Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "the Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2000) 1973 Science, society and the citizen in Europe"
Date: 2001-05-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU national, citizens' Europe, research policy, social policy

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/151

3.5.
It would be in line with this international approach if
the ship’s master or the shipping company concerned could
choose to provide the requisite information also in English, in
addition to providing it in the national
language of the
respective port. As the Proposal of a Directive rightly
encompasses all ships entering Community ports, rather than
distinguishing between flags or trades, it seems reasonable also
to authorise the communication of the information to the
Community ports in English. English is the basic medium for
communication in international maritime transport.

The Economic and Social Committee attaches consider-
3.6.
able importance to the streamlining of administrative pro-
cedures and the attendant facilitation of maritime transport in
the EU. The IMO FAL Convention has so far been ratified by
81 countries. 52 of these have, however, lodged reservations
about individual provisions, as a result of which the inter-
nationally agreed measures for facilitating procedures and
promoting simplification have only been partially incorporated

into national
law. The Committee therefore calls on the
Commission and the Member States to examine jointly
the areas in which further harmonisation provisions could
facilitate the procedures for clearing seagoing ships in Com-
munity ports. The Committee would draw attention in this
context to, for example, the recommendation set out in the
FAL Convention that for each port only one central body be
appointed to which all the requisite information could be
forwarded, even though several different authorities (e.g.
customs authorities, health authorities,
immigration bodies
and others) are responsible for individual information. Admin-
istrative formalities would also be further facilitated by
(a) implementation of the recommendation that a procedure
be introduced for prior clarification of customs regulations in
order to cut the time subsequently taken to clear ships and
(b) observance of the recommendation that the efficiency and
speed of maritime transport operations should not be impeded
by the collection of statistical data. The Commission’s current
proposal should therefore be further developed in future
Directives.

Brussels, 30 May 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘the Commission Staff Working Paper
SEC(2000) 1973 “Science, society and the citizen in Europe”’

(2001/C 221/25)

On 30 May 2001 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
decided to draw up an opinion on ‘the Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2000) 1973 “Science,
society and the citizen in Europe”’.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 2 May 2001. The rapporteur was Mr Wolf.

At its 382nd plenary session on 30 and 31 May 2001 (meeting of 30 May) the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 81 votes in favour and one against.

1.

Introduction

Right at the start, the ESC would endorse the following

1.2.
statements by the Commission:

1.1.
Science, society and the citizen is a subject of great
importance in social policy terms. Although its opinion-
forming process on the issue is not yet complete,
the
Commission has drawn up a staff Working Paper SEC(2000)
1973. The ESC takes this Working Paper as a welcome
opportunity to set out its own range of views on this highly
complex matter in an own-initiative opinion and refers
frequently to the Commission document.

‘Science and technology represent one of the forces most
clearly reflecting social change …’ and

‘The questions arising in this area are among the most
complex facing society, owing to their technical nature,
the uncertainties surrounding them,
the know-how
needed to deal with them and their often diffuse nature.’

C 221/152

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

1.3.
Given its remit as a European Union body, and the fact
that its members are drawn from the various social interest
groups within the Member States, the ESC is particularly well
placed to deliver a detailed statement of principle on the issues
involved.

1.4.
The ESC is pleased to note that, in its communication,
the Commission has also taken up suggestions made by the
ESC in its Opinion (1) on the Communication from the
Commission: Towards a European research area. Section 5 of
the opinion in question is entitled Research and Society and
deals with part of this issue.

1.7.
In order to deal in an organised way with the various
issues and formulate recommendations, the ESC has divided
its opinion into the following sections:

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

The historical process and its outcome

The citizen, society and scientific knowledge

Society, researchers and research; mutual understanding

Scientific education: a sine qua non for a knowledge-
based society

Research policy and the interests of society

Summary and recommendations.

1.5. Moreover, the Commission’s communication looks at
various topical issues that are causing growing concern to
individuals and policy-makers alike and are encompassed
under the general heading of ‘Science, society and the citizen’:

2.

The historical process and its outcome

‘— How to implement research policy around the real
aims of society and fully involve society in seeing
through the research agenda?

— How should we manage risks? What implications
arise from adopting the precautionary principle?
How can ethical issues and the ethical consequences
of technological progress be taken into account, at
the same time as the need for freedom of research
and access to knowledge?

— What needs to be done in order to underpin the
dialogue between science and society, to improve
the public’s knowledge of science, to increase the
interest of the young in scientific careers, and to
expand the role and place of women in science and
research?

Three main groups of

1.6.
namely:

issues are concerned here,

— the importance of scientific knowledge, its social impact,

how it is perceived and managed;

— reciprocal understanding and communication between

citizens, society and scientists and researchers;

— the motivation for young people to undertake scientific

training and to embark on careers in research.

(1) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000.

One of the characteristics — indeed one of the most
2.1.
important — which distinguishes human beings from animals
is the urge to seek for answers to basic existential questions
and for the laws governing the world and morality.

2.1.1.
In antiquity fundamental philosophical and scientific
insights were gained and, together with discoveries in the
fields of mathematics, logic and geometry, and the ongoing
development of new technologies, contributed to the growth
of the great civilisations of the age.

