1. International Collaborative Network: Sugarcane vs. Corn “20 TH ICABR C ONFERENCE – T RANSFORMING THE B IOECONOMY : BEHAVIOR, INNOVATION AND S CIENCE Ravello (Amalfi Coast – Italy): June 26th – 29th, 2016 Institute of Economics (IE), University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil Agriculture and Environmental Research Center – (NEA) Center of Interdisciplinary Research in Energy- (NIPE) C AROLINA S. B UENO, J OSÉ M. F. J. S ILVEIRA, A NTONIO M ARCIO B UAINAIN, L UIZ G. A. S OUZA

2. Motivation Dal Poz et al (2012): there are spillovers from corn system to sugarcane research? Souza et Al (2015): there is a mismatching between academic production and the generation of Technologies in Brazil; Does this create a overflow from sugarcane system to more developed innovation centers?

3. Objectives Map the scientific production worldwide in sugarcane and corn ethanol from 1975 and 2014; Build a network of scientific collaboration for each of one of them and generate a basis for comparison; Analyze each network using network indicators and identify the main collaborative links and their subjects.

4. Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation Scientific ubjets

5. Scientific areas

6. Key words for sugarcane and for corn hydrolysis* sugarcane and enzymes*”; “molecular marker* and sugarcane and ethanol” and “Biomass or bagasse and sugarcane”; “genotypes* and sugarcane and ethanol”; “sugarcane and conversion enzymes”; “gene expression and sugarcane and ethanol”; “ethanol and nitrogen and sugarcane”; photosynthesis* AND sugarcane”; pest control and sugarcane”. hydrolysis* corn and enzymes*”; “molecular marker* and corn and ethanol”and Biomass or bagasse and sugarcane”; “genotypes* and corn and ethanol”; “corn and conversion enzymes”; “gene expression and corn and ethanol”; “ethanol and nitrogen and corn”; photosynthesis* AND corn”; pest control and corn

7. Methodology in three steps 1. Web of Science 2. Validation with VantagePoint 3. Nets and sub-nets using UCINET and PAJEK Sugar cane:3132 articles Corn: 6177 articles

8. NETWORK COLLABORATION IN THE BIOMASS SUGARCANE WORLD ON BIOMASS Brazil: green USA: blue India: red

10. Sugarcane Network: 21st leading countries Hierarchically organized by PAJEK. Numbers: bidirecional collaborations. Colours: degree Stronger cooperaation: Brazil/EUA Brazil: two types of collab.: with main producers and with european scientific leaders Australia linked to South Africa, EUA and China

11. Sugarcane: Institutions- USP is in the center and is the gatekeeper for domestic institutions. USA is the gatekeeper for China (Pajek)

12. Sub-area Country with the most publication Institution with the most publications Most frequently cited Enzymatic Hydrolysis BrazilUniversity of São Paulo143 Molecular Markers BrazilUniversity of São Paulo204 DelignificationBrazilUniversity of São Paulo510 GenotypesUSA United States Department of Agriculture 204 Enzymatic Conversion BrazilUniversity of São Paulo510 Genetic expression ChinaChinese Academy of Sciences270 NitrogenBrazilUniversity of São Paulo274 PhotosynthesisUSAUnited States department of agriculture257 Pest ControlBrazilUniversity of São Paulo125 Scientific production in the areas of sugarcane genotypes and photosynthesis is dominated by the United States. As for the sub-area of genetic expression, publications from China and Chinese institutions.

13. EUA/BR- Sugarcane coop: A balanced distribution of subjects: Agronomy and Biotech/Applied Micro

14. Leading countries: publications and collaborative participation SugarcanePublicationsCollaboration domestic (%) Collaboration international (%) CornPublicationCollaboration domestic(%) Collaboration international (%) Brazil92480,7320,27EUA2.63281,4218,57 EUA48464,0435,95China60767,3832,61 India35490,969,04Canada42770,7229,27 Australia31471,0128,98Brazil35780,1119,88 China21970,3129,68Germa ny 18550,2749,72

15. Network indicators (using UCINET) Dense and strongly interconnected for countries; Many institutions not connected and big distance between them (large and disperse networks); In country level, corn is denser and centrallized in USA; In Institutions level, sugarcane has a lower number of institutions and is more centralized in certain Brazilian Institutions.

16. Corn Network: USA. Germany. Brazil is connected to both and with other europeans countries China is strongly connected with EUA

17. Corn Network By Institutions: USDA, IOWA State, Chinese Academy of Science. Brazil is in the periphery and Embrapa is the gatekeeper.

18. EUA/BR Inbalance of subjects: agronomy and plant sciences

19. Conclusions Brazil is leadear in number of collaborations in sugarcane, but needs cooperation in many subjects to go further. Although saccharification is becoming a very relevant subject to biofuels in Brazil in some regions, cooperation with USA is related to soil, plant sciences and agronomy European countries are the main source of scientific cooperation

20. DISCUSSION As described above, a network analysis of the international collaboration involved in the scientific articles, and an analysis of the patent citations, both in the proposed domain of the sugarcane bioethanol investigation were carried out. Our basic idea was that scientific knowledge is the path to innovation, which is shown in this study in steps (3 and 5). Brazil has constructed an ethanol model for which it is known worldwide, and for this reason, it will be the object of the investigation of the trajectory between scientific publications and patents. Despite being the principle agent in the knowledge network, it is clear, as pointed out in steps 1 and 2, that Brazil produces a very low number of patents. Our objective however was more audacious. The initial hypothesis gave that the international collaboration networks provide a bridge for the generation of patents, as observed in terms of two points. Firstly, regarding the adoption of the accumulated scientific knowledge to generate patents and secondly, that the knowledge contained in the patents would be heavily linked to Brazilian scientific knowledge, since this knowledge does not support the protection of Brazilian innovations (as shown in stage 3). The following step is to detect the origin of the scientific citations that contributed to generating the patents. The problem lies in the limitations of this study. Throughout the research process, the citation networks of the articles (contained in the patents) became complex objects of analysis, for the principle reason that in the USPTO database, the article citations are not standardized, and often cited by the patent examiner. A number of questions were considered throughout this study. Is Brazilian knowledge relevant to the generation of patents? Whether it is or not, the subareas analysed here are considered radical innovation, and Brazilian studies are published in the best journals indexed on the Web of Science, which is something that must be taken into consideration. If Brazil does in fact produce innovation, why is it not protected by patents? If the answer to this question is yes, there will be many risks in relation to the already consolidated Brazilian ethanol market. With ethanol becoming a commodity, where is the autonomy for what the country has constructed over decades? This analysis is currently underway and the results will be released in due course.

21. CONCLUSION The collaboration networks show the extremely important relationships related to constructing knowledge in the analysed areas on ethanol, in addition to the important role they play in generating innovation. This provides evidence therefore of an ethanol trajectory, from a science-based point of view. Brazil is the leader on the ranking of articles, however, produces very few patents, and those they do produce are managed by the agents with whom they establish international relations, such as the USA and India.