| The Countdown is On: How Europe Intends to Become the Most Competitive Knowledge-Based Society |
|
|
|
by Jutta Kern
with expert contributions on “The fight will be a bloody one,” said Richard Escritt, chief architect for the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) of the European Union, at a press conference on the occasion of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in February 2005. If Europe wants to realize its self-imposed goal of becoming the world’s most competitive knowledge-based society by 2010, investment in research needs reinforcement. Nevertheless, the demand by DG Research to double Europe’s research and innovation budget will face strong challenges, mainly from its agricultural counterparts. Negotiations for the EU budget will soon start, and headline figures, as laid out on the table, seem bold. Attached to the comprehensive proposal of FP7, which was adopted by the European Commission on April 6, 2005, is a sticker price of €70 billion. Breaking down the numbers produces more digestible chunks: While its predecessors framed the research program for five years, FP7 plans Europe’s research expenditures for seven years, fitting more easily into the overall framework of EU financial planning. Under FP6 the annual spending is €5 billion, which FP7 wants to double. If negotiations agree to this budget request for FP7, much of the newly won money would very likely be consumed by a new institution, the proposed European Research Council, a grant-giving institution very similar to the National Science Foundation in the United States. The EU budget: Will it be a zero-sum game? Generally, EU budget negotiations depend on crucial decisions like raising the research allocation from 1% to 1.14% of the GDP by 2013. Austria, with Germany, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden, is one of the six biggest net contributors. Together, these six countries account for three-quarters of the EU’s net budget payments. Naturally, the “big six” aren’t too enthusiastic about the raise. Numbers around 1.07% of the GDP are being discussed. Yet another pivotal decision is whether the Union agrees to uphold the UK rebate, which was achieved by Margaret Thatcher at the Fontainebleau Summit in 1984 when Britain was the third-poorest member. Now that the UK is richer than Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, its rationale for maintaining the rebate becomes weaker. Most of the negotiations will be conducted while the UK presides over the EU in the second half of 2005. The financial prospect for the financing of the 7th Framework Programme as proposed largely depends on whether the EU’s overall budget will increase. Despite the outlook on this difficult zero-sum game at the EU budget-negotiating table, Richard Escritt reminds that, by agreeing to the Lisbon goals in 2000, the European Member States not only made a strong commitment to putting the advancement of science and research on the fast track, but also started a “tremendous sensitization for research.” Thus, “nobody dare to say a word against research,” he adds, when explaining that the other parties may well have trouble to justify their intentions to cut the research budget. In Lisbon in March 2000, the EU Heads of States and Governments agreed to make the EU "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy by 2010." One of the Lisbon goals is to increase research spending to 3% of GDP by 2010. Euractiv points out that: “The Lisbon Summit was designed to mark a turning point for EU enterprise and innovation policy: it saw the high-level integration of social and economic policy with practical initiatives to strengthen the EU's research capacity, promote entrepreneurship and facilitate take-up of information society technologies.” A mid-term review of the Lisbon agenda, known as the Kok report, which was released under the Netherland’s EU presidency [see article in this bridges issue "Running the E.U. Presidency: Opportunity Does Knock Twice for the Netherlands"], however, showed that during the first five years little progress had been made to achieve these goals and a re-launch of the Lisbon agenda [see article in this bridges issue "Letter from Brussels"] is being conducted. The proposal for the 7th Framework Programme for research is in line with these goals and emphasizes weaknesses pointed out by the Kok report. Budget negotiations are expected to go on through 2006. As far as FP7 is concerned, the DG Research plans to integrate specific proposals after the summer break of 2006 and to launch the first calls in January 2007. The 7th Framework Programme: What’s in the package? Besides the doubled budget and its planning horizon of seven instead of five years, the key characteristics of the 7th Framework Programme for Research are to be found in its structure. While continuity with its predecessor is paramount and a main strategic aim is to simplify processes of research expenditure, the content will be set out in four blocks, which are likely to correspond to four aspects of research: Co-operation, People, Ideas and Capacities. Co-operation will be realized on a multinational level and materialize in a collaborative research agenda including research fields such as health, food safety, and nanotechnology as well as space and security. Both space and security research will be a strong focus of FP7. If there’s a squeeze down from the proposed budget of €70 billion, “cuts will be disproportionate, because some actions need to be kept at a certain level to be effective,” Mr. Escritt explained and added, “In political terms, the commission has no choice but to put a significant figure into these areas.” Co-operation, one of the horizontal components of FP7, however, will be of special importance to the research agenda. On March 1, 2005, Dr. András Siegler took office as the new director for international co-operation in the DG Research. While the reinforcement of third country participation in European research undertakings will be of great importance, the establishment of this