2.2.
The Renaissance and the Enlightenment gave a new
impetus to this process in Europe and set in motion an even
more far-reaching cultural and scientific development.

2.2.1.
This process arose from a combination of further
technical developments and tools (printing, gunpowder, min-
ing, seafaring, watermills and windmills) and trade, the dis-
the
covery of unknown continents, new social concepts,
gradual discovery of natural laws unknown in previous ages
and, linked to that, a demystification of natural phenomena.

2.2.2.
The process was accompanied by tensions, wars and
social clashes — the result not only of dynastic or power-
based interests and conflicts, but also of the radical shake-up
of ideas, shifts in economic policy and new technologies
changing the world of work.

Discoverers and harbingers of new knowledge were
2.2.3.
in the
integrated into society; sometimes,
not always well
course of ideological conflicts, they were also persecuted,
giving rise to notion of the freedom of science and teaching.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/153

2.3.
The natural sciences played a key role in this process.
An important feature of the natural sciences and the reason
for their success is the empirical scientific method developed
in Europe and involving interaction between experimental
findings and theoretical interpretation and forecasting.

2.6.
Human beings have to a large extent learnt to protect
themselves from many basic threats such as hunger, cold and
disease. They act as — and consider themselves — masters of
the earth. Therefore, not only have they acquired the skills
needed to attain prosperity, freedom and power, but they have
also taken on additional responsibilities.

2.3.1.
At the same time the branches of science, which
initially were lumped together under the overall heading
of philosophy, and in particular the natural sciences and
mathematics, established themselves as independent disci-
plines and through an evolutionary growth process yielded
an ever increasing wealth of new and often revolutionary
discoveries, which also increasingly became the starting point
for modern technology.

2.7.
As a result of the still-rapid population growth across
the world and the impact of mankind’s action and way of life
on nature and environment, human beings have become a
critical determinant of the further development of the planet
on which they live. A number of commentators (e.g. Stoppani,
Crutzen, Stoermer) have proposed the term ‘anthropocene’ to
denote the current period in the history of the world.

2.3.2.
However, this unavoidable specialisation of scientific
disciplines must not blind us to their common features. Inter-
disciplinary approaches are steadily gaining in importance as
science probes ever more deeply into the complex realities of
our world. This also includes efforts to re-establish closer links
between the natural sciences and the humanities.

2.8.
In addition to immanent and non-manmade dangers
and (natural) disasters (see also points 2.9 and 3.7.1) such as
volcanic eruptions, the ice age, asteroid impact, earthquakes,
floods, epidemics etc., new threats are now emerging to the
biosphere, where the cause is humans themselves, their way of
life and their technology.

Science has steadily encroached on man’s mythical

2.4.
view of the world.

2.8.1.
weapons), which,
possibly global devastation, are a particular case in point.

Highly developed weapons of mass destruction (NBC
if used, would cause unimaginable and

2.5.
As a result of this process, the living conditions of the
peoples and regions involved in this development have
changed and improved as never before in human history.

A further key factor was the development and
2.5.1.
intensive use of energy-consuming (or, more accurately,
energy-converting) machinery and industrial processes: energy
‘nourished’ prosperity.

2.5.2.
The subsequent technical, medical, cultural, social
and political achievements are the basis and defining feature
of today’s mobile, prosperous information society. In this way,
people (in Europe) were largely liberated from the burden of
sheer physical work and, thus, a freedom which had previously
been available only to a small, privileged stratum of society
was enlarged to include today all citizens, offering them
precious educational opportunities and facilitating the move
towards a knowledge-based society.

The degree of prosperity attained in certain countries
2.5.3.
or regions — measured by gross national product, employment
and other indicators — is clearly related to the current level of
research and development. Not just economic competitiveness,
but also the cultural and political standing of countries and
peoples, are dependent on their scientific and technological
performance.

It is thus up to Europeans and European society to
2.9.
protect both their own living conditions and the biosphere, to
avert dangers and at the same time to secure and enhance
prosperity and quality of life and help other nations to do the
same. Further research must be carried out into risks emanating
from people and their way of life and practical methods and
arrangements must be developed to control or avert these
risks.

2.10.
Both society and the public have recognised that
science is a key part of our culture and that Europe’s
competitiveness is secured through innovation and technical
progress. This requires greater input from science and research.
Hence, all Member States (albeit to differing degrees) and the
European Union make considerable, although not always
sufficient, financial resources available for these purposes.

2.10.1.
Science, society and citizens have important and
difficult decisions to make regarding the scale, distribution and
deployment of these resources.

2.10.2.
Society, citizens and science must work together
constructively to shape the future and establish the knowledge-
based society. By virtue of its remit and membership, the ESC
has a key role to play in this regard.

C 221/154

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

3.

The citizen, society and scientific knowledge

3.1.5.
The Commission addresses some of these factors in
the relationship between science, society and citizens in its
Working Paper.

3.1.
One of the features of today’s (civil) society is the
emergence of formal organisations and structures which reflect
citizens’ social, professional, ideological or cultural identity
and interests.

