Is the industry of the innovation sector biased

Study on the innovation sector food and nutrition PLANTS

Transcript

1 STUDY ON FOOD AND NUTRITION PLANTS

2 Food Nutrition Annex directory Annex 1 Annex 2 Annex 3 Annex 4 Annex 5 Annex 6 Annex 7 Science survey, results of the online survey Economy survey, results of the online survey Summary of the expert interviews Protocols of the expert rounds Research landscape Publication research Education landscape Science 1

3 Food Nutrition Appendix 1 SURVEY SCIENCE RESULTS OF THE ONLINE SURVEY Dr. Ulla I. Klein Chair of Nutritional Physiology (Prof. Hannelore Daniel), Technical University of Munich, Gregor-Mendel-Str. 2, Freising-Weihenstephan Contents A. Annotated summary Characterization of the sample Future trends Funding landscape: education .. 8 B. Evaluation and results Questionnaire and dissemination of the specialist area and function of the participants Influences, challenges and trends Formal framework and obstacles to innovation Funding instruments Training situation Personal perspectives C. Annexes I. - Accompanying letter 59 II. Addressed universities .. 60 III. Addressed research institutes. 63 IV. Further disciplines that have a lasting impact 65 V. Further future challenges with comments. 66 VI. Explanations on sufficient interdisciplinarity. 67 VII. Wishes to announce funding opportunities .. 69 VIII. Strengths of the BMBF funding programs .. 72 IX. Weaknesses of the BMBF funding programs X. Recommendations for overcoming future challenges. 75 XI. Lack of knowledge of the offspring .. 78 XII. Future prospects of the next generation XIII. Strengths of the nutritional science course XIV. Weaknesses of the nutritional science course XV. Strengths of the food science course. 84 XVI. Weaknesses in the Food Science Course XVII. Necessary content for innovations

4 Food - Nutrition: SURVEY SCIENCE I A. Annotated summary Scientists from the field of food and nutritional sciences were asked to assess the situation and development opportunities in nutrition. In addition to personal details such as age, gender and marital status, affiliation to the specialist area and categorization in a management position were recorded. Further questions about personal assessments of the research landscape were grouped under the following topics: currently decisive influences, future challenges and trends, obstacles to innovation, funding instruments and training situation. 1. Characterization of the sample The anonymized online survey of June 2009 was aimed at 865 scientists, 512 of them at 43 universities and technical colleges and 361 at other research institutes. All addressees deal with food or nutritional sciences themselves or work with them within this topic. The addresses were obtained from the websites of the institutions and other lists of funded scientists. After 3 months, 235 responses were received, which corresponds to a response rate of 27%. The web address for the online survey had 445 visitors; so only about every second addressee visited the site, and among them only every second addressee completed the questionnaire. Among the respondents to the survey, 54% represented food science and 36% represented nutritional science; the remaining 10% came from chemistry, biology, agricultural sciences, plant breeding or veterinary medicine and were grouped under other sciences. Overall, with more than 200 answers, a more or less comprehensive and representative opinion could be collected. In order to assess the responsibility of the participants, they were asked about their function allocation in three categories. All three groups were well represented, 85 heads, 78 department heads, followed by 70 research assistants (Tab. 5, Fig. 2) 1. In the food sciences, however, mainly institute and department heads took part, only about 20% research assistants. In the nutritional sciences, on the other hand, scientific employees predominate with 50%. Since heads and department heads are usually older than scientific employees, the average age for food scientists was 50, for nutritionists and other scientists 45 years (Tab. 8; Fig. 5). Note: The information on the group size is not meaningful, as the definition of group (institute or own work group) was not clear and was not uniform for managers and employees. If you look at the gender of the participants, 57% were male, 37% female, the rest did not provide any information. In the food sciences it is 60% men and 35% women, in the nutritional sciences it is 45%, i.e. the same number of men as women (Tab. 4, Fig. 1). If you look at the gender ratio in the function groups, the proportion of men in the two management groups is significantly higher at 72% and 74%, respectively. On the other hand, women predominate among the scientific staff at 69%, again especially in the nutritional sciences (Tab. 6, Fig. 3). This indicates, on the one hand, that nutritional sciences are still viewed as a topic for women, and, on the other hand, the problem that the gender proportion in the career ladder is still not no information 40 female 20 male 0 Fig. 1 Participants in individual subject areas 1 The numbers in the tables and figures correspond to the items in Part B, Evaluation and Result. 2

5 Food - Nutrition: SURVEY SCIENCE I is maintained, but women are less frequently represented in management positions. Looking at the marital status, 83% of men are married, only 13% are single, 63% of women are married and 29% are single (Table 9). The scientific career is therefore a somewhat bigger obstacle to marriage for women than for men. In summary, the comparison of the participants shows that the group of nutritionists contains a slightly smaller number of people in managerial positions, is accordingly somewhat younger and contains more women. 2. Future trends Chemical analysis, especially by food scientists, and genome research, especially by nutritionists, are clearly named the most frequently as a discipline that has a lasting influence (Tab. 10, Fig. 6). As expected, process engineering is almost as important for food scientists, but it is rarely mentioned by nutritionists. The materials sciences, nanotechnology or food chain management that are also offered are of less importance for both departments. In addition, the food scientists mainly dealt with biological topics such as microbiology, biochemistry and molecular biology, while the nutritionists also dealt with medicine and psychology. Chemical Analytics Genome Research / Life Science n Process Engineering Material Science Nanotechnology total Food Science Nutritional science Food chain management Other Fig. 6 Disciplines with a lasting influence on their own research area The greatest challenges for future nutrition research are seen by nutritionists predominantly (60%) as topics from the field of health research, especially research into obesity and insulin resistance, followed by the influence of nutrition on cognitive functions and the influence of secondary plant substances, vitamins and minerals on body functions (Tab. 11). Only 32% cited topics related to dietary recommendations; This emphasizes segmented evidence-based and the development of effective dietary recommendations for everyday life. When asked about new aspects, the integration of currently isolated sub-areas is mentioned repeatedly, on the one hand in demands for multifactorial and on the other hand holistic approaches. (Note: food scientists gave no information on this point). Among the areas in which a lot should be invested in research and development in the future, when it comes to the general assessment, the majority of the participants agree with the importance of the topics offered (Table; Figures 7, 8, 9): Calorie-reduced products (fat / sugar reduction), foods with health benefits (functional food), individualized nutrition (e.g. senior citizens, children, diabetics), premium products / foods with high enjoyment value, convenience products, intelligent and active packaging, new processes to improve shelf life / Freshness, clean labeling, connection between allergies and food, ecological production / organic food, sustainable food production (carbon footprint), cost reduction in production, traceability (from fork to farm). However, the areas received less approval in their own research area, with the exception of the topics of functional food, individualized nutrition for certain groups and improved production methods for the 3rd

