|
Back to Science Homepage
31 October 2002
Research in Europe
Lecture by European Commissioner Philippe Busquin at the Royal
Society of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, 28 October 2002
It is a great pleasure and a great honour for
me to be able to speak in such a prestigious setting as the Royal
Society of Edinburgh.
Above all, I should like to thank the Royal Society
of Edinburgh and its President, Sir William Stewart, and its President-elect,
Lord Sutherland, for offering me this opportunity.
"Research in Europe", the title chosen
for this lecture, covers a very broad subject.
I do not, of course, intend to talk about all
the aspects, but will concentrate on a few essential points and
look at them from a particular perspective.
To give you some idea of what I intend to speak
about this afternoon, I will start by commenting on the title of
this lecture.
One reason why "Research in Europe"
is the title is that no equally general alternative could be considered:
- "European Research" was impossible,
because at the moment there is no European research as such, i.e.
one cannot speak of European research as one might, for example,
speak about American research;
- "European Research Policy" was even
less realistic, because, quite simply, there is no such European
policy at present.
- What could it possibly mean? The research policies
of the various European countries added together? The policies
of the various European science and technology cooperation bodies
such as CERN and ESA? More specifically, EU policy? Everything
combined?
These two impossibilities highlight a weakness
of "Research in Europe" which affects its performance
and our ability to make the most of its results for the benefit
of the economy and citizens of Europe.
This is mainly what I want to talk to you about,
as well as a few other key features of research and research policy
in Europe.
Research in Europe: a contrasting image
The simplest and most accurate way of presenting
and defining research in Europe is to say that Europe is and remains
the second world scientific power.
Taking all disciplines together, Europe produces
just over one-third of the total number of world scientific publications,
i.e. more than the USA.
In terms of citations, it is, however, only in
second place, a sign that, while world class research of the highest
level of excellence is conducted in Europe, there is still not enough
of it.
The respective weight of the major science and
technology powers is basically fairly correctly reflected by the
2002 Nobel Prizes for Science awarded three weeks ago.
Of the nine prize winners for physics, chemistry
and physiology/medicine, three (Kurt Wilthrich, Sydney Brenner and
John E. Sulston) are European, four are American and two are Japanese.
A faithful reflection of a Europe which is holding
its second place between the USA which continues to dominate and
Japan which is steadily gaining ground in basic research.
Between 1950 and today, the USA has carried away
213 Nobel Prizes in these disciplines, Europe 144 and Japan 8.
Where applied research and technological development
is concerned, the situation in Europe is less brilliant.
Despite clear strengths in areas such as aeronautics,
telecommunications and pharmaceutical research, for many years Europe
has had a deficit in its balance of trade in high-technology projects.
Its researchers and industry file comparatively
fewer patents with the American and European patent offices than
their American and Japanese counterparts.
And while the number of biotechnology companies
in Europe, which has grown over the last five years, is at present
around 1500, i.e. more than in the USA, the combined revenue of
these companies and their total number of employees represent only
one third of the figures for American companies.
The European Research Area: already more than just an idea but
not yet a reality
Why?
There are three main features of research and
research policy in Europe which are worth mentioning:
- We do not spend enough on research, as a whole,
and we spend less than our competitors.
- We are less able to translate the results of
scientific work into products and services, and commercial and
economic successes.
- Our efforts are dispersed and lack coherence
as a result of fragmentation of activities and the inadequate
coordination of policies conducted in Europe.
I will start with the last point.
To offset the effects and overcome the consequences,
where research is concerned, of the trivial fact that Europe is
made up of different countries, for nearly 50 years Europeans have
embarked upon numerous cooperation initiatives:
- cooperation in specific areas, such as particle
physics, space, molecular biology, nuclear fusion and synchrotron
radiation, and cooperation across the whole field of science and
technology;
- cooperation centring on major instruments or
in the form of collaborative projects;
- and cooperation in an intergovernmental framework
or in the Community framework with the EUs Framework Programme
for research.
On the basis of the finding that this sort of
cooperation is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the
development of a genuine Europe of research, an old idea, but one
which never bore fruit, reemerged at the Lisbon European Council
in March 2000 on a proposal from the European Commission.
The idea was to create a European Research Area.
It combines two strands:
- the establishment of a genuine European "internal
market in research in which researchers, knowledge and technologies
circulate freely;
- the development of better coordination between
national and regional research activities and policies which account
for over 80% of the overall European research effort;
- the EUs Framework Programme only accounts for
5% of public research spending in Europe. 20% if research projects
alone are considered, but, on account of the persistence of barriers
between national systems, this spending does not have a lasting
proportionate impact.
The European Research Area is part and parcel
of the objective set by the EU in Lisbon: to become by 2010 the
most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world.
The focus of EU action in the research sphere,
this initiative has rapidly become a reference framework for research
policy issues in Europe.
It has in particular given rise to a first series
of concrete achievements, which can be grouped together into three
main categories.