Scientists are, on the one hand, part of society,
3.1.1.
but difficulties may arise in communication and mutual
understanding — and in clarifying respective responsibilities
— because of the distinctive nature of their profession and the
impact of their research findings.

3.1.2.
The public expects the products of science to secure
health, longevity, prosperity (e.g. through innovation), security
from danger and quality of life. At the same time, people also
have a fear of what they do not know or understand.

3.1.2.1. Moreover, society and the public expect scientists
to stick to the rules of their peers, to tell the truth, not to cheat
and not to violate accepted ethical values.

However, the public is generally not well enough
3.1.3.
informed about science and technology,
latest
scientific findings, the opportunities and risks of scientific
research, the working methods and operational conditions of
science and research and the chances and risks of technologies
developed from scientific findings.

i.e. about

3.1.4.
On the one hand therefore, the public and society
expect a great deal from science — the result both of its
revolutionary successes and of promises made by scientists
themselves. On the other, the risks and dangers of science and
technology, intensified by the excessive and rapidly growing
gulf in knowledge between the public and science, may lead to
a ‘remystification’ or even demonisation of science and
research. These are the two sides of the Commission’s prop-
ositions outlined below.

3.1.4.1.
Inflated and unrealisable expectations can lead to
disappointment and scepticism among the public and thus
obscure perfectly justified expectations and realistic oppor-
tunities.

3.2.
The Commission Working Paper states: ‘The relation-
ship between science and society today is something of a
paradox. First of all, science and technology are at the heart of
the economy and society, and both are having an increasingly
positive effect on the lives of people in Europe. Expectations
of science and technology are getting higher and higher, and
there are few problems facing European society where science
and technology are not called upon, one way or another, to
provide solutions.’

3.2.1.
These expectations of citizens are as a result of
experience to date. In the last 200 years average per capita real
incomes in Europe (i.e. spending on food, clothing, housing,
health, education, travel and entertainment) have increased on
a scale which would once have been unimaginable. In the last
120 years alone average life expectancy has more than
doubled.

3.2.1.1.
An education system now open to all citizens and
sections of society has developed to such an extent that the
average age at which Europeans now enter into employment
is the same as the average life expectancy of 400 years ago.
The EU Member States have democratic governments. Legal
certainty, social protection and personal freedom have reached
unprecedented levels.

3.2.2.
Since the current view is that both the scope for
further growth — and the availability of resources — are finite,
people’s expectations of future developments are concentrated
more on qualitative improvements, on safeguarding what has
already been achieved, on risk control and on sustainable
technologies. That said, wholly unexpected discoveries and
knowledge could well open up new, cross-border options and
outlooks.

3.2.3.
innovation, prosperity and peace.

Research and development sow the seeds of future

3.2.4.
And yet there is insufficient public awareness of the
importance and extent of this progress and of the conditions
for it. This awareness is often overlaid with disillusionment
arising from the failure of unrealistic expectations to material-
ise and with fear of real or imagined dangers resulting or
potentially resulting from the technical application of scientific
findings.

3.1.4.2.
Any ‘remystification’ — or even demonisation —
would not only deprive society, citizens and science of any
rational basis for communication and assessment, but would
also run counter to the very essence of science itself.

3.2.5.
The ESC therefore recommends that schools (see also
point 5) give greater emphasis to the developments described
in point 2.5 ff. to foster public awareness of common European
cultural achievements — and thus of the historic importance

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/155

of the European research area. Armed with this knowledge,
Europeans will also be able to develop a more balanced
relationship between society, citizens and science.

ments which enable us, on the one hand, to exploit oppor-
tunities to improve health,
the economy and individual
development, but at the same time to reduce and contain the
possibly disastrous consequences.

3.3.
However, the Commission Working Paper also states:
‘Conversely, advances in knowledge and technology are greeted
with growing scepticism, even to the point of hostility, and
the quest for knowledge no longer generates the unquestioning
enthusiasm that it did some decades ago. Searching questions
are being asked of the social and ethical impact of the forward
march of knowledge and technology and the conditions under
which the basic choices are made (or are not made) in this
area.’

3.3.1.
Although the ESC feels that the above statement is
no longer generally true — and it does not seem to square
with the call for a knowledge-based society and economy — it
nonetheless reflects the feelings of a significant section of
society. A closer look shows that there are many reasons for
this attitude.

3.4.
The first of these is the obvious fact — trivial in itself
— that as a tool or instrument, properly used, becomes
increasingly effective (and here we are talking about particu-
larly effective technologies and procedures which build on
scientific discovery), so it also becomes capable of doing
increasing damage in the event of accident or deliberate
misuse. The proper use and the abuse of scientific discoveries
are two sides of the same coin (see also point 3.4.5).

3.4.1.
Should mankind therefore be denied the scope to
develop highly effective technologies and methods because
justified concerns exist as to their destructive potential or as to
man’s ability to control them if wrongly used? In other words,
should we or could we prevent the discovery of natural
laws because they can be used to develop ultra-powerful
technologies.