6 Food - Nutrition: SURVEY SCIENCE I better shelf life (in the food sciences), or functional food and traceability (in the nutritional sciences). From this one can conclude that so far only a few of the participants have been active in the areas that they consider to be very important in the future. Allergies and food Functional food Improvement of traceability Individualized nutrition Intelligent packaging Sustainable organic food Clean labeling Cost reduction in production Calorie-reduced products Premium products Convenience products 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 a) Approval weight, general market assessment 1.0 2, 0 3.0 4.0 b) Weight of agreement, own subject area Fig. 7 Trends, assessment, total Under the free field Other trends, different areas are mentioned by food scientists and nutritionists (Tab. 23, 24). They are mostly grouped under topics relating to the health and effects of food, quality and safety aspects, and manufacturing processes, also taking sustainability into account. Food and nutrition scientists see obstacles to innovations in their own research area primarily through the bureaucratic system (the other scientists are less likely to agree). The picture is inconsistent with regard to the assessment that legal framework conditions and collective bargaining relationships represent particular obstacles (Tab. 23, Fig. 10). Approval% Health Claims VO Nutrition Profiling Rejection Novel Food GMO, GVO VO Patents Food Science. Nutritional science other sciences Fig. 11 Approval of individual regulations as obstacles to innovation, number of yes responses in% of respondents at all Among the regulations that are offered as possible which inhibit innovation, such as the Health Claim VO, nutrition profiling, the rejection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). GMO), the Novel Food Regulation and existing patents, food and nutritionists primarily regard the rejection of genetically modified organisms as an obstacle to innovation (Tab. 25; Fig. 11). If a disability is then seen, it is again considered to be strongest in the case of rejection of GMOs or GMOs, whereby the assessment of nutritionists is even higher than that of food scientists (Tab. 25; Fig. 12). 4th

7 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I 3. Funding landscape Coordinated research programs (joint projects) are rated as very important by all scientists; three quarters of the participants in all subject areas agree completely or somewhat; (Tab. 26; Fig. 13). The projects of the federal ministries and industry are generally rated as more successful than those of the EU, where food scientists in particular are particularly skeptical (Table 27, Fig. 14). The majority of researchers judged the interdisciplinarity of the collaboration to be sufficient (148 versus 77 rejections). In the comments on this, however, a number of difficulties are listed (Tab. 29): above all organizational and coordination problems (first contact, suitable partners in new technologies, too many partners), insufficient staffing (lack of expert coordination by the mediator), communication difficulties due to different Academic languages, financing problems due to a lack of suitable funding and inadequate assessment with insufficient interdisciplinary expertise, and therefore later problems with publishing, to differences between the personalities involved due to excessive personal interests (competition for third-party funds). Accordingly, there is a lack of mediation and coordination aids as well as funding offers and competent and transparent assessments in the interdisciplinary framework. The number of funded projects that are financed with funds from public sponsors is clearly ahead in the food and nutritional sciences (Tab. 29). In the food sciences, institute funds and industrial funds from foreign companies are named equally often, in the nutritional sciences, the mentions for institute funds predominate. Not unexpectedly, however, projects funded by foreign industry are named less often by comparison. The number of projects per name of a sponsor is 4 to 5 projects for the three most important sponsors in the food sciences, 3 to 4 projects in the nutritional sciences and 6 projects in the other sciences. However, these minor differences cannot be further assessed without knowledge of the size of the projects, i.e. the financial volume behind them. In the total budget, considered in terms of the number of projects, around a third of the projects in the food sciences are financed by their own budget, public sponsors and industry. In the nutritional sciences, the number of projects financed by public funding predominates at 43%. In the other sciences, it is almost half of all projects, the rest falls on the institute's own funds (Fig. 15). Institute funds public. Funding domestic industry Foreign industry Other funding 30% 8% 1% 31% 14% 9% 8% 26% 9% 3% 1% 40% 30% 43% 47% Food science Nutritional science Other science Fig. 15 Number of projects funded by various sponsors in% of all projects mentioned in the total research budget If you consider the financial share of the individual sponsors in the total budget, public funding also contributes large percentages to the budget much more frequently, while domestic industry only contributes smaller shares of up to 30% of the funds, but is supported by Food scientists more often 5

8 FOOD - NUTRITION: SURVEY SCIENCE I used as by nutritionists. The institute's own funds also primarily make a smaller contribution to the overall budget (Tab. 30; Figs. 16, 17). This shows the great importance of public funding, which, in addition to the next most important institute funds, makes up the decisive share of the overall budget. (Note: Due to inconsistent answers, it is unfortunately not possible to relate the budget proportions to the number of projects specified and thus the financial scope of the projects.) 60 n Public. Funding domestic industry Institute funding, international industry 30 n Share classes of the various funding bodies in% of the total budget 0-10% ("1") in steps of 10 to% ("10") Fig. 17 Funding proportions of the total budget Specify the use and number of financed projects of the various public funding institutions, the BMBF is named most frequently with 21%, but closely followed by the DFG, EU, state-specific programs and the BMWi (Tab. 31; Fig. 18, 19). The BMELV is slightly lower at 11%, but it is used by users with almost 3 projects on average per year. In comparison, the BMG is only mentioned for 2% and then only for an average of 1 project. The number of funded projects does not say anything about the total financial scope of the offers of the individual funders. 16% 21% BMBF BMWi 17% 15% BMELV BMG 18% 11% DFG 2% EU Fig. 19 Public funding institutions used, number of projects, based on the total number of projects mentioned = 100% 6

