
“comme on est toujours en recherche d'argent, [...] au niveau de, mon manager a dit « ah bon, tiens, c'est intéressant,
nous on travaille sur les nanocristaux, alors bon, Guilherme avait une expérience dans le, au niveau des nanocristaux,
nous on y tra, on y avait travaillé dessus, on y travaillait dessus, donc, euh, voilà. [...] notre chef de département a dit
« il faut y aller » voilà. « C'est tout bénéf, on va rien dépenser, tout est payé »”
(Since we are also loo,king for money. At my manager's level, he said: “that's interesting, we work on nanoscrystals”
and Guilherme had an experience on nanocrystals, [...] so our department head said “we got to go on it”,“it's a
winning opportunity, we won't spend anything, everything is paid”)
Regarding motives of the counterparts to participate to the program, some recurrent
representations of Latin-American interests appear on European side, at different levels. All the
Europeans consider that the program offers a great opportunity for those researchers and students.
The MINATEC expert believes the main advantage for them is to have access to up-to-date research
instruments:
“en les accueillant et en leur apportant ce souvent ils n'ont pas, c'est-à-dire en leur apportant un accès aux
instruments”
(receiving them and bringing them what they usually don't have, which means bringing them access to instruments).
Access to instruments is also mentioned by the French researcher as a decisive element for the
visitor's interest:
“l'intérêt de Guilherme, c'est essentiellement pour la, pour lui, j'pense, dans son cursus il avait euh... […] du côté de
son université au Brésil, [...] c'est un moyen de financement, donc ils envoient des euh... ils envoient des ils envoient desétudiants et ça leur permet de se faire connaître aussi. Et je pense que pour Guilherme, enfin j'veux dire à titre personnel, euh ici, euh, sur, euh, ici sur Grenoble sur Minatec, notamment en outils de caractérisation, je pense que... y'a pas beaucoup de plateformes comme ça au, en Europe, ptêt même au monde” (the interest of Guilherme is above all, for him, his curriculum... for Brazilian universities, that's a funding source , they send students and get known, too. I think that... for Guilherme, at personal level, here in Grenoble, in Minatec, specially considering characterization tools,... there isn't many platforms like that, in all Europe, maybe even in the whole world) On Mexican visitors' side, access to latest research instruments actually constitute a great motivation to participate to the mobility program: “They have all the possible facilities to characterize a nanostructure.” “MINATEC has good facilities to produce samples and characterize, mainly, the structural properties, with advanced instruments like the Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM).” “I’ve chosen the department of Catalytic Processes and Materials at MESA+ was that this centre has the equipment necessary to do the work I wanted to do.” “the opportunity to use the ink-jet printing equipment in this centre and to learn their insights on conductive inks.” Even if he is aware that attraction and retention of talents is of a strategic interest for his research center, the MINATEC expert showed a concern for brain drain phenomenon, that he considers as a loss for Mexico. According to him, Mexico can only benefit from the program if the students physically go back to Mexico after their stay in Europe, which seems unlikely to him, considering the difference between Mexican and European economic situations: “pour eux, effectivement, euh, le, euh, la perspective de retourner, [...] le développement économique de leur pays.” (for them, effectively, the perspective to go back for the the economic development of their country) “[ils] viennent chez nous, ils se forment, ils sont encore dans une démarche où, finalement, la science euh, euh, l'éducation, est synonyme de euh, j'dirais d'ascenseur social, et l'constat c'est que quand ils arrivent bien formés, ben le euh, le..... y'a pas d'industries en mesure de de leur offrir des, des postes de, euh, de docteurs, quoi. Le peu de, d'ingénieurs, et encore, un p'tit peu... donc après les formations supérieures type docteurs, euh, c'est pas que... bon, après y'a, si, dans, hein, dans le, les les laboratoires académiques, univesitaires. Mais, bon, ça peut pas accueillir toute le, la, tous les jeunes formés” (they come to our country, get formed, they are still in a logic in which, finally, science, education are synonyms of social ascension, and at the end of the day, once they go back with their degrees, there is no industry able to offer them work for PhDs. The few engineers, and very very few... then, further studies of doctorate type, there is no... well, in academical laboratories, universities... but they cannot absorb all the young graduated ) It is worth noticing that some of the motivations explained by the Mexicans do not come to Europeans' mind. They systematically sub-estimate how important academical recognition is in the choice of the reception institution, for the precise field they work on: “MINATEC has scientists with the required expertise for me to advance more rapidly.” “The Netherlands performs pioneering work” “I wanted to benefit from the large expertise of researchers at Minatec and CEA-Grenoble in the fabrication of electronic devices” Either do they mention the fact that previous collaboration or the perspective to create lasting cooperation dynamics are key determinants of their will to participate: : “My main motivation was that there already exists a fruitful collaboration with members of the host institution in Spain.” “to prepare future collaboration between IPN (National Polytechnic Institute, Mexico) and CEA-LETI in MINATEC France.” “I wanted to establish collaboration between our centre in Mexico and any European centre of nanotechnology to share the experience because it is the best way to progress in research.” On this last point, this is due to the fact that French case is a special one since almost no previous cooperation was underway, which differs a lot from most other European participating institutions. What is very interesting is that it does not appear either in the interview with the consultant of the EC, because actually the official goal of the program is to connect research teams and establish new cooperation networks. Consequently, the use some researchers did of this program to strengthen existing cooperation reveals their room for manoeuvre in their relation to institutional frameworks. This confirm the hypothesis of no-institutional determinants playing a great role for network formation (given that the networks pretty often exist before institutional initiatives emerge). Mobility also appeared to one of the Mexican visitor as a way to be informed of the latest research
You can also read