3.4.2.
Ultimately the question is whether mankind and
society have the ability and the strength to lay down standards
for the responsible use of their own research methods and
results, to update these in the light of new discoveries and to
ensure that they are complied with.

The basic right of scientific freedom is enshrined in
3.4.4.
the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thus it can be
constrained only by other fundamental rights such as the right
to dignity of the person, life and physical integrity (see also
point 3.7).

It is an illusion to believe that an ‘improved’ research
3.4.5.
policy would allow only research carried out with ‘good
intentions’, thus excluding from the outset any potential for
damage or destructive use.

3.5.
The ESC therefore supports the Commission’s intention
to launch a European-level debate on the issues addressed in
points 3.2 and 3.3 above and to develop the appropriate
instruments for this purpose. Thus, it endorses the following
statements made in the Commission Working Paper:

3.5.1.
‘Dealing with technological risk and ’science/society’
more generally calls for the development of new forms
of dialogue between researchers, experts, political decision-
makers, industrialists and members of the public, especially at
European level’ and

3.5.2.
‘Such real or imagined threats also have to be put
into perspective and balanced against the benefits that science
and technology bring to society in general, and to each
individual in particular.’

The ESC stresses its obligation and intention to play
3.5.3.
a major part in this debate as a European Union body. The fact
that its members have different fields of expertise and different
backgrounds of experience also ensures that, within the ESC,
balanced account can be taken of society’s diverse views.

3.4.3.
Given that extraordinarily effective procedures and
technologies have already been discovered and developed and
that these could potentially be used for destructive purposes,
we are faced with the serious problem and the extremely
important task of continuing in the future to develop social,
political and — increasingly — global supervisory arrange-

3.5.4.
The ESC would point out that, for a debate of this
kind to be effective and successful, a number key conditions
must be met when selecting and dealing with scientific experts
to be consulted as part of the process. Among other things,
experts should have:

— sound expertise, proven and maintained by continual

involvement in active research;

C 221/156

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

— the freedom to express their views;

— the (broadest possible) external and internal

indepen-

dence;

— the ability to express themselves in a clear and readily

understandable way.

A particular problem is also posed by public anxieties
3.6.
with little objective justification (when related to the latest
scientific findings known at the time) which are nourished
by ignorance, misunderstanding and the lack of sufficient
information for an informed judgement. In particular there is
often insufficient training in thinking in quantitative terms,
e.g. in assessing the health risk posed by certain substances or
radiation doses.

3.6.1.
Interestingly it is mainly in those European countries
in which elemental dangers and risks (such as hunger, cold,
disease, acute poverty, arbitrary government, repression and
lack of freedom) have been most successfully banished by
technological, social and political progress that minor, or often
even imagined, risks are a source of widespread anxiety.
(Research could usefully be carried out to establish whether
human beings have a certain psychological propensity, largely
independent of objective circumstances, to develop fears of
the unknown which if need be seek or even create their own
object.)

— or whether they are present in population growth (or
decline in some regions), or in rising prosperity and the
concomitant — often unheeding — consumption habits
and lifestyles.

This last point includes above all those — primarily
3.7.1.
environmental — problems and risks caused by factors
such as rapid population growth and increases in resource
consumption, emissions, and land use — i.e. material pros-
perity. Scientific benefits may become a problem because of
their impact on human behaviour (e.g. problems caused by
affluence).

3.7.2. Mostly it was the members of the scientific com-
munity itself who first identified such problems (e.g. hole in
ozone layer, greenhouse effect) and proposed solutions, there-
by launching a political process (e.g. the Montreal protocol)
(see also point 6.3.2).

3.8.
In this connection the Commission also raises the
question of whether it is possible or even desirable for the EU
to strive for a common stance and hence common rules on
the associated moral concepts (e.g. embryonic progenitor
cells).

3.6.2.
Here, every effort must be made to produce informa-
tive assessments by means of comparisons with other — in
particular unavoidable and omnipresent — risks.

The ESC recommends that the Commission take
3.8.1.
measures to identify and explain as clearly as possible both the
factual/scientific and ethical aspects of such problems, so that
political decisions can then be taken on that basis (see also
point 4.9).

3.6.3.
To arrive at the most objective and balanced assess-
ment possible in each individual case while not losing sight of
real threats, it is essential to have adequate expert knowledge of
the particular scientific/technical and political/social problems.
Sound knowledge is built on sound training. This applies to
the issue of ‘improving the public’s knowledge of science’
set out in the Commission Working Paper (see especially
Section 5).

3.8.2.
Bearing in mind, however, that the stances of the
Member States on some of these issues are quite divergent and
even antithetical, the ESC would recommend proceeding very
cautiously in the matter of uniform European rules so that
potentially avoidable and emotive arguments between the
Member States do not get in the way of European integration.

3.7.
The Commission quite rightly calls for a Europe-wide
debate on these problems. Such a debate will have to determine
more clearly than in the past

— whether the risks and ethical problems are already present
in the process of acquiring the knowledge — i.e. in the
research itself, as with in vivo research for instance;

— or in potentially dangerous applications of technologies

developed on the basis of new knowledge;

In addition one sometimes has the impression that the
3.9.
debate on these problems is also marked by a struggle between
the arts and sciences (C.P. Snow’s ‘two cultures’) as to which
outlook should prevail in society.