9 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I All scientists in DFG and EU programs consider the information on funding opportunities to be sufficient and clear, in the BMBF to be barely sufficient, they are undecided in the BMWi, in federal state-specific programs and in the BMLEV, all of them find insufficient Information from the BMG (Tab. 33; Fig. 20). In summary, this means that the DFG and the EU have a good information policy among the public sponsors, but that EU projects, on the other hand, are assessed as less successful. Despite the lack of information, the BMBF is the most popular among public sponsors. The BMELV is not used quite as often, but those who have found access use the funds more often. The BMG provides poor information and is only used very little in comparison. Requests regarding the announcement of specific research programs concern a clearer presentation at all levels in order to recognize possible participants and conditions more easily, in addition timely announcement with sufficient advance notice. They recommend e.g.a central internet platform (or meta search engine or free database), and to bundle the funding programs offered here or at all according to the thematic focus areas (not according to funding institutions). Furthermore, information from the institutes (e.g. monthly e-mail, newsletter) or the university's own preparation of the offers, which should then be distributed to the individual researchers in a more subject-specific manner, is desired. An involvement in the design of the funding programs is also desired, as well as a recognizable medium-term funding strategy that would allow an exchange with interested partners in advance. Accordingly, the individual scientists need support in order to be able to filter the offers that are right for them from the large number of programs offered by the sponsors. In naming the strengths and weaknesses of the BMBF funding programs, three content areas are dealt with: the possibilities for research in associations, the assessment of the funded topics and the processing, i.e. application process, assessment and administration (Tab. 34, 35). The possibility of collaborative projects and the interdisciplinarity that this enables, which then also makes large, otherwise difficult-to-finance projects possible, is clearly advertised. Quote: Summary of national competence and existing modern methods, efficient use of existing funds and resources in the context of research, provided that this can be achieved by the various institutions. However, the requirement for a merger is not always easy to meet and support is hoped for by the project sponsors in setting up networks. Cooperation with industry is welcomed, but many fear that it will be implemented too quickly in products and that this will result in the loss of the independence of research. The topics of the funded projects are both praised and scolded both as basic and application-oriented. The clear focus is seen positively, its topicality on the one hand praised and regarded as innovative, on the other hand it is assessed as a politically motivated (populist) objective and a lack of scientific necessity is noted. Quote: The scientific claim is dubious. The project managers took part because they "got their money easily". Projects were given considerable support, the project results of which are fixed and politically motivated throughout. Obviously no interest in scientific innovations, lateral ideas and new approaches. To the processing, a lot of respondents complain in comments (more than 40 times in total) that the bureaucratic effort is too great, the application process is too time-consuming. Clear criticism is made of the review with a lack of expert competence, a lack of transparency, preference for established groups and a lack of opportunities for the next generation. The sufficient scope of financing and sufficiently long or extendable terms are usually emphasized positively. Quote: Handling and controlling of the approved projects is very bureaucratic. Implementation based on the model of the DFG should be sought. The high level of financial participation required by industrial companies is often problematic and should be handled more flexibly. 7th

10 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I In summary, the required collaborative research is clearly seen as a strength in the funding by the BMBF, which enables the implementation of larger projects with greater interdisciplinarity and participation of industry. However, this requires more organizational support on the part of the project sponsors when it comes to network formation and carries the risk of being too dependent on industrial interests. Criticism of the (interdisciplinary) expertise and transparency is repeatedly mentioned in the assessment, as well as of the less scientifically necessary than politically motivated topics of the funding measures. The recommendations to the BMBF for mastering the future challenges therefore also deal with an independent, scientifically sound validation of the projects in the allocation of funds; One suggestion even consisted of handing over all funds to the DFG in order to use its allocation process (Tab. 36, 37). Many proposals are aimed at structural improvements such as the funding of smaller, more differentiated projects instead of large clusters or better networking between university, industrial and departmental research. In terms of content, it is recommended that basic research be strengthened, in particular human studies on physiological relationships, which are preferable to in vitro models on the cellular and genetic level, and projects that relate to the prevention of diseases are increasingly sought. 4. Training In the assessment of the next generation of academics, the number of applicants is estimated to be too low, as is the knowledge of methods and the level of qualification (Figs. 21, 22, 23). The judgment of nutritionists is even more critical than that of food scientists. All scientific directors complain about a lack of technical and methodological competence of the applicants such as basic knowledge, interdisciplinary thinking, methodological knowledge and practical experience, but also scientific-analytical thinking in general. Furthermore, problem orientation, strategy thinking and independence are always sought. In addition to stronger social skills, more creativity, motivation and better language skills are desired. Food scientists also lack legal and business knowledge, skills in time and project management, as well as leadership and knowledge of human nature (Tab. 39). The wishes expressed here for an ideal applicant must be contrasted with the training course, which should offer the opportunity to learn all these skills. Obviously, the desired intensity with a deeper basic and practical understanding contradicts the shortening of the training and the shortening of the content, which only allows superficial understanding or specializations. Temporally tightened and forced, then necessarily schooled, knowledge transfer runs counter to stimulating creativity and leading to independent scientific thinking. Practical experience with broad methodological knowledge also requires sufficient time. All managers uniformly see poor opportunities for young people in research at universities or research institutes, but also only limited adequate opportunities in industrial research (Tab; Fig. 24, 25). The universities are not very attractive because of the radical reduction in mid-level staff and therefore because of too few and mostly temporary positions with too low remuneration. The new collective bargaining law is too inflexible to retain good staff and is causing highly qualified scientists to migrate to industry or abroad. Among the strengths of the nutrition science course, nutritionists emphasize the interdisciplinarity, the social relevance and the health relevance as well as the scientific character of the subject. A lack of depth, too much schooling, poor acceptance of the subject and poor prospects for the graduates are named as weaknesses. When it comes to the strengths of the food science courses, food scientists also emphasize multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity and the stronger connection between theory and practice as well as good future prospects and high innovation potential. A lack of depth and strong schooling are again seen as weaknesses. The course contents, which are listed to promote innovations, unfortunately in many ways deal with the same topics and characteristics as with the missing knowledge of the next generation of academics: scientific thinking, independence, creativity, but also practical relevance, 8

11 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I Knowledge of modern methods and, above all, from the point of view of food scientists, more in-depth knowledge of the market, consumer needs and legal and economic fundamentals (Tab. 44, 45). However, it is emphasized several times that the ability to innovate does not depend on the amount of specific subject matter, but that the way it is conveyed should focus on different priorities than currently. Better guidance is suggested for scientific and independent work via project-related practical research modules, e.g. through longer large internships or early work in a local research laboratory. Finally, a different interdisciplinary connection of the contents, also from an economic point of view, is proposed, as well as more time for mastering the study tasks and training in social skills. Despite some very negative comments, the group of academic staff rates the current working conditions and personal perspectives as rather positive (Tab. 46, 47). Contrary to the assessment of the heads (see above), she sees her own future in both subject areas more at the university (Tab. 48). 9

12 Food - Nutrition: SURVEY SCIENCE I B. Evaluation and results 1. Questionnaire and dissemination In order to record the assessments of the current situation as well as future developments in nutrition, a written survey was carried out among scientists from the field of food science and nutrition science. It should be used for recommendations to the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and cover the broadest possible spectrum of opinions. Definition: The area of ​​food science includes all research areas that deal with the production, analysis or distribution of food. (The boundary to the agricultural sciences is not to be drawn sharply here). The field of nutritional sciences includes all research areas that deal with basic questions of human nutrition and the effects of food and ingredients on people. Definition: For reasons of readability, the masculine form is used to denote groups of people as valid for both genders. Topics of the published questionnaire In addition to some personal details such as age, gender and marital status, the affiliation to a specialist area as well as the grouping in a management position and the number of employees were queried. Sources of the addresses The addresses were compiled (i) in our own Internet search for universities, technical universities and technical colleges with teaching in the field of nutrition and food science, (ii) from the list of member institutes of the Research Group of the Nutrition Industry e.v. (FEI) and (iii) in comparison with the compilation of Research in Germany 2008 by the BMBF (by Miriam Brandt, Vallo Department, sources given by her: Federal funding portal; DFG project database, BMELV and BLE research databases; FEI project database; project databases 6th and 7th EU Research Framework Program). The anonymous online survey was carried out with the Internet service 2ask from amundis communications GmbH, Konstanz (. After the questions had been designed, the questionnaire was designed, edited and tested online. Of the 873 prepared addresses, a total of 865 inquiries were sent per s after correcting incorrect addresses (See Appendix I for the cover letter) 10

