SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Fırat Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 38 Sayı: 2

Biotechnology Innovation Performance in EU Countries

AB Ülkelerinde Biyoteknoloji İnovasyon Performansı

Fethi Aslan(Elazig Special Provincial Administration)0000-0002-5567-9706
Pages
477–491
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It contributes a systematic and comparative analysis based on measurable and objective indicators.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study analyzes the biotechnology innovation performance of selected European Union member states.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The MARCOS method ranks countries according to their biotechnology innovation performance.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It contributes a systematic and comparative analysis based on measurable and objective indicators.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Biyoteknoloji · MEREC · MARCOS

Abstract

This study analyzes the biotechnology innovation performance of selected European Union member states. It uses objective and comparable criteria to identify national strengths and weaknesses. Based on these criteria, the biotechnology innovation capacity of each country is assessed. The study employs the MEREC and MARCOS methods. The MEREC method determines objective criterion weights. The MARCOS method ranks countries according to their biotechnology innovation performance. The results reveal significant differences among the selected EU countries. Germany and Spain show the highest performance levels. Slovenia and Latvia rank at the lowest level. Among the evaluation criteria, the share of biotechnology patents in total national patents has the greatest weight. In contrast, the share of intramural biotechnology R&D expenditures in the public and higher education sectors receives the lowest weight. Research on biotechnology innovation remains limited. This study addresses this gap. It contributes a systematic and comparative analysis based on measurable and objective indicators.

Özet

Bu çalışma, seçilmiş Avrupa Birliği üyesi ülkelerin biyoteknoloji inovasyon performansını analiz etmektedir. Ülkelerin güçlü ve zayıf yönlerini ortaya koymak üzere objektif ve karşılaştırılabilir kriterler kullanılmıştır. Bu kriterlerle her bir üye ülkenin ulusal biyoteknoloji inovasyon kapasitesi değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmada MEREC ve MARCOS yöntemlerini kapsayan çok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımı uygulanmıştır. MEREC yöntemi değerlendirme kriterlerinin objektif ağırlıklarını belirlemek, MARCOS yöntemi ise ülkeleri biyoteknoloji inovasyon performanslarına göre sıralamak için kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, seçilen AB ülkeleri arasında biyoteknoloji inovasyon performansı açısından önemli farklılıklar olduğunu göstermektedir. Almanya ve İspanya en yüksek performansı sergilerken, Slovenya ve Letonya en düşük performansı göstermiştir. Değerlendirme kriterleri arasında toplam ulusal patentler içinde biyoteknoloji patentlerinin payı en yüksek ağırlığa sahiptir. Kamu ve yükseköğretim sektörlerindeki kurum içi biyoteknoloji Ar-Ge harcamalarının toplam Ar-Ge harcamaları içindeki payı ise en düşük ağırlığa sahiptir. Biyoteknoloji inovasyonu üzerine yapılan araştırmaların sınırlı olması nedeniyle bu çalışma, ölçülebilir ve nesnel göstergelere dayalı sistematik bir karşılaştırmalı analiz sunarak literatüre katkı sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aslan, F. (2026). Biotechnology Innovation Performance in EU Countries. Fırat Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 38 Sayı: 2, 477–491. https://doi.org/10.35234/fumbd.1801364

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (42)