new post is a strong signal that the research agenda also receives diplomatic notice. Since 1998, special EU Centers, located at universities across the United States, have worked towards a better understanding of the EU. Eva Nowotny, Austrian Ambassador to the U.S., stresses in her article for bridges [see bridges article in this issue "The EU Centers Program"] that these EU Centers fill an important role in the transatlantic relations between the U.S. and the European Union. Nevertheless, the EU’s strong international outreach could certainly use a reinforced (science) diplomatic component. Many actions to strengthen Europe’s R&D potential - and especially actions under the People block - aim directly or indirectly at the strong competitor on the other side of the Atlantic. Europe needs more researchers, and a major item on the agenda is to increase the number of researchers from 0.6% to 0.8% of the population, thus bringing the number up to the U.S. proportion. Research institutions in the United States have traditionally attracted a great many of Europe’s intellectual workforce. Kerri-Ann Jones, director of NSF’s Office of International Science & Engineering [see bridges vol. 2 article "Celebrating Thirty Years of Convergence: The AAAS S&T Congressional Fellowship Program"], estimates that about 120,000 researchers of European origin are currently working with universities and other research institutions across the United States. Having conducted an online survey among European researchers currently working in research institutions in the U.S., the DG Research went public with the clear message that this group wants more contact with Europe. In responding to this demand, the building of a network of European researchers under the name ERA-Link is already in full swing. ERA-Link can build on a number of already existing successful national networking initiatives, like the German researchers network GAIN which was initiated by the German Exchange Service DAAD. Austria is one of the countries spearheading this kind of networking initiatives. The Office of Science & Technology at the Austrian embassy in Washington, DC started its national network of scientists and scholars working in the United States or Canada in 2001 - today, already more than 700 Austrian researchers are part of it. France, Italy and the Netherlands also maintain their national initiatives. Together with these national initiatives, the already implemented European Researchers Mobility Portal [see bridges vol. 1 article "European Researcher’s Mobility Portal - A gateway to new opportunities" by Sieglinde Gruber] and ERA-More [see also bridges vol. 1 article "Helping researchers out: The role and opportunities offered by the European network of mobility centres" by Joseph Jamar], a network of contact centers in the Member countries assisting researchers with relocation issues, ERA-Link forms a viable package to tackle what is sometimes referred to as the “brain drain.”
"I think these efforts are going to
help consolidate and make more
effective the science community in Europe, but I don’t think they are
going to break the strong historical connection between the US and
Europe in cooperation in science and jointly funded projects. We send a
lot of money to Europe, Europe sends a lot of people and money to the
US. We work together on thousands of projects. Europe and America are
more tightly linked on all of these issues than America is with any
other part of the world, ” John Marburger, science advisor to the U.S. President, says in an interview for bridges,
but emphasizes at the same time that “the big dynamic issues that are
affecting international science are not what is happening in Europe,
but what is happening in Asia."
To lure at least a portion of the 120,000 European intellectual workers in the U.S. back to European science facilities and to attract researchers from all over the world, the EU Commission launched its main instrument, the Marie Curie actions [see bridges vol. 1 article "European Programs To Encourage Mobility Of Students And Researchers" by Mary Kavanagh], some years ago. Grants and stipends under this program are open to everyone wanting to do research in Europe. Under FP7’s People focus there are plans to structure Marie Curie actions more clearly and to significantly reinforce the budget. Whether within Europe or from third countries, academic mobility, as reinforced by EU programs, also increases competition. Universities, still the major research institutions in Europe, have to reposition themselves with respect to research opportunities as well as with respect to the new European higher education market. However, language barriers are still a serious impediment to this endeavor and universities also need to make themselves attractive to incoming students and scholars. Institutions in non-English- speaking countries try to meet this challenge, for example, by offering Ph.D. programs in English and thus catering to an international audience. Hans-Georg Eichler, Vice Rector for Research and International Relations describes for bridges how his newly re-established university tackles this new situation in the article "The New Medical University of Vienna." Industry-driven and basic research in the European Research Area Besides having to stand their ground in the European market of higher education, universities will also face the challenge of building stronger ties with industry. Private investment in research receives much attention in FP7 and seems to be crucial for applied research and an increase in patent numbers. In his article for bridges "University/Business Research Networks: New Challenges for Knowledge Production and Advanced Innovation Systems," David Campbell points out that industry also plays an important role in financing basic research – a new trend mainly observed in the United States. As a consequence, university–industry/business cooperation assumes an ever more important part in innovational systems. Still, industry-university cooperation in Europe, as compared to