13 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I Definition: Universities, technical universities and technical colleges (= institutions with teaching) are summarized in the following under universities in contrast to pure research institutes. Universities A total of 512 people from the university sector were addressed; they came from 152 institutes from 45 universities (Tab. 1; see Appendix II). The division into executives and research assistants was assessed according to their title (professor, n = 51, or doctor, n = 49), their gender was derived from their first names as far as possible. Tab. 1 Addressees at universities Total addresses% (n) male% (n) female% (n) unclear n Total addressees (316) 37 (186) 10 With professor title 51 (261) 79 (206) 21 (54) 1 With Doctorate 49 (251) 45 (110) 55 (132) 9 research institutes A total of 361 people from the field of research institutes were addressed; they came from 67 institutes or different locations (Tab. 2; see Appendix III). A division can again be made according to professor or doctorate title, so managers will be found under both groups. The gender was again deduced from the first name. Table 2 Addressees at research institutes Total addresses% (n) male% (n) female% (n) unclear n Total addressees (267) 26 (92) 2 With professor title 25 (90) 85 (75) 15 (13) 2 With Doctorate 65 (234) (166) (68) - Without doctorate 10 (37) (26) (11) - Of the 865 inquiries sent on June 26, 2009, 234 replies were received after 3 months (until the end of August 2009); this corresponds to a response rate of 27%. The web address received 445 visitors during this time (Tab. 3). Tab. 3 Users of the web address Survey participation n% mean length of stay Addressees Visitors Participants The answers were obtained using a database program (Filemaker Pro 10, Filemaker Inc., USA) and a spreadsheet program (MS Excel 2007, Microsoft Corporation, USA ) evaluated and presented according to frequencies in comparison groups. Where appropriate, an assignment to subject areas or genders was made. 11

14 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE I SURVEY 2. Subject area and function of the participants Question 1: Your area of ​​expertise? The options were: food science, nutritional science or other with space for your own assignment. However, the majority of the subject areas initially named under Other could subsequently be assigned to the nutritional or food sciences (see below). 54% of the responses came from food sciences, 37% from nutritional sciences and 10% from related sciences; 6% of them were agricultural sciences (Tab 4; Fig. 1) no information female male 60% of the food scientists indicated male, 35% female, among nutritionists 45% male and 45% female, under other sciences the ratio was 87% male to 13% female; the rest did not provide any information. Fig. 1 Participants in individual subject areas Tab. 4 Allocation of participants to subject areas Subject area Total n (%) 234 (100) Male n (%) 100% subject-related Female n (%) 100% subject-related no information n Food science 124 (54) 76 ( 60) 44 (35) 4 Nutritional sciences 86 (36) 39 (45) 39 (45) 8 Other sciences 23 (10) 20 (87) 3 (13) 0 of which agricultural sciences 12th

15 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I Question 2: Your role? The options were: Head (chair, institute), head of department / department, young scientists (habilitation students, postdocs) or others with space for their own assignment. The 25 mentions under Other (11 male, 12 female, 2 no information) were subsequently assigned to one of the three roughly hierarchical groups, now named: institute manager, department head or research assistant (Tab. 5, Fig. 2). Tab. 5 Functional grouping of the participants, total Function, total n = 100% male n (%) female n (%) no information n Head of institute Head (chair, institute) Head of department Head of department / department head Scientific staff Young scientists (postdocs, postdocs) (72) 16 (19) (74) 24 (31) (30) 48 (69) 1 90 n Head of Institute Head of Department Scientific. Employees male female no information Fig. 2 Functions of the participants Overall, the group of managers (n = 85) is the strongest, followed by the group of department heads (n = 78), the group of scientific employees is again slightly lower (n = 70 ). If one looks at the gender ratio in the three groups, the proportion of men in the management groups is 72% and 74%, respectively, in the group of academic staff it is the other way around and the proportion of women predominates here at 69%. If one breaks down the relationships according to subject areas, then in the food sciences it was mainly institute and department heads who took part, in each case twice as many as in the group of scientific staff; the gender ratio is only slightly shifted from the overall result above (Tab. 6, Fig. 3). Among the participants from the nutritional sciences, the number of scientific staff predominates, with a significantly higher proportion of women again only in this group. 13th

16 Food - Nutrition: SURVEY SCIENCE I Tab. 6 Functional grouping of the participants according to subject areas Function total n male n female n no information n by food sciences Head of department Head of department Scientific staff Nutritional sciences Head of department Head of research staff Other sciences Head of department Head of department Scientific staff n 30 n Male Female no information male female no information Fig. 3 Functions of the participants in individual subject areas How many employees (graduates and technical staff) are working at your institute / chair / subject area? Among all participants, the number of working groups with more than 20 employees outweighs with 31%, the second most common with 20% is the average group size of 11-15, followed by group 5-10 (16%), group 1- 5 (15%) and the group (13%) (Table 7).If you consider the specified number of employees at the respective institution under the individual function groups, it is perhaps only noteworthy that the number of department heads working in a group of 5-10 employees is greater than the corresponding number among the institute heads or the scientific employees (Fig. 4). Conversely, these two functional groups work more often in groups of employees than the department heads. 14th

17 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I Tab. 7 Function and size of institute Graduated and technical staff (s)> 20 abstentions Total (n /%) 34 (15) 37 (16) 48 (20) 31 (13) 72 (31) 13 (5) Food sciences Head of department Head of department Research assistant Nutritional sciences Head of department Head of department Research fellow Other sciences Head of department Head of department Research fellow Fig. 4 Group sizes of individual function groups n> The age distribution, calculated over classes with a mean age of 25, 35, 45, 55, 65 years, gives an overall mean of 47 years, for the food scientists 50, the nutritionists 45 and the other scientists 45 years (Tab. 8; Fig. 5). Table 8 Age grouping none years years years years> 60 years age group information n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Total 3 (1) 47 (20) 79 (34 ) 74 (31) 16 (7) 18 (8) Food Science 0 (0) 20 (16) 45 (36) 44 (35) 16 (13) 7 (6) Nutritional Science 3 (3) 24 (28) 26 (30 ) 21 (24) 3 (3) 11 (13) Other sciences 0 (0) 3 (13) 8 (35) 9 (39) 3 13) 0 (0) 15