First of all, the initiation of several wide-ranging
areas of work corresponding to the different components of the European
Research Area.
For example, the mobility of researchers which,
in practice, still encounters numerous obstacles; research infrastructures,
an area which by definition calls for a European approach; and the
benchmarking of research policies to improve them by making comparisons
and organising exchanges.
Two important aspects are the international dimension,
because, as in other areas, Europe is not and must not become a
fortress where research is concerned, and the regional dimension
of the European Research Area.
I hardly need to point out here that the regions
are playing an increasingly important role in terms of research
and innovation. And if all the regions of Europe were to do so with
such determination and effectiveness as Scotland, Europe would probably
be in a much better state.
In the areas that I have mentioned, for example,
a network of mobility centres has been established to provide information
and assistance for researchers; a European Forum on research infrastructures
has been set up; and a first benchmarking exercise has been completed
with the production of 20 qualitative indicators and analyses on
five topics, such as human resources in research.
The second major achievement is the in-depth restructuring
of the EUs Framework Programme for research. The Sixth Framework
Programme for the period 2003-2006 has been specifically conceived
as an instrument for making a reality of the European Research Area.
This is reflected in particular by the following:
- First of all, new support instruments with
a structuring effect on European research, in particular because
they make it possible to assemble critical masses of resources:
networks of excellence to advance knowledge by integrating the
capacities that exist in Europe and integrated projects conducted
with a view to achieving well-defined results, based to a large
extent on collaboration with industry.
- Secondly, a virtual doubling of resources
for support for the mobility of researchers, and greater support
for research infrastructures, including electronic networks.
- And last but not least, the mobilisation of
180 million euros for the networking and mutual opening-up of
the national research programmes.
The Sixth Framework Programme was adopted in June,
and the Specific Programmes through which it will be implemented
were adopted in September. The Work Programmes are now being finalised,
and a first series of calls for research proposals will be launched
by the end of the year.
The third type of achievement brought about by
the European Research Area initiative is a series of developments
directly involving the research players in Europe:
- the creation of contact fora, such as the ACARE
Group for aeronautical research, the European Platform for research
on biodiversity and the High-Level Group for research on hydrogen
and fuel cells;
- the integration of the objectives of the European
Research Area into the programmes of activities of the national
organisations;
- and a large number of bilateral and multilateral
agreements.
Despite these first results, the European Research
Area initiative is not, however, progressing as rapidly as would
be desirable on account of the insufficient involvement of the Member
States and national administrations.
In order to provide new momentum, on the basis
of a stocktaking of achievements so far, the Commission recently
put forward suggestions for initiatives to be taken in order:
- to strengthen the action in progress, e.g.
by introducing measures to make it easier for third country researchers
to come to and stay in the EU, and action concerning researchers'
careers;
- to give the initiative as a whole more powerful
means of implementation as a result of a mechanism for the coordination
of national research policies based on the setting of common European
objectives, their translation into specific objectives for each
country and the regular compiling of national reports.
Strengthening the European research effort
The European Research Area initiative is a response
to one of the weaknesses which prevents Europe from fully exploiting
its considerable scientific potential.
However, it is not enough to coordinate the efforts.
They also need to be stepped up.
Europe cannot hope to keep up with its competitors,
let alone become by 2010 the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based
economy in the world unless it substantially increases its research
spending.
At present, and for many years, Europe assigns
only 1.9% of its GDP to research, while the corresponding figures
for its competitors are steadily increasing: 2.7% of GDP in the
USA and 3% in Japan.
The gap today vis-a-vis the USA is 124 billion
euros per annum. Some 84% of this gap (104 billion euros) is attributable
to the difference in research spending by firms.
At the Barcelona European Council, the EU therefore
committed itself to increasing its research spending to as close
as possible to 3% of GDP by 2010, with the bulk of the increase
coming from a rise in private sector spending.
How can this be achieved? The Commission recently
put forward a series of ideas in this connection, including how
to encourage the private sector to invest more in research.
In what way? Two elements need to be combined:
- first of all, better use of indirect and direct
instruments in support of industrial research: fiscal measures
to assist research and innovation; mechanisms to guarantee and
stimulate risk capital; direct support measures;
- secondly, the development of a more favourable
environment for private investment by stepping human resources
in research (five researchers per 1000 of the active population
in Europe compared with seven in the USA and nine in Japan); adapting
the intellectual property rules, in particular for university
research; favourable competition rules; adequate access to basic
knowledge, etc.
The underlying hypothesis, on which there is
broad agreement, is that the initiatives taken in this connection
at national and regional level will be more effective if conducted
within the framework of open coordination giving rise in particular
to exchanges of experience and good practice.
The ideas put forward by the Commission are at
present the subject of a wide debate. On the basis of the results
and conclusions of this, proposals for concrete action will be put
forward at the beginning of 2003
I have just mentioned the regions. The regional
dimension is particularly relevant in this connection.