  1. Cerejeira J, Sá E, Silva J. Trends, opportunities and challenges of the Portuguese biotechnology sector. Braga, Portugal: Portugal's Biotechnology Organization, 2016.
  2. Haaf A, Hofmann S, Schüler J. Measuring the economic footprint of the biotechnology industry in Europe. Industrial Biotechnology 2021; 17: 117-124.
  3. Arundel A, Bloch C, Ferguson B. Advancing innovation in the public sector: Aligning innovation measurement with policy goals. Research Policy 2019; 48: 789-798.
  4. European Commission. Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, 2010. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:en:PDF
  5. European Commission. European Competitiveness Report 2001. Brussels, Belgium: Publications Office, 2001. http://ec.europa.eu/comm/enterprise/enterprise_policy/competitiveness/index.html.
  6. Papatryfon I, Zika E, Wolf O, Gómez-Barbero M, Stein A J, Bock A K. Consequences, opportunities and challenges of modern biotechnology for Europe: The analysis report: Contributions of modern biotechnology to European policy objectives. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, 2008.
  7. Nauwelaers C, Wintjes R. Innovation policy, innovation in policy: policy learning within and across systems and clusters. In: Nauwelaers C, editor. Innovation Policy in Europe: Measurement and Strategy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2008.
  8. Zolfani S H, Bahrami M. Investment prioritization in high-tech industries based on the SWARA-COPRAS approach. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 2014; 20: 534-553.
  9. García-Valderrama T, Sanchez-Ortiz J, Mulero-Mendigorri E. Knowledge production and commercialization from R&D: the pharmaceutical sector. Management Decision 2023; 61: 222-247.
  10. Tung C T, Lee Y J. The innovative performance evaluation model of grey factor analysis: A case study of listed biotechnology corporations in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications 2010; 37: 7844-7851.
  11. Reiss T, Lacasa I D. The performance of European countries in biotechnology: How does Europe compare to the USA? IJBT 2008; 10: 303-326.
  12. Senker J, Enzing C, Reiss T. Biotechnology in Central and Eastern Europe: an overview of performance and policy systems. In: Robbins P T, Huzair F, editors. Exploring Central and Eastern Europe's Biotechnology Landscape. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2012. pp. 13-35.
  13. Dolge K, Balode L, Laktuka K, Kirsanovs V, Barisa A, Kubule A. A comparative analysis of bioeconomy development in European Union countries. Environmental Management 2023; 71: 215-233.
  14. Friedrichs S, van Beuzekom B. Revised proposal for the revision of the statistical definitions of biotechnology and nanotechnology. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2018.
  15. McGloughlin M, Re E. The evolution of biotechnology: from Natufians to nanotechnology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2006.
  16. International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations. The pharmaceutical industry and global health. Geneva, Switzerland: IFPMA, 2022. https://www.ifpma.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/i2023_IFPMA-Facts-And-Figures-2022.pdf
  17. Allansdottir A, Bonaccorsi A, Gambardella A. Innovation and competitiveness in European biotechnology. Brussels, Belgium: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities, 2002.
  18. The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. A competitiveness strategy for European life sciences. Brussels, Belgium: EFPIA, 2023. https://efpia.eu/media/fzkbhzoe/a-competitiveness-strategy-for-european-life-sciences.pdf
  19. Abramo G. Bibliometric evaluation of research performance: where do we stand? Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow 2017; (1): 112-127.
  20. Cincera M, Czarnitzki D, Thorwarth S. Efficiency of public spending in support of R&D activities. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs Publications, 2009.
  21. Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO (2020). The Global Innovation Index 2020: Who Will Finance Innovation? Ithaca, Fontainebleau, and Geneva.
  22. OECD. Competition and innovation: A theoretical perspective. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2023.
  23. Aslan F. Teknoloji geliştirme sürecinin değerlendirilmesi için olgunluk modeli önerisi: ARGE-500 firmalarının faaliyet ve yaklaşımlarına yönelik bir uygulama. PhD, Fırat Üniversitesi, Elazığ, Turkey, 2023.
  24. Rogers E M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 2003.
  25. Bello M, Caperna G, Damioli G, Steffen M, Smallenbroek O. Tracking country ınnovation performance: The innovation output ındicator 2022. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022.
  26. Giugni D, Giugni V. Intellectual property: Apowerful tool to develop biotech research. Microbial Biotechnology 2010; 3: 493-506.
  27. Grassano N, Napolitano L, M'barek R, Rodriguez Cerezo E, Lasarte Lopez. Exploring the global landscape of biotech innovation: Preliminary insights from patent analysis. Luxembourg: European Commission, 2024.
  28. Jonsson T. Competitiveness of the European biotechnology industry. Genetic Engineering News 2006; 1-26.
  29. Okubo Y. Bibliometric indicators and analysis of research systems: Methods and examples. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 1997.
  30. Durieux V, Gevenois P A. Bibliometric indicators: Quality measurements of scientific publication. Radiology 2010; 255: 342-351.
  31. Aslan F. A monitoring framework for progress in artificial intelligence technology: a research based on scientific and technological indicators. Istanbul Journal of Economics 2024; 74(2): 427-459.
  32. Blind K, Krieger B, Pellens M. The interplay between product innovation, publishing, patenting and developing standards. Research Policy 2022; 51(7): 104556.
  33. OECD. Emerging technology indicators. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/emerging-technology-indicators.html
  34. Reeb D M. Measuring the degree of corporate innovation. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute, 2017.
  35. Xiong B. Environmental efficiency evaluation by data envelopment analysis and its applications. PhD, Université de Technologie de Troyes, Troyes, France, 2019.
  36. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee M, Amiri M, Zavadskas E K, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J. Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry 2021; 13: 525.
  37. Stević Ž, Pamučar D, Puška A, Chatterjee P. Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering 2020; 140: 106231.
  38. Dua T V. PSI-SAW and PSI-MARCOS hybrid MCDM methods. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2024; 14: 15963-15968.
  39. European Commission. Building the future with nature: Boosting biotechnology and biomanufacturing in the EU. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, 2024. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52024DC0137
  40. European Commission. Annual report on the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP) 2024. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2025.
  41. Robert N, Giuntoli J, Araujo R, Avraamides M, Balzi E, Barredo J I, Baruth B, Becker W, Borzacchiello M T, Bulgheroni C, Camia A, Fiore G, Follador M, Gurria P, La Notte A, Lusser M, Marelli L, M'Barek R, Parisi C, Philippidis G, Ronzon T, Sala S, Sanchez Lopez J, Mubareka S. Development of a bioeconomy monitoring framework for the European Union: an integrative and collaborative approach. New Biotechnology 2020; 59: 10-19.
  42. Reiss T, Hinze S, Lacasa I D. Performance of European member states in biotechnology. Sci Public Policy 2004; 31: 344-358.