18 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I n> 60 none A. years Fig. 5 Age structure of the food sciences participants. Nutritional sciences If one considers the marital status, 83% of men are married, only 13% are single, among women 63% are married and 29% are single; Only 8 participants were divorced or widowed, 14 did not provide any information (Table 9). Tab. 9 Marital status Marital status married n single n divorced n widowed n male% female% In summary, the comparison of the participant groups shows that the group of the nutritional no information n Total 235, of which male n female n In summary, the comparison of the participant group shows that the group the nutritionist is slightly younger, includes more women and a slightly smaller number of people in managerial positions. 16

19 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE I SURVEY 3. Influences, challenges and trends Question 3: Which of the following disciplines have had a lasting impact on your research area (multiple answers possible)? For food scientists, disciplines that have a lasting influence are primarily chemical analysis, genome research / life science and process engineering; As expected, nutritionists put genome research / life science first, followed by chemical analysis. The options were: genome research / life science, chemical analysis (e.g. MS), process engineering / food technology (e.g. HF, extrusion, high pressure, ESL etc.), food chain management (RFID, logistics), material science, nanotechnology or others with space for the own assignment offered. Tab. 10 and Fig. 6 show the answers received, in which the disciplines are sorted overall according to frequencies. Tab. 10 Mention of sustainable influencing disciplines Disciplines Total (n) food science. (n) Nutritional Science (n) Chemical analysis Genome research / life science Process engineering Material science Nanotechnology Food chain management Other Overall, chemical analysis and genome research are clearly the most frequently named disciplines that have a lasting influence. As expected, genome research is less influential in food sciences than in nutritional sciences, where it was clearly the most frequently mentioned, followed by chemical analysis. Conversely, as expected, process engineering is hardly mentioned by nutritionists, but it is almost as important for food science as chemical analysis, which is mentioned most frequently. Materials science, nanotechnology or food chain management had little influence on them. Others also include: food science microbiology (3), biochemistry / molecular biology (2), enzyme technology, meat technology, biotechnology, STIR, zoonoses, sensor technology, carry over processes in farm animals, simulation technology, intervention studies with food. Nutritional sciences Nutritional psychology, pathophysiology, molecular biology, epigenetic analyzes, medicine, epidemiology, human interventions, behavioral psychology, life sciences * without * genome research and especially without NGFN, agricultural sciences, development aid, age research. (The entries are sorted according to the research area of ​​the participants, together with the disciplines mentioned in parallel, listed in Appendix IV.) 17

20 Food - Nutrition: SURVEY SCIENCE I n Chemical Analytics Genome Research / Life Science Process Engineering Material Sciences Total Food Science. Nutritional science Nanotechnology Food Chain Management Other Fig. 6 Disciplines with a lasting influence on your own research area Question 4: Please give us your personal assessment: Which topics do you consider to be the greatest challenges for nutritional research in the future (multiple answers possible)? Among the health-related topics (60% of the respondents), the greatest challenge of the future in nutritional science is the control of obesity and insulin resistance, then the role of nutrition on cognitive processes in general and in the aging process, and then the influence on health of secondary plant substances, vitamins and minerals. Well behind are topics on dietary recommendations (32%), among which the creation of evidence-based, segmented recommendations is seen as the most important. This question was only answered by the nutritionists. The following options were available, now assigned to subject areas: Area A - Influence of nutrition on health, prevention (a) Epigenetics and genetics (b) Control of obesity and insulin resistance through exercise and nutrition (c) Can diet influence cognitive changes (Aging process, performance)? (d) Make the influence of nutrition on systemic inflammatory processes visible (e) Secondary plant substances, vitamins and minerals and their influence on health in area B - Effectiveness of dietary recommendations (f) Development of dietary recommendations that work in everyday life (g) Dietary recommendations in Implement everyday practice and clinical practice (h) Provide evidence that lifestyle changes have a positive effect on health (i) Develop evidence-based, segmented dietary recommendations for area C - Market interests (j) Find a balance between private and public interests (market orientation vs. scientific excellence) and ( k) Other 18

21 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I Tab. 11 shows the number of responses received from nutritionists. With 60% of the responses, topics are from area A (short: health research) and only 32% are topics from area B (short: dietary recommendations). The focus of the topic in area A, health research, is on (b), the research on the control of obesity and insulin resistance, followed by (c) and (e), the influence of nutrition on cognitive changes and especially the influence of secondary plant substances , Vitamins and minerals. Within the subordinate topic in area B, nutritional recommendations, the segmented evidence base and the development of effective nutritional recommendations for everyday life are emphasized. Tab. 11 Topics of the greatest challenges in the future of nutrition research Challenge (keyword) A - Influence of nutrition on health, prevention, food -wiss. n nutritional science n (a) Epigenetics and Genetics 0 26 (b) Obesity, Insulin Resistance 0 43 (c) Age, Performance 0 39 (d) Systemic Inflammatory Processes 0 25 (e) Vitamins, Minerals 0 39 B - Effectiveness of Dietary Recommendations (f) Dietary Recommendations for Everyday life 0 26 (g) Nutritional recommendations for clinics 0 14 (h) Effectiveness of lifestyle changes 0 23 (i) Evidence-based dietary recommendations 0 27 C - Market interests (j) Market vs. science 0 13 (k) Other nutritionists made an entry under Other, 16 provided comments on the greatest challenges (Tab. 12; original responses printed diagonally; Appendix V). Noteworthy new aspects repeatedly deal with the integration of currently isolated sub-areas, as expressed, quite differently, in demands for multifactorial or holistic approaches, e.g. Combination of several disciplines, cross-location 'task forces' or a holistic view of nutrition, human-food-environment-medicine-mind interaction, system medicine approach. In addition, there is also the occasional mention of individual considerations, e.g. the individual risk potential of a person, proteomics. 19th

