EUROPE

Summer 2009

by Janez Potocnik

If Europe is to breathe new life into its largely discredited Lisbon strategy, a comprehensive new strategy for science, research and technology is needed, says Janez Potočnik. He surveys the steps already taken and those that still lie ahead

Like arts and culture, science used to be considered a luxury – albeit a useful one –that societies could afford only in prosperous times. Today is hardly a time of prosperity, but no one would contest our need to maintain the EU’s scientific effort. Obviously, pure science will not help us to overcome the economic crisis, nor mitigate its consequences. But most people would agree that technology and innovation are at the root of economic power, and that research has become deeply embedded in the fabric of our society. And we in Europe are not the only ones to be concerned about its future: “We will restore science to its rightful place,” said Barack Obama in his inauguration speech, the rest of which was largely devoted to the economic crisis. He followed up on his commitment when at the end of April he announced the U.S. ambition to spend at least 3% of its GDP on R&D and international scientific collaboration.

I hope that the same thinking will predominate in Europe; science and research are vitally important in preparing our economy for the post-crisis world. Europe remains the second largest scientific power in the world, and by far the top destination for R&D investment by American and European multinational companies. That’s a sound basis to build on, because we in Europe could multiply the benefits of our research and make ourselves the world leaders in innovation if only we would develop a more comprehensive science and technology strategy.

But we Europeans are still far from providing the support which scientific research and technological development need. Despite some progress, the overall European research effort has stagnated for years at around 1.84% of EU GDP. Our latest data show that this average figure hides great differences. Despite a general effort from the less well-performing countries – mostly the new member states – to approach the 3% of GDP target, the variations between member states remain significant. At the same time, U.S. investment in the field stands at 2.61%, even though it too is stagnating, and Japan's investment is at 3% significantly above that. More striking still is the situation in emerging countries like China, which are swiftly catching up with the most advanced regions of the world.

It would be an error to put the blame exclusively on European governments who contribute to the public part of the investment. A closer look at the figures reveals that Europe’s underperformance in research funding compared to the U.S. lies in the weakness of private investment. The level of R&D investment in Europe reflects our industrial structures, in which the high-tech sector has a smaller role compared to other economies. The intensity of R&D investment within industrial sectors is also generally lower in Europe than in the U.S. But now the situation requires a sustained effort from European governments, which have to keep investing in research to create the counter-cyclical effect needed in times of economic breakdown, and also need to orient this investment in strategic areas to ensure tomorrow's competitiveness. They need to actively create the framework conditions for research and innovation, the roadmap for which was laid out in the EU's Lisbon strategy that member states adopted in 2000 and agreed to reinvigorate in 2005. It is often said that this strategy has not been as effective as expected, particularly because of flaws in its implementation. There is some truth in this, and the real test now is to find the right way to induce action by national governments. A permanent effort is needed to reinforce the impetus gained nine years ago, because the core of the Lisbon strategy is as relevant as ever because of its aim to make of the EU the most competitive and knowledge-based economy, notably through the implementation of the European Research Area (ERA). As to the European Commission, within the limits of its legal competence, it supports the member states by proposing and promoting the measures needed to create the ERA.

It’s worth looking at the ERA in more detail. For obvious reasons, starting with the growing costs of research and the scale of some of the problems research and technology are supposed to help to solve (in fields like health, energy, climate change and environment), science policy issues are increasingly addressed at European level. A genuine EU research policy is being implemented, based on EU funding, to create a European market for research and technology and to coordinate research across Europe. The ERA strives for the free movement of researchers, technology and knowledge, and call this the “Fifth Freedom” in recognition of its power to boost the European economy in much the same way as the free movement of people, capital, goods and services.

But EU research policy is approaching a crossroads. The coming months will see the mid-term evaluation of Framework Programme 7, much discussion on the future of Framework Programmes, in general, the EU’s future budgetary arrangements (the new financial perspectives), a new Commission and hopefully the implementation of the Lisbon treaty. All of these offer a new opportunity for defining the EU’s next steps towards a new science strategy.

Which direction could we and should we move towards? One can credit the past 40 years of EU research funding and policy with having significantly raised the average level of research. Europe could progress further by creating the conditions for acting in a much more integrated manner on research and technology. We need to act on three fronts: larger-scale collaboration between member states, better methods for distributing EU funding and by combining our technology and industrial policies.

EU research policy has since its earliest beginnings supported cross-frontier collaboration as a way of maximising the added value of European funding. Up to and including FP6, these collaborative partnerships were between research teams; but from FP6 (2003-6) to the current FP7 (2007-13), they have been extended to national research programmes. This will continue under the label “Joint Programming” following a July 2007 proposal by the Commission. The joint programming of national research agendas will focus on “Grand Challenges” in such areas as energy, health and aging that are beyond the scope of anyone. Another example of this joint approach is the planning of research infrastructures. The European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) brings together EU Member States and associate countries to plan the pan-European Research Infrastructures needed for the coming 10-20 years. The Commission has proposed a “European Research Infrastructure” regulation to provide a European status for large-scale EU research infrastructures, and it would also enable them to be recognised as international organisations. I hope that this regulation will be adopted by the Member States as soon as possible so that future European research infrastructures can be put together faster and more efficiently.

We are still far from having fully realised the potential for transnational partnerships. There's still a gap between simple projects and large programmes, so there is both a clear need and a latent demand for some form of collaboration at the level of full research institutions. This would imply joint initiatives involving a small number of partners like research centres and universities that would pool significant parts of their activities. This is already starting to happen. Ten leading European Research Institutes have banded together as the European Energy Research Alliance (EERA) to conceive and implement joint research programmes on clean technologies as part of the Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan, adopted by the Council last October. Ways of supporting this sort of joint venture could be developed in a more formal framework along the lines of two recent initiatives: the “Networks of Excellence” and the “Knowledge and Innovation Communities” of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), which could become a kind of “distributed European MIT” bringing together academic research teams and units from different countries in a context of industrial applications and technological innovation. Some say that the EIT is a risky experiment, but isn't it precisely what the EU needs if we are serious about encouraging innovation and entrepreneurism?

Another step towards a comprehensive science and technology strategy would be to re-examine the EU rulebook for funding research. The present framework is the product of history; it has been developed by adapting legal and regulatory structures that were conceived for other purposes than research funding.

We have already taken a step in this direction with the creation of the European Research Council (ERC), which funds individual scientists and their projects without any partnership obligation. Another recent addition to the European research family is the European Research Executive Agency (EREA) to which we have outsourced the management of research funding. The idea is that by delegating to these bodies the management of funding, the European Commission’s Directorate General for Science and Research will be freer to focus on shaping European research policy.

Scientific research as such is only part of the picture. Much more challenging is the question of how to create a genuinely European industrial and technology policy. Alongside the creation of the European Research Council, the major novelty of the 7th Framework Programme has been the launch of a number of Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) that associate public institutions and large private companies in fields like aeronautics, electronics and pharmaceuticals. These initiatives could add-up eventually to a modern industrial policy that is being implemented at European level. In the U.S., industrial and technology policy is implemented with support going to private enterprise, not through research funding in the main, but through public procurement, in particularly although not exclusively in the defence sector. Isn’t it time for Europeans to explore public procurement in such fields as clean transport, health infrastructures and energy?

But to do so would demand a clear vision and strong commitments from all the EU’s Member States and institutions. These troubled times in fact offer us a narrow window of opportunity that should not be missed. What is at stake is an integrated European Research Area that will determine Europe’s attractiveness as a destination for R&D investment.