Europe needs more joint research
All these institutions, though, have in common that they are run through an intergovernmental agreement with little or no intervention of the European Union (EU), in particular the European Commission (EC). This scenario poses a series of reflections from which this article intends to draw some insights.
The Framework Programmes (FPs), run by the EC, have to be given credit, rightly, to have enhanced research collaboration in Europe through a number of mechanisms linked with the FPs. This has brought together a very solid network of scientists who confer a rather distinctive feature on our continent. However, it looks as if the team-team collaboration, no matter how successful, may have reached its ceiling in terms of making research efforts more effective in Europe.
Indeed, there is a growing conviction that European research needs to thoroughly rethink responsibilities of its main policy makers and funding bodies, namely, national governments, which also involves national funding agencies, and the EU, mainly through the EC. They should each take responsibility for what they can do best when it comes to policies for science, technology and innovation if Europe is to become the most competitive economy in the world.
The recent establishment of the European Research Council (ERC) is an example of what needs to be done at a European level, provided it survives red tape, functioning difficulties and is given full autonomy and more responsibilities beyond funding individuals. Another good example could be a central co-funding European effort of large research facilities that would help in overcoming the extremely well rooted nationalistic interests. Added to these two examples, the EC has very recently, and very interestingly, been pushing a third one. Namely the idea that the European Research Area (ERA) needs a further impulse led by member states in research activities, that have been coined as “major societal challenges” (climate change, ageing, health, migrations, etc), under the name of “Joint Programming” [Commission of the European Communities COM (2008) 468 final]. The idea is very welcome, provided it is not going to be just an extension of the “opening national programmes” already suggested by the, at the time, Commissioner Phillipe Busquin in the year 2000, and coldly received by the member states.
However, the way to practically implement such research activities raises some questions. While the Commission is clear-cut that it should be led by Member States, it may also be too simple a way of abstaining from the prerogative of the Commission to put initiatives forward. For the Council of Ministers has now, once more, agreed upon a procedural approach in December 2008: they have appointed a sub-committee of CREST (Scientific and technical Research Committee) to identify the themes for such ‘joint programming’ actions. This is unlikely to do the job. A give and take will, no doubt, lead to a flush of topics plus the tendency to involve everybody and will not lead to more effective solutions and concentration.
In this light, we would like to make a few suggestions based on our belief that the scientific community, as well as the organisations and funding mechanisms that have proved to be of great value at the national level, should now be challenged so as to contribute their share to the responsibility we all have to provide effective European solutions to tackle some of these crucial problems that Europe and the world are facing.
In the first place, Europe should concentrate on a limited number of very concrete challenges. It is not difficult to come up with a plethora of very general themes, but rather we need to identify areas where European cooperation is really needed and will have demonstrable added value. As a way of an example, translational cancer research is such an area. Key Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) have agreed to work together in an effort to create a platform for translational research in Europe to link large CCCs and basic/preclinical cancer centres across Europe. Only then can increasingly complex biological and clinical questions be addressed, methods be harmonised and a complementary infrastructure be developed.
This example illustrates a second point. Europe has some very strong universities and research centres. If a number of these have already joined forces to create an effective European stronghold that is up to the challenge Europe is facing, the governments and the Commission should not hesitate to financially support them. This may bring up major difficulties in member states since, in many cases, universities and research centres are not always attuned to the same extent. In addition to the national obstacles there will be political sensitivities among countries turning the implementation of such “joint research” into a puzzle. However, if these cannot be overcome we’d better give up our overall ambition to make of Europe a worldwide player.
Thirdly, some of the potential as regards science, technology and innovation throughout Europe remains largely untapped. The national funding agencies and the large research organisations, whether in the area of basic or applied research, do not really have found a way of working together on a large scale, and neither the governments nor the Commission have instructed or simply allowed them to do so. They should have fewer problems in setting up effective collaborations for supporting bottom-up initiatives such as the one in translational cancer research mentioned before. In another example, key European stakeholders in science and science information, such as CERN, ESA, the Max Planck Gesellschaft, STFC, the European Science Foundation, the British Library, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, the Royal Netherlands National Library, and the Association of Science, Technology and Medical Publishers have decided to work together to create a European infrastructure for storing, preserving and making available the primary and processed data and the publications that form the output of science, the long-term accessibility of which is not only crucial for science but also for society to reap the benefits of science.
To improve transnational European collaboration in research would require some simplification and restructuring of the way national bodies have organised themselves at the European level. It would help, for example – and there are hopeful signs here – if the confusing relation between EUROHORCS and ESF, could be turned into a structure that would enable the national funding agencies and the large national research organisations to play a much larger and active role in common European scale programmes and activities. Of course we are conscious that beyond funding organisations associated through ESF there is an enormous amounts of funding sitting in ministries that seem to live their own life. These should also have to be considered in planning and implementing “joint research” if we are to find the appropriate geometry for such an ambitious project. Consequently, the mutual relations between ERC on the one hand, as a successful story but still not outside troubled waters, and ESF and other European efforts on the other hand can be clarified and restructured so that a much more efficient system will result.
It is also about time that the key research universities in Europe were recognised, and appropriately funded, as crucial elements for the implementation of such new forms of common programmes. Precisely because of their dual role in training and research, thereby creating the resources and the mindset for economic and societal innovations, Universities have to be seen as the engines of the future.
This should also help to get rid of another of the bureaucratic anomalies that result from the fragmented political turfs. Indeed, Euroscience fully believes in the ERA, but we cannot believe that it makes any sense to distinguish a separate European Space of Higher Education. Both together with innovation efforts will have to eventually converge in a “Europe of Knowledge”.
European scientists working together for a better future is at the core of Euroscience’s mission. Therefore we totally advocate initiatives that could get some member states together, not necessary all, to achieve objectives that represent a step forward towards a more solid knowledge based society, which in turn means progress in all fronts. These efforts should involve all countries but we have to accept that we cannot all run after the same priorities. And there is no need: data on the so-called Regional Innovation Index clearly show that one finds top performing regions throughout Europe, from West to East and North to South, each specialising in different industries and technologies. Moreover instruments, such as the structural funds, do exist to strengthen the infrastructure for science and innovation especially in the new member states. Many of them can build upon significant traditions in education and human resources. It will be key for Europe as a whole to develop and apply the knowledge and expertise embedded in all these resources, and turn them into the innovations we need to face our common challenges.
Peter Tindemans, former convenor Science Policy Group Euroscience