22 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I Question 14: Please rate statements regarding the general market development and the importance for your institute / department / subject: In the coming years a lot of research and development should be invested in the following areas. Current trends in the production of special foods such as functional food, convenience, light, organic or premium products are viewed by all participants as areas to which, in general market assessments, a great deal of research intensity will have to be devoted, but they mostly find it for their own research area weaker approval. However, food scientists emphasize necessary investments in the areas of functional food and new processes for improved shelf life and freshness. Nutritionists also emphasize functional food, but then the design of individualized nutrition for groups such as seniors, children and diabetics. Integrative aspects such as the system medical approach, the connection of several disciplines, and the holistic approach are repeatedly mentioned. The current trends listed below that affect food production were offered (Tab. 12; Fig. 7). Both a general market assessment and an assessment of the importance of the necessary research intensity for one's own subject area were requested (Tab. 12, 13; cells with maximum responses are intensely colored, cells with the next-lowest responses are highlighted in light color) Tab. 12 Trends, General market assessment, overall trend Disagree (s) Tend to disagree (s) Tend to agree (s) Agree (s) Don't know Calorie-reduced products (fat / sugar reduction) Foods with health benefits (functional food) Individualized Nutrition (e.g. senior citizens, children, diabetics) Premium products / foods with a high enjoyment value Convenience products Intelligent and active packaging New processes to improve shelf life / freshness Clean labeling Link between allergies and foods Ecological production / organic foods Sustainable food production (carbon footprint) Cost reduction in production Traceability (from fork to farm) Overall, the majority of participants largely agree with the importance of the topics on offer when it comes to the general market assessment; However, they find less approval for the research intensity to be invested in their own research area, the approval weight drops below 2.5 with the exception of the topics functional food, individualized nutrition and improved production methods for better shelf life (Tab. 12, 13; Fig. 7a, b) . The question about clean labeling is not conspicuous with 25% answers under white; The meaning of this term was possibly not familiar to the participants, but especially to the nutritionists (Tab. 12, 13). 20th

23 Food - Nutrition: SURVEY SCIENCE I As a measure of the growing agreement, the number of responses to each trend was weighted by multiplying from 1 if I do not agree to 4 if I agree and the resulting sum is based on the total number of responses (without, don't know) ; the result is an average approval weight. The limit for overwhelming approval is 2.5. The assessments are presented in the order of the evaluation of all scientists for the general market (Fig. 7a) and for their own subject area (Fig. 7b) (Tab. 14). Table 13 Trends, assessment for own specialist area, total agree agree agree agree don't know Trend disagree, tend to disagree (n) (n) (n) (n) to (n) Reduced calories (fat / sugar reduction) foods with health benefits (functional food) Individualized nutrition (e.g. senior citizens, children, diabetics) Premium products / foods with high enjoyment value Convenience products Intelligent and active packaging New processes for improving shelf life / freshness Clean labeling Link between allergies and food Ecological production / organic Food Sustainable food production (carbon footprint) Cost reduction in production Traceability (from fork to farm) Tab. 14 Trends, weightings, total total general Own research Trend Weight Weight Average weight Average weight of low-calorie products 574 2,, 0 Functional Food 705 3,, 2 Individualized Nutrition 669 3,, 8 Premium products 570 2,, 4 Convenience products 571 2,, 2 Intelligent packaging 608 3,, 3 Improving shelf life / freshness 660 3,, 5 Clean labeling 462 2,, 1 Allergies and food 700 3,, 5 Organic food 626 3,, 4 Sustainable food production 591 3 ,, 4 Cost reduction in production 560 2,, 2 Traceability 663 3,, 5 21

24 Food - Nutrition: SURVEY SCIENCE I Allergies and Food Functional Food Improving traceability Individualized nutrition Intelligent packaging Sustainable organic food Clean labeling Cost reduction in production Calorie-reduced products Premium products Convenience products 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 a) Approval weight , general market assessment 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 b) Weight of agreement, own subject area Fig. 7 Trends, assessment, total If one breaks down according to subject areas of the participants, the general market assessment corresponds to the approval of the food scientists in the overall assessment ; For the future trends in their own specialist field, there is agreement among food scientists, especially in the area of ​​functional food and improvement of shelf life (Tab. 15, 16, 17; Fig. 8a, b). Tab. 15 Trends, general market assessment, food science trend Disagree (s) Tend to disagree (s) Tend to agree (s) Do not know (s) Reduced calories (fat / sugar reduction) Foods with health benefits (Functional Food) Individualized nutrition (e.g. senior, child, diabetic) Premium products / foods with high enjoyment value Convenience products Intelligent and active packaging New processes for improving shelf life / freshness Clean labeling Connection between allergies and foods Ecological production / organic foods Sustainable Food production (carbon footprint) Cost reduction in production Traceability (from fork to farm) Tab. 16 Trends, assessment for own specialist area, food science trend Disagree (s) Tend to disagree (s) Tend to agree (s) Agree ( n) Don't know (n) Reduced calorie products (fat / sugar reduction) Food with health benefits (Fu nctional food) Individualized nutrition (e.g. Seniors, children, diabetics) Premium products / foods with a high enjoyment value Convenience products Intelligent and active packaging New processes for improving shelf life / freshness Clean labeling Connection between allergies and foods Ecological production / organic foods Sustainable food production (carbon footprint) Cost reduction in the Production traceability (from fork to farm)

25 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I Tab. 8 Trends, assessment, food science The trends that are offered and geared towards food production are also viewed by nutritionists as important fields of future innovation for the general market; An approval weighting of 2.5 only includes the cost reduction in production and the manufacture of convenience, premium and low-calorie products (Fig. 9a; Tab. 18, 20). In the assessment of the importance for research in one's own subject area, rejection predominates; Only the subjects functional food and individualized nutrition come above a consent weight of 2.5, both above 3, as well as just under allergies and food (Fig. 9b; Tab. 19, 20). In the field of other trends, different areas are mentioned by food scientists and nutritionists (Tab. 21, 22). They are mostly grouped under topics relating to the health and effects of food, quality and safety aspects, and manufacturing processes, also taking sustainability into account. 23

26 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I Tab.18 Trends, general market assessment, nutritional science Agree trend Disagree (s) Tend to disagree (s) Tend to agree (s) Agree (s) Don't know (s) Reduced calorie products Functional food Individualized nutrition Premium products Convenience products Intelligent packaging Improving the Shelf life / freshness Clean labeling Allergies and food Organic food Sustainable food production Cost reduction in production Traceability Tab. 19 Trends, assessment for own specialist area, nutritional science Trend Disagree (s) Tend to disagree (s) Tend to agree (s) Agree (s) Don't know (s) Reduced calories (fat / sugar reduction) Food with health benefits (functional food) Individualized nutrition (e.g. senior citizens, children, diabetics) Premium products / foods with high enjoyment value Convenience products Intelligent and active packaging New processes to improve the shelf life / freshness Clean-Labe lling connection between allergies and food ecological production / organic food sustainable food production (carbon footprint) cost reduction in production traceability (from fork to farm) Tab. 20 trends, weightings nutritional sciences general nutritional sciences own research trend weight average weight weight average weight reduced calorie products 176 2,, 0 Functional food 237 3,, 2 Individualized nutrition 240 3,, 8 Premium products 175 2,, 4 Convenience products 166 2,, 2 Intelligent packaging 199 2,, 3 Improving shelf life / freshness 204 2,, 5 Clean- Labeling 145 2,, 1 Allergies and food 239 3,, 5 Organic food 199 2,, 4 Sustainable food production 186 3,, 4 Cost reduction in production 173 2,, 2 Traceability 208 3,, 5 24