The ESC therefore recommends

3.9.1.
supporting all
measures which help to reduce the polarisation, between arts
and sciences and bring them closer together. This also
includes two-way dialogue on issues such as methodology,
conceptualisation, evaluation of results, etc.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/157

3.9.2.
The ESC would refer inter alia to the increased use of
empirical and quantitative methods in social research (less and
less tainted by ideologies). A particularly topical example of
this is brain research, in which neurology, physics, psychiatry,
psychology, linguistics and information technology increas-
ingly converge. Furthermore, there exist certain affinities and
common traits between science, mathematics and art, such as
the search for simple, harmonious and aesthetic solutions (see
also point 4.7).

4.1.2.
In the knowledge-based society, research must have
a career status that encourages young people to undertake an
arduous, long (ultimately lifelong) and challenging period of
study (see also point 5.2). In return both women and men
must be offered appropriate career prospects — in money
terms, too — and a social status commensurate with the
importance of this profession.

3.9.3.
At this point, the ESC would stress the key role that
human sciences play in the (European) social and legal order
as well as in language, culture and the formation of an historical
and social identity. It therefore endorses the Commission’s
comment in the Working Paper on ‘taking greater account of
the contribution that the human sciences can make’.

3.9.4.
Key areas where natural sciences and the humanities
come together and interact include the responsibility borne by
science, scientific theory, ethics — including the ethics of
science and research — and people’s changing image of
themselves in the universe and on earth in the wake of new
scientific discoveries.

3.9.5.
The primary joint cultural task of the humanities and
natural sciences is to broaden and extend knowledge about
humankind and the world, to pass that knowledge on and to
preserve it for the future.

4.

Society, researchers and research; mutual under-
standing

Training and keeping researchers — building up and
4.1.
looking after ‘human capital’ — is the most
important
precondition for remaining competitive and successful in a
knowledge-based society and economy. The current situation
gives grave cause for concern.

The ESC therefore feels it is urgent not only to train
4.1.1.
scientists, but also to make the researcher’s subsequent career
attractive enough to ensure:

— that a sufficient number of young people go on to study

natural sciences; and

4.1.2.1.
As an example of a first step in this direction, the
Committee would point to the Commission communication
of 17 February 1999 entitled Women and science: mobilising
women to enrich European research (1).

This also includes an environment in which science
4.1.3.
and technology — and the findings thereof — are not met
with blanket hostility by large sectors of society, since it is off-
putting to anyone considering embarking on a career if the
job and its results are perceived as unwanted.

4.1.4.
— and appropriate action.

This task requires a political and economic rethink

4.2.
To achieve competence, efficiency or even a leading
position in a particular scientific area, the persons and groups
concerned must first undertake a demanding period of training
usually lasting several years. In addition, expensive technical
equipment must often first be set up and a stimulating
environment — research structures — created. This is a
valuable and expensive investment in ‘human capital’ and in
research infrastructure.

4.3.
Good and successful research cannot therefore be
switched on and off or redirected at the whim of economic
cycles or current political
trends, but requires sufficient
continuity and reliability.

It was not

4.3.1.
least some Member States’ political
priorities of the past decade that militated against such a view
and contributed to the sharp decline in students opting for
scientific/technical subjects which now threatens Europe’s
competitiveness in the global marketplace.

4.4.
As important as continuity and gradual development
are for successful research, this must not mean that research
becomes uncritically stuck in the same groove. However,
careful consideration must be given to the room for manoeuvre
for, and approach to, any change of direction.

— that, against a backdrop of global competition, European
science is also able to draw on an adequate supply of
‘human capital’ from among these new players once they
have completed their training.

(1) COM(1999) 76 final.

C 221/158

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

4.4.1.
Ideas for promising new directions are as a rule
suggested by — often unexpected — research findings and
mostly come from researchers themselves who can then take
them forward with the necessary expertise.

4.6.
Nevertheless there will sometimes be misunderstand-
ings between society, the public and the scientific community
about the nature of scientific research; this must not lead to
mistakes in research policy and the instruments used to
manage it. Some of these misunderstandings are addressed
below.

4.4.2. Most of the great discoveries — in physics, for
example, electromagnetic force and induction, electromagnetic
waves, x-rays, cathode ray tubes, transistors and lasers, and in
biology, for example, DNA structure (double helix) — were
the outcome of fundamental research not geared to particular
applications.

A single new idea can snowball into an avalanche of
4.4.3.
innovation and technical advances, penetrating many econ-
omic sectors. Recent examples are computer and communi-
cations technologies and gene technology.

4.4.4.
A targeted planned approach — and the requisite
policy decisions that go with it — can only be put into
operation if, on the basis of a novel concept, objectives can be
defined and the way ahead is sufficiently clear.

Current knowledge and contemporary technology —
4.5.
i.e. the mainstay of the European public’s present-day standard
of living — are a result of interplay between basic research,
applied research and product-oriented technical development.