the U.S., is clearly a candidate for improvement. Interestingly, according to Campbell, improvement and strategic repositioning in this respect is up to industry, as European and Japanese firms show a “greater reluctance … to financially support basic business research.” This “should be regarded as a potential competitive disadvantage against the U.S.” The 7th Framework Programme takes this into account and intends to offset it by proposing more industry-driven cooperation on the thematic areas. Tapping into this possible new private financial source, however, entails massive strategic changes for universities which are already busy redefining themselves. If the proposal for FP7 is adopted in its present form, basic research will receive a boost from the establishment of the proposed European Research Council (ERC). Designed as a funding institution for basic research in Europe, it would assume a role very similar to the one the National Science Foundation (NSF) takes in the United States. An expert group, set up to investigate the possible scope of the ERC, determined in its final report of 2003 that “the first and main task for the ERC should be to support investigator-driven research of the highest quality selected through European competition”. The best European research teams would be rewarded after an international competition, a new procedure for the community of European countries. Thus, Escritt expects that this “European selection of the best will show unexpected results.” A recommended budget of about €2 billion per year, funded through the 7th Framework Programme, should be used to cover all fields of science and “encourage interdisciplinary and risk-taking projects, especially in emerging research areas” [http://www.ercexpertgroup.org/documents/ercexpertgroup_final_report.pdf]. Richard Escritt excitedly hailed the creation of the European Research Council as “one of the most significant events in the European research agenda, like inventing the Framework Programmes.” Differences and Inequalities: New standards for Europe’s scientific labor market To consolidate the EU’s desired position as a globally competitive knowledge-based society, and to increase the number of researchers, a new infrastructural setting for the People in the European Research Area will be encouraged. In its 2003 policy paper, “Researchers in the European Research Area: One profession, multiple careers,” the European Commission proposed the development of a European Researchers Charter and a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers, both recently adopted by the Commission. Based on best practice and the input of Euroscience, a lobbying network of European scientists and scholars based in Brussels, these policy papers aim to improve recruitment methods and level the differences in standards between Member States. Academic mobility for instance, is laid out as an integral part of researchers’ careers. Equally important, the Code of Conduct aims to make selection procedures fairer and more transparent. The Charter also proposes new ways to measure scientific achievement. Besides publications, activities such as teaching, knowledge transfer, management, and public awareness should be merited – a step toward recognizing the rising number of diverse skills necessary to run a successful university institute or research department in an increasingly competitive research/education environment. As a side effect, the proposed methods of judging merit are likely to be beneficial to women’s careers in science. Equal opportunity representatives at the University of Vienna, for example, continue to observe that it is often the female researchers who go the extra mile in teaching and administration while their male colleagues stay focused on traditional merit-producing activities, i.e. mainly publishing. The European Charter for Researchers, obviously well aware of current gender imbalances, also suggests that “employers and/or funders should aim for a representative gender balance at all levels of staff, including at supervisory and managerial level” and that “to ensure equal treatment, selection and evaluation committees should have an adequate gender balance” (Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for Recruitment http://europa.eu.int/eracareers/europeancharter, p.10). Moreover, the European Charter for Researchers (p. 9) specifically addresses the need for improved possibilities for combining family and scientific work, by mandating that employers “should aim to provide working conditions which allow both women and men researchers to combine family and work, children and career. Particular attention should be paid, inter alia, to flexible working hours, part-time working, tele-working and sabbatical leave, as well as to the necessary financial and administrative provisions governing such arrangements.” Science influences society influences science A great number of policy papers, programs, talks and statements issued by policy makers across the EU Member states show that national governments have indeed undergone a process of sensitization to research and innovation. Only time will tell if the commitment of the Member States societies to science and research can be sustained. Pivotal to the successful implementation of European research in the long run will be introducing societies to the ambitious agenda. Thus, initiatives and actions must work to increase the public understanding of science. “Eurobarometer,” the Public Opinion Analysis of the European Commission, analyzes public perceptions of science. Based on the results, programs aim to engage citizens in the public debate of research. One section of the survey tests the public’s knowledge of scientific matters with questions about basic scientific concepts, such as whether dinosaurs and humans had lived in the same era. Michel Claessens, acting head of the Information and Communication Unit at the DG research, reports for bridges the latest findings in regard to similarities and differences between the new Member countries and