27 Food - Nutrition: SURVEY SCIENCE I Allergies and food functional food Sustainable improvement in traceability Individualized nutrition Intelligent packaging Organic food Clean labeling Cost reduction in production Calorie-reduced products Premium products Convenience products 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 a) Approval weight, general market 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 b) Approval weight, own subject area Fig. 9 Trends, assessment, nutritional sciences Tab Other trends in future research in food sciences Health Relationships between nutrition and diseases Health benefits of food (food supplements) Connection of cancer disease for countries with development needs, optimization of cultivated plants global food climate protection in the context of nutrition miscellaneous nutrigenomics modeling of complex processes understanding of complex systems process engineering of biological processes basic chemical research: reactions and structures in food food chain management consumer behavior when handling food nutrition information and education gender aspects of nutrition 25

28 Food - Nutrition: SURVEY SCIENCE I Tab Further trends mentioned in future research Nutritional sciences, other sciences Health Disease prevention through nutrition health claims Validation of health claims Health relevance of foods Nutraceuticals Effect of food ingredients on the physiological function of the body and the development of diseases or for prevention of diseases digestion / processing of food in the body, e.g. Length of stay of food in the stomach, differences in quantity, differences between raw food and cooked food Efforts to improve the appreciation of food during pregnancy and imprinting of the child with regard to diseases of the metabolic syndrome Assessment of new / traditional foods in comparison to conventional foods (e.g. Himalayan foods) Salt and sea salt versus table salt) virtual water / water footprint nutrition of the child to guarantee optimal development (mental and physical) quality and safety food security / safety clear labeling of all ingredients product information for consumers, food labeling secondary plant ingredients product knowledge in terms of taste, storage, clear and understandable nutritional information for the consumer freedom from contamination food safety high-quality starting products quality determination, quality assurance, quality definition manuf ngsverfahren Products that meet the recommendations Technology from original production to consumers GMO food Post-harvest process (processing) Sustainability Resalable products prefer local products, short supply routes Other This list clearly shows me that important things are not being considered. Where are the questions of behavioral economics in connection with the decision-making behavior of consumers? The argument here is obviously from the technological side. Nutritional behavior research Effects of traffic light labeling Efficiency of value chains exercise mimetics Consumer behavior Conveying food preparation as an everyday skill 26

29 Food - Nutrition: SURVEY SCIENCE I 4. Formal framework and obstacles to innovation Question 15: Please rate the following assessment: The following framework conditions particularly inhibit innovations at our institute / department / department: Question 16: Please give us your assessment of whether innovations result from the following Regulations / framework conditions are inhibited: Question 17: To what extent do you think innovations are inhibited by the following regulations / framework conditions? All scientists see a hindrance to innovations in their own research area primarily through the bureaucratic system, but also through the legal framework and collective bargaining conditions. Under the special regulations, in particular the rejection of genetically modified organisms is assessed as an obstacle to innovation, followed by the Novel Food Regulation and existing patents. However, when asked about the type or extent of the obstacles, a large number of respondents refrained from giving any information. Initially, three fields of framework conditions were offered that could particularly inhibit innovations in their own specialist area: legal, collective bargaining and bureaucratic. Both food and nutritionists see obstacles primarily from the bureaucratic system and less from the legal framework or the collective bargaining conditions, but these, too, are still rated as obstacles (Tab. 23, Fig. 10). Tab. 23 Barriers in own specialist field General conditions Disagree (s) Tend to disagree (s) Tend to agree (s) Agree (s) Don't know Food sciences Legal, collective bargaining, bureaucratic Nutritional sciences Legal, collective bargaining bureaucratic Other sciences Legal, collective bargaining bureaucratic It was then asked whether and to what extent a possible inhibition by individual ordinances or situations is assessed; Health Claim VO, Nutrition Profiling, rejection of genetically modified organisms (GMO or GMO), Novel Food VO and existing patents were offered. 27

30 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I If one looks at individual regulations, the rejection of genetically modified organisms is seen as an obstacle to innovation among the regulations offered, whereas all other regulations are less clearly an obstacle (Tab. 24; Fig. 11). The questions answered with yes were also asked about the respective extent of the obstacles. If you weight low with (x 1), medium with (x 3) and strong with (x 5) and calculate again the average weighting per participant, the approval weight, you get a uniform assessment of all the obstacles mentioned above 3, the value for medium, whereby the assessment of the nutritionists is even higher than that of the food scientists (Tab. 25; Fig. 12) .. Fig. 10 Assessment of formal framework conditions as obstacles to innovation, weight of approval for food science. Nutritional science Other food science Nutritional science Other food science Nutritional science Other legal, bureaucratic collective bargaining agreements Tab. 24 Special regulations as barriers to innovations in general Regulations yes (n) no (n) don't know / n / a (n) Food Sciences Health Claims VO Nutrition Profiling Rejection GMO, GMO Novel Food VO Patents Nutritional Sciences Health Claims VO Nutrition Profiling Rejection GMO, GMO Novel Food VO Patents Other Sciences Health Claims VO Nutrition Profiling Rejection GMO, GMO Novel Food VO Patents

31 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I Approval% Health Claims VO Nutrition Profiling Rejection GMO, GMO Novel Food VO Patents Food Science. Nutritional science other sciences Fig. 11 Approval of individual regulations as obstacles to innovation, number of yes answers in% of respondents at all Tab. 25 Strength of the individual obstacles to innovation Regulations low (n) medium (n) high (n) Average weight of food sciences Health Claims VO, 7 Nutrition Profiling, 2 Rejection of GMO, GMO, 1 Novel Food VO, 6 patents, 7 Nutrition Sciences Health Claims VO, 1 Nutrition Profiling, 0 Rejection GMO, GMO, 5 Novel Food VO, 7 patents, 0 Other Sciences Health Claims VO, 0 Nutrition Profiling, 0 Rejection GMO, GVO, 5 Novel Food VO, 3 patents, 5 patents Novel Food VO Rejection GMO, GVO Nutrition Profiling Lebensmittelw. Nutritional science Other sciences Health Claims VO Approval weights Fig. 12 Assessment of the strength of the obstacles to innovation 29