4.5.1.
Research and development in the EU are thus based
on two key pillars: (i) industrial research and development and
(ii) research and development carried out in universities and
publicly-funded research institutes (‘academia’). In an earlier
opinion (1),
the
importance of cooperation and exchange of knowledge
between these two pillars, but also pointed out the obstacles
which exist and which must be removed as a matter of
urgency.

the ESC already outlined in some detail

4.7.
Research is a step into the unknown and the approach-
es adopted by the individual or by the group vary and
complement each other according to need, talent and tempera-
ment. Researchers are managers, engineers, collectors, hair-
splitters or artists. Research is groping in the mist, hunches,
surveying an unknown landscape, collecting and collating
data, finding new signs, tracing underlying connections and
patterns, recognising new correlations, developing mathemat-
ical models, developing the necessary concepts and symbols,
developing and building new equipment, searching for simple
solutions and harmony. But it is also confirming, making sure,
expanding, generalising and reproducing.

4.7.1.
It is inevitable — necessary even — that during this
search and discovery process individual researchers or groups
of researchers (‘schools’) will compete to come up with possible
solutions and explanations; they will discuss with each other,
contradict each other and even on occasion confront each
other. Advances in knowledge come about
through the
interplay of hypothesis and criticism, the comparison of one
set of data with another.

One of the misunderstandings between society and
4.7.2.
researchers therefore lies in the impression that researchers do
not know the answer to many questions themselves and
frequently contradict each other (and have not therefore even
mastered their own specialised area).

4.5.2.
These common features — but also the mutually
reinforcing functions of industry and academia in creating
today’s modern technology — result in a certain division of
responsibilities for ensuring that products, when used properly,
are useful, pose no danger and indeed do not cause harm.

This is only the case when and because researchers
4.7.3.
are discussing something that is still only suspected, not yet
certain, an unknown. Because they are talking about opinions,
hypotheses and not yet about methodically secured knowledge.
And because often they do not or cannot make this sufficiently
clear with the brevity demanded by the interviewer (see also
point 4.8.7).

Science (in academia and industry) delivers the
4.5.3.
knowledge, industry delivers the products and citizens and
society decide on use (cf. also point 3.5.1 and section 6).

(1) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000, p. 70 European research area.

4.7.4.
The crucial feature of (natural) scientific knowledge
is the step from the scientific quest phase to the reproducibility
of findings and demonstration of their range of validity (and
its limits). Ultimately, nature decides the accuracy of the
statements made.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/159

4.7.5.
Because of the need for proof of reproducibility,
parallel or repeated experiments by other research groups,
generally using modified techniques or procedures, are often
categorised as ‘duplication of research’. This is in fact an
essential element of scientific method and progress. It is a
guarantee against errors or even falsification.

crises, natural disasters, etc.) that frequently only conjectures
or indications as to potential developments or risks are
possible. Such prognostications are much more difficult and
therefore often at least as unreliable as, for instance, the stock
market predictions of financial experts.

4.7.6.
The knowledge thus acquired and confirmed by
reproducibility — which, because it has its limits and is
incomplete, may be supplemented, broadened or refined by
further new findings — then finds its way into the text books
and becomes the basis for further research.

technical systems,

laws — the basis of all

4.7.7.
Besides the reproducibility of individual results it is,
however, also the consistency of the interaction of recognised
natural
from
magnetic resonance imaging to space travel — which con-
tributes to confidence in the new knowledge and gives rise to
further questions where this consistency is still incomplete or
its limits are clear. Herein lies the striving ‘to unify natural
laws’ and ultimately for a ‘grand unifying theory’ (despite the
qualification that, in terms of scientific theory, it is impossible
to produce ‘unequivocal scientific findings’).

A particularly difficult set of problems which gives rise
4.8.
to a great many misunderstandings is the question of the
predictability of future developments.

4.8.1.
In the case of certain simple patterns of events, such
as celestial mechanics, the known laws of nature enable us to
make very precise predictions. Even here, however, there are
strict boundaries beyond which clear predictions are inherently
impossible (deterministic chaos, turbulence).

4.8.2.
Another fundamental limit to the predictability of
future events resides in the statistical nature of quantum
physics.

4.8.3.
In addition there are all those problems where the
regularity of the individual constituent processes are more or
less well known, but where, because of the complex interaction
of a large number of components and defining factors, it
is not possible to make a long-term prediction of future
developments.

4.8.4. While, therefore, established knowledge enables us
to make some reliable predictions, e.g. the future position of
certain heavenly bodies (eclipses), it is precisely in those areas
of key importance for political decisions (e.g. future climate
changes or expected economic/ideological/political/population

4.8.4.1.
Clearly there is also a potential for error in the
links between the opinion and behaviour of those concerned.
This may be the result of insufficient knowledge, particular
interests and the desire for consensus and acceptance within
the group.

4.8.4.2.
of the majority.

This confuses scientific findings with the opinion

4.8.4.3.
exposure in publications and the media.