Firms can invest in basic research, and it is
desirable that they should do so to a greater extent than they do
at present. However, the mobilisation of private capital is essential
for the transition from the laboratory to the market, i.e. the transformation
of scientific results into technological innovations.
From this point of view, Scotland is, in a way,
a laboratory of good practice, with initiatives such as the Proof
of Concept Fund launched by the Scottish Executive.
A society which welcomes research and innovation
I mentioned at the start three features of research
in Europe. When mentioning the funding of innovation, I had the
opportunity of dealing in part with the third feature, namely Europe's
failure to exploit the results of scientific work.
However, it is not just a question of funding.
Intellectual property conditions, for example, are directly concerned,
as well as all the factors which, in universities, either encourage
or, on the contrary, put a brake on and discourage the exploitation
of scientific results.
The Commission will address this issue in particular
in a Communication that it will shortly be presenting on the role
of universities in a knowledge-based Europe.
In the knowledge-based economy and society, universities
play a key role, as a result of their twin function of research
and teaching and their growing role in the innovation process.
But there is something else, something more subtle,
two elements that are more difficult to apprehend because they are
of a cultural nature: on the one hand the spirit of enterprise;
and on the other, the degree of receptiveness of society to innovation,
linked with confidence in progress.
Like any human activity, scientific research gives
rise to developments entailing risks which have to be evaluated,
kept under control and minimised, but always in the certain knowledge
that there is no such thing as zero risk.
Whether it is a question of nuclear power, GM0s
or mobile phones, the same attitude is needed: an objective and
balanced assessment of the advantages and risks, based on the only
reliable source of information at our disposal, namely scientific
knowledge based on experience and verification.
The image of research can be unfairly associated
with problems for which it is not responsible and where, far from
being the cause, science is a key element in their solution, e.g.
BSE and transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.
Even more so than in the first case, efforts must
be made here to promote approaches based on rationality.
Institutions such as the Royal Society of Edinburgh
have a role to play in this connection, a role which they already
play to a large extent.
Since these issues arise more often then not on
a European scale and in a European context, they should be addressed
at European level to enable experience to be pooled and help to
bring points of view closer together where differences of opinion
are a source of difficulties.
Research, particularly in the field of life sciences
and technologies, is also increasingly frequently leading to developments
which raise ethical issues and controversy.
One example is research into embryonic stem cells,
which gave rise to intense discussion during the debate on the Framework
Programme and the Specific Programmes.
There were discussions between the European Parliament
and the Council of Ministers and within both institutions between
representatives with different political and philosophical views
and between Member States.
Today I had the opportunity to visit the Edinburgh
Institute for Stem Cell Research (ISCR).
Once again, I was convinced that, one day, this
technology will be able to cure many diseases.
It is not always easy to find the middle way between
respect for freedom of research and common values, on the one hand,
and respect for different opinions, on the other; between the risk
of skidding out of control and encouraging undesirable applications
and the interests and suffering of sick people and those close to
them.
In this connection, the Commission has proposed
that research involving the use of embryos created for infertility
treatment but no longer needed for this purpose could be funded
under the Framework Programme but not research involving the creation
of embryos solely for the production of such cells.
Following a compromise adopted by the Ministers,
only research using isolated or banked human embryonic stem cells
in culture can be funded initially.
The funding of research involving the isolation
of human embryonic stem cells can be envisaged from the end of 2003
on the basis of guidelines on this subject and, of course, in compliance
with the national legislation in all cases.
In spring 2003 the Commission will be putting
forward a proposal for guidelines drafted in the balanced terms
that I have just mentioned.
Conclusion
Ladies and Gentlemen,
From James Watt to Alexander Graham Bell; from
James Clark Maxwell to Lord Kelvin; from Charles Lyell to D'Arcy
Thompson, to name just a few, Scotland has given the world an astonishing
number of outstanding scientists, engineers and technicians.
Scotland is keeping up its tradition of making
use of the result of advanced research for the benefit of the economy,
and high-level engineering with, for example, the Universities of
Edinburgh and Heriot Watt, Glasgow and Dundee; with numerous research
centres in the most vibrant areas of technology, such as information
technology, artificial intelligence and biotechnology, e.g. the
Roslin Institute which attracted the attention of the whole world
as a result of Dolly the sheep; and with 24% of the total number
of the fastest growing technology companies in the UK
The European Research Area and the initiatives
to which it is giving rise, afford research conducted in Scotland
an opportunity of stepping up its contribution to research in Europe,
while reaping the benefits of the efforts made elsewhere in an EU
that will soon be welcoming ten new members.
The same applies to the Royal Society of Edinburgh,
with regard to all the efforts made in Europe to promote the advancement
of knowledge and a better understanding of science, a task performed
by the academies of science and learned societies since their inception,
and which must continue to be performed.
All this with the prospect of, one day, being
able to give a lecture such as this under the title not of "Research
in Europe", but "European Research" or, why not,
"European Research Policy".
Thank you.
|