32 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE I SURVEY 5. Funding instruments All scientists consider coordinated research programs to be very important. Funding from federal ministries and industry are more likely to be rated as successful than EU projects. The currently existing interdisciplinarity in the cooperation is judged by the majority to be sufficient, however, there are organizational, communication and coordination problems when building networks that could be solved by suitable mediators. The number of projects funded by public sponsors is significantly higher than the number of projects financed by the institute's own funds or by domestic or foreign industry. The financial shares of public funding in the total budget more often also cover large percentages over 50%, whereas own institute funds, domestic or rarely used foreign industry only contribute smaller shares of up to 30% of the funds. Question 5: Please rate the following statement: Joint projects or coordinated research programs (> 3 research partners) are important for my chair / professorship / institute / area. On this question, the participants from all disciplines are very unanimous (50% agree, 24% tend to agree; Table 26; Fig. 13). Broken down by subject, there is no difference. Tab. 26 Importance of collaborative projects Collaborative projects Disagree (s) Tend to disagree (s) Tend to agree (s) Agree (s) Don't know (s) Weight of approval total, 3 food sciences, 3 nutritional sciences, 3 other sciences, 2 total food science Nutritional science Other sciences 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Weight of approval Fig. 13 Importance of joint projects 30

33 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I Question 11: Please rate the following statement: I rate the implementation of the following programs and joint projects as successful! When asked about the assessment of whether the program funding from the federal ministries, the EU or industrial research was successful, the opinion of all scientists for the federal ministries and industrial funding was on the positive side (approval weight> 3), only EU funding received Approval weight of only 2.7, i.e. slightly above the limit for undecided (Tab. 27, Fig. 14). This is mainly due to the less approving attitude of food scientists. On the other hand, nutritionists show less support for industrial subsidies. Table 27 Successful program funding Programs Disagree (s) Tend to disagree (s) Tend to agree (s) Agree (s) Don't know (s) Total Federal Ministries EU Food Science Industry Federal Ministries EU Food Science Industry Federal Ministries EU Industry Other Sciences Federal Ministries EU Industry Federal Ministries EU Industry 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Weight of approval Weight of approval Fig. 14 Approval of successful program funding 31

34 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I Question 10: Do you think that there is sufficient interdisciplinary work? When asked about sufficient interdisciplinarity, the majority of scientists answered yes (148 in total), usually without any further explanation. A total of 77 scientists answered no, 58 of whom also provided an explanation (Table 34, Appendix VI). A selection in key words is collected in Tab. 35. Table 28 Opinion on sufficient interdisciplinarity Yes n (with explanations) No n (with explanations) No answer n (with explanations) Total 148 (63%) 77 (33%) 9 (4%) Food science. 81 (1 E) 42 (35 E) 2 (0 E) Nutritional sciences. 51 (3 E) 28 (15 E) 7 (1 E) Other sciences 16 (1 E) 7 (3 E) 0 (0 E) Tab. 29 Selection of explanations for sufficient disciplinarity Food science yes no In food microbiology one has to work in an interdisciplinary way, because there are no "the" food microbiologists fail due to time and human resources (Either partners do not move quickly enough or lack of time with the respective partners leads to (sometimes short-term) (re) exit poorly coordinated because there is a lack of superordinate, competent moderators Supervision of projects due to the tight staff situation difficult concrete framework conditions on an equal level are sometimes only rudimentarily different Cultures and terminology Interests too different, critical mass is missing at the UAS Difficult, as new constellations have to arise Too many partners, 2-3 research partners ideal First contact difficult with new technologies and methodological approaches often difficult to find suitable partners internationally e Relationships should be simpler and less bureaucratic; a lot of time until mutual trust / understanding is built up great self-interest of the possible partners professional selfishness competition for third-party funding often leads to delimitation interdisciplinary social science research is only included to a limited extent in nationwide tenders. In state research institutions, the state-specific requirements often suppress the reference to the federal and EU level. It is difficult to find suitable funding opportunities, especially a combination of natural and economic sciences. Many project sponsors do not consider interdisciplinary in their tenders. Approach Assessment often fails due to one-sided orientation of the reviewers Nutritional sciences Yes No Interdisciplinarity is not an end in itself, indispensable for some projects, superfluous for others. Work dependent on research funding. The personalities in management positions often do not allow a fruitful and trusting cooperation for scientists, not institute directors, often difficult to establish connections Disciplines speak different languages) It is usually easier to publish highly specialized research than interdisciplinary research. The same applies to research proposals. Therefore, interdisciplinary work is a luxury Life science and social disciplines still work too little with one another. Interaction between medicine and food technology too little, health aspects often little studied, medical professionals have little knowledge of technical possibilities. How should e.g. a biologist will know the interdisciplinary funding programs in electrical engineering. 32

35 Food - Nutrition: SCIENCE SURVEY I In addition to general findings, they specifically deal with practical organizational and coordination problems (first contact, suitable partners in new technologies, too many partners), insufficient staffing (lack of expert coordination by a mediator), communication difficulties due to different scientific languages, financing problems Due to lack of suitable funding and inadequate appraisal with insufficient interdisciplinary expertise, as well as later problems with publishing, up to differences between the personalities involved due to excessive personal interests (competition for third-party funds) and point to the necessary flexibility to changing neighboring disciplines. Question 6: How many projects are (partially) financed from the following areas? What percentage of your total research budget will be noticed? In terms of the number of projects funded, the public sponsors are significantly higher than the number of projects financed by the institute's own funds or by domestic or foreign industry. The financial shares of public funding in the total budget more often also cover large percentages over 50%, whereas own institute funds, domestic or rarely used foreign industry only contribute smaller shares of up to 30% of the funds.Among the various public funding institutions, the BMBF is used most frequently before the DFG and the EU, followed by state-specific programs and the BMWi. With the average number of projects, however, the BMELV is ahead with almost 3 projects. The BMG demonstrated the lowest frequency of use with the lowest number of projects. In the food and nutritional sciences, funding from public funds is clearly ahead (Tab. 30). In the food sciences, institute funds and foreign industry are mentioned equally frequently, in the nutritional sciences the mentions for institute funds predominate. Not unexpectedly, funds from foreign industry are mentioned less often in comparison. Tab. 30 Number of projects funded Entries Total number of projects named Projects per entry Total number of projects in% Food scientists Institute funds Public. Funders Industry in Germany Industry abroad Other nutritionists Institute funds Public. Funding domestic industry Industry abroad Other funding other scientists The total number of projects corresponds to this trend (Tab. 30). Only under the other institute funds for science is it noticeable that the number of public projects financed by domestic industry. Funding remains comparatively low. The number of projects per nomination for the 3 most important sponsors in domestic industry, food sciences, is 4 5 projects, in nutritional sciences 3 4, and in other sciences, industrial abroad, 6 projects. However, these minor differences cannot be further assessed by other sponsors without knowledge of the size of the projects, i.e. the amount of funding behind them. 33

36