Additional force may be lent to an opinion by

4.8.5.
For a critical assessment of predictions and the
likelihood of their being correct, a distinction must therefore
be made between the following cases:

4.8.5.1.
the necessary, admissible and mostly usable fore-
casts made by extrapolating from trends or figures (e.g.
population figures) — examples: future needs for teachers,
roads, housing, energy, etc. — assuming continuity of the
trend;

4.8.5.2.
the general unpredictability of (‘unexpected’) revol-
technological and similar inno-
utionary political, social,
vations, upheavals, discoveries, developments, which have a
deep impact on the overall scheme of things and change many
relationships. Often, after a fairly lengthy period of turbulence
and oscilliations, a new equilibrium then arises with new
trends, etc.

suppositions, warnings or fears that the ‘predict-
4.8.5.3.
able’ developments of point 4.8.5.1 could subsequently wor-
sen/reach crisis point (climate, population, resistance, revol-
ution, lack of primary materials, etc.) and lead to an unpredict-
able development as described in point 4.8.5.2.

In view of society’s great interest in future develop-
4.8.6.
ments,
field of
‘futurology’ has become an independent
research — despite or even because of the problems associated
with predicting the future. The abovementioned limitations
mean that the various forecasting procedures must be exam-
ined and tested to assess their past success rate in predicting
surprising developments. It is extremely important for political
decision-makers to know how much certainty or uncertainty
to attribute to a prediction or ‘scenario’.

C 221/160

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

4.8.7. While on the one hand it is the duty of scientists to
bring such possible risks they recognise (point 4.8.4) forcefully
to society’s attention and to make clear the current state of
knowledge and its limits, there is on the other hand, especially
in this area, the temptation to enhance the status of personal
opinions or even particular interests by pinning a scientific
label on them or selecting appropriate ‘experts’.

4.9.2.
Ethical misconduct may mean that, when pursuing
their scientific activities, individual scientists or research teams
violate ethical standards set in place and accepted by society.
Motives for such conduct include the thirst for knowledge,
hubris, an obsession with profit, the desire for fame etc.
Together, science and society must be vigilant to ensure that
such misconduct is uncovered, prevented and punished.

4.8.7.1.
of confidence in science.

This kind of conduct can also lead to a public loss

4.8.7.2.
Particular communication difficulties may arise —
and the corresponding potential for inducement — between
the public and scientists when, in a largely political environ-
ment, scientists are, for instance, faced with political interests
or assertions and the rhetoric that goes with that, or are
themselves an integral part of such interest groups — in other
words when the division of responsibility between politics and
science becomes blurred.

Hence,

4.8.7.3.
it is particularly
in this field especially,
important to set high standards for the qualifications, know-
ledge and probity of the experts involved in the debate (see
also point 3.5.4), and possibly also to include these as factors
for assessment. That certainly does not mean that discussion
(see point 6.8.1) of the issues concerned should be confined
solely to experts. However, a clear distinction should be made
between interested and possibly concerned citizens on the one
hand and experts on the other; attention should be also
be paid to the expertise and accuracy underlying experts’
statements.

4.8.8.
The ESC therefore recommends that the Commission
work towards ensuring that the general public has a clearer
picture of the issues involved — and is able to make the
requisite distinctions — thus securing a better culture of
dialogue between researchers and society. The media must also
play their part in this process, and act responsibly in their key
role as intermediaries. In this area in particular, it is important
to make a clearer distinction between rhetoric and expertise
and to resist any temptation to proselytise.

4.9.
In the relationship between citizens, society and sci-
ence, the issue of possible professional and/or ethical miscon-
duct by scientists also plays a role.

4.9.1. While both professional misconduct and mistakes
made in good faith by scientists can be uncovered and
punished largely by means of self-regulation by science
itself
for
(the most effective tool being the requirement
reproducibility — see points 4.7.4 and 4.7.5), the issue of
ethical misconduct goes to the core of the relationship between
society and science.

4.9.3.
Of course, particularly as a result of new discoveries
and scientific and technological progress, society’s views on
ethical standards are the subject of ongoing debate among all
social groups (see also point 3.8) and are thus liable to change.
The ESC expressly supports the Commission in its efforts set
out in the Working Paper to forge ‘more structural
links
between existing ethics committees at national and European
level’ and to secure ‘better co-ordination of research ... into the
ethics of science conducted in Europe’.

4.9.4. Misconduct may also emerge — and indeed may be
generated by society itself — where society as a whole (or a
majority within society) violates ethical or moral principles.
Science then becomes, for example, an integral part of the
ideological goals and opinions of the society in which it
operates; in other words, it acts by mutual arrangement or
even to order. This issue goes beyond the scope of this opinion.

4.9.4.1.
However, given the current political machinery in
the EU and its Member States, and the fundamental rights
recognised there, there is currently no cause for concern that
this issue might in future surface in the European research
area.

4.10.
The ESC recommends that the Commission take these
points discussed in section 4 into account in all discussions on
‘governance’ and advocate this approach to policy-makers and
business.

5.

Scientific education: a sine qua non of a knowledge-
based society

5.1.
In some Member States at least, the value and import-
ance of science and technology is not directly acknowledged
by the public as a whole and by society. The ESC feels therefore
that an appropriate Europe-wide educational blueprint should
be developed (1) to bring about a change in this attitude.