the former EU15 countries in his article “How Central and Eastern European Countries See Science”. Besides opening an informed dialogue about advances in the life sciences and other research areas, an increased public understanding of science will also help to raise the interest in research careers. As Claessens’ article shows, understanding and perceptions of science differ widely at times within the enlarged EU. The EU will not only have to raise the general level of public understanding of science but also faces the challenging task of leveling out differences between its own Member States. In addition, Claessens’ article suggests that scientific careers often seem unattractive due to salary structure and career prospects. But one may also ask whether the mere lack of personal encounters with scientists at work tends to eliminate scientific professions from the selection pool when young people are choosing their career paths. Here’s an easy test: What is your reaction when a young boy enthusiastically answers your question for his future professional desires with “I want to be an astronaut!”? Mildly laughing? And what is your reaction when the same answer comes from a young girl? Well-educated as I assume our audience to be, only an exceptional person might offer good advice and tell the young aspiring astronaut that a Ph.D. in physics may help a great deal, and encourage her or him by affirming that there are many astronauts at different research locations all over the world (although only a few are sent on missions to outer space). So what is the moral of this little test? If scientific professions 1) aren’t publicly known, or 2) aren’t regarded as desirable, then children grow up with a lack of professional role models. Hence, in the competition for talent, research professions leave the field to other, publicly better-known career paths. Still, in creating role models, mass media make an important contribution in our information-based societies. However, popular mass communication often is not very helpful in conveying realistic and attractive role models. For women scientists this is even more true, as shown by Eva Flicker, associate professor of sociology at the University of Vienna, in her article “Representation of Women Scientists in Feature Films: 1929 to 2003”. While the Charter and the Code of Conduct try to tackle the problem on an institutional and infrastructural level, awareness campaigns will have to work on the public perception of scientific work and professions to make a researcher’s career available and desirable to both men and women across Europe. Crossovers between disciplines can proof helpful in this respect, such as the work of Maria Bussmann [see article in this bridges issue "Maria Bussmann, or: How Not Losing Your Balance on the Tightrope between Art and Science"], an Austrian scholar and artist at the same time, who explores ways to perceive philosophical concepts in unprecedented ways. Academic mobility: Europe’s open door policy for research Besides the Code of Conduct and the Charter, a new European Researchers Visa is in discussion to complete the infrastructural setting for scientific careers. While U.S. research institutions and universities struggle with visa restrictions for foreign scientists due to the ongoing “War on Terrorism,” the EU plans to open its doors invitingly to the international research community. This European Researchers Visa, still in its final stage of construction, should allow its bearer free movement between European Member states. Although the U.S. Visa Mantis program [see article in this issue "Visas for Visiting Scientists and Students - Extension of Visas Mantis Program"] has offered some easements for international scholars coming into the United States, many in the scientific community think that the U.S. policy of the past few years has damaged the international attractiveness of U.S. research institutions for years to come. In this same context, the EU recently announced that the U.S., due to budget difficulties, has suspended the joint EU-U.S. 2005 call for proposals for cooperation [http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/eu-usa/index_en.html ] in the field of higher education and vocational training until further notice. John Marburger is, nevertheless, convinced that "there is a great desire to be attractive to the scientists and people who want to study here. One of the advantages the US has in this competition for talent is quality of life and the opportunity that people have to realize their ambitions here. It is an environment that encourages people to strive, which doesn’t penalize failure the way other countries do. I think these advantages will continue to operate, and we’ll find ways to keep our borders open and make it easier for people to come over here." The situation is not so simple that one can say the United States has shut its doors. There are signs that collaboration with EU institutions is starting to gain new momentum: for instance, the symposia jointly organized by the EU Commission and the AAAS at the annual meeting of the AAAS in Washington, D.C. in February, 2005. Evidence seems to suggest that the United States’ foreign and research policies show some incongruity, that the two just don’t operate in tune. At the same time, the EU proposes a well-designed package of integrated policies, actions, infrastructural framework improvements, investment goals, and incentives for societal change to create an environment favorable to research, science, and technology; and puts it in an internationally oriented framework. On top of that, the EU shows every intention to vigorously follow through on its bold research agenda. It will be at the budget negotiation table, however, where the decision is made: Whether Europe is willing to express its commitment to research in €70 billion for FP7, or whether it will remain at the stage of “tremendous sensitization.”
***
The author, Jutta Kern, is the deputy director of the Office of Science & Technology (OST) in Washington, DC.
Sources
|