(1) For further details see OJ C 139, 11.5.2001, p. 85 (European

dimension of education).

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/161

5.1.1.
important role here.

Foundations and associations can also play an

5.1.2.
the candidate countries.

This blueprint should also include issues relating to

5.4.2.
The fact that this will involve considerable work and
intellectual effort for both teachers and pupils should be seen
as an incentive rather than as an excuse. This is the most
effective way to achieve the objective set out in the Com-
mission Working Paper of ‘improving the public’s knowledge
of science’.

Point 4.1.2 above already noted the importance of
5.2.
demanding, high-quality, academic vocational
training for
scientists and researchers and the need to make the scientific
profession sufficiently attractive for talented young people.

5.3.
This section deals mainly with the ESC’s concern to
ensure that, substantially more than in the past, non-scientists
and ultimately all citizens must, as a fundamental part of their
education, also acquire adequate basic knowledge of science
and mathematics. Natural sciences and mathematics are also
part of our cultural heritage.

5.3.1.
The current lack of adequate basic scientific know-
ledge is particularly harmful in the areas of politics and the
media: in politics because it is here that decisions are taken
which affect society, and in the media, because it is their task
to communicate knowledge from specialists to the general
public and to report on scientific/technological problems in an
accurate and balanced way.

5.3.1.1.
If the scientific community and society are to be
able to talk to each other, there must be not only the
willingness but also the ability to engage in dialogue on both
sides. This is essential to bridge the gap in knowledge between
science and the citizen — regardless of the somewhat fruitless
and polarised debate on reciprocal rights and obligations.

5.3.1.2.
The other essential condition is that scientific
representatives and institutions endeavour to convey to the
public their knowledge and their difficulties in a way that is as
clear and as readily understandable as possible and to open up
universities, technical colleges and research centres to the
public and to society.

5.4.
The first task — and a key ESC recommendation — is
for science and scientific disciplines, together with mathemat-
ical thinking, to be given a place in the school curriculum
appropriate to today’s knowledge-based society (see also
point 3.2.5). Pupils must thereby of course also be proficient
in at least their mother tongue.

5.4.1.
At the same time teaching methods need to be
developed through which knowledge can be better organised,
prioritised and communicated. The scope and diversity of
knowledge must be presented in a clear and understandable
way by teaching pupils about generic links and specific case
studies.

the knowledge,

5.4.3. Moreover,
insights and attitudes
acquired during school education are a decisive factor in
subsequent career choices. The ESC therefore expressly
endorses the Commission’s statement that ‘it is also necessary
to step up science teaching in schools in Europe in order to
reverse the dwindling attraction among the young of scientific
professions and the world of research’.

5.5.
Among other things, however, all this also means
that the teaching profession — which is essential to the
transmission of this knowledge — must be made sufficiently
attractive and must be given an appropriate status. Schools
should also be adequately equipped.

5.6.
In addition, the ESC would point to the overall link
that must now be established between basic school education,
lifelong learning and scientific knowledge. This link can better
and more efficiently be developed as part of a European
domain of
learning and education. This domain could
encompass not only the European dimension of education,
but also ‘any other current
learning-related challenge or
procedure of concern to the European citizen’ (1).

6. Research policy and the interest of society

6.1.
This section deals with a thorny issue which cannot be
addressed with complete consistency. Moreover, many of the
aspects involved have already been touched on in the previous
sections.

6.2.
Interaction between the science and society — gener-
ally represented by politicians, civil servants or representatives
of funding bodies — mostly concerns (i) agreement about
research objectives and subjects, (ii) the type and extent of
research funding, (iii) the evaluation of research findings and
(iv) the people involved in research. However, it also brings in
the issue of how far research is or should be able to be steered
in a particular direction.

(1) OJ C 139, 11.5.2001, p. 85 (point 2.5).

C 221/162

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

6.2.1.
This issue relates to the question posed by the
Commission Working Paper and already cited at the beginning
of this opinion (see 1.5), namely: ‘how to implement research
policy around the real aims of society and fully involve society
in seeing through the research agenda’.

— to bring researchers and the public closer together to

their mutual benefit;

— to take into account the diverse aims and interests of
society (and its various branches) when framing and
implementing the research agenda.

This question touches on a number of misunderstand-
6.3.
ings between society, science and research. First of all,
it
implies that research policy to date has failed to serve the real
aims of society.

6.3.1.
Yet current knowledge about the laws of nature —
and the achievements built on it — are predominantly the
result of the initiative, creativity and passion for discovery of
researchers, inventors and entrepreneurs, and are the basis of
present-day prosperity in Europe.

6.3.2.
Furthermore, the currently perceived anthropogenic
and non-anthropogenic (i.e. untouched by man and his
technology) problems affecting, for example, the long-term
survival of our ecosystem were recognised and brought to the
attention of politicians and public first and foremost by
members of the scientific community (see also point 3.7.2).

6.3.3.
Hence, we would again point out that society and
politicians are normally slower than the scientific community
itself to recognise not only upcoming risks and dangers, but
also economic opportunities offered by new technologies (e.g.
information technology). Hence, science and society must join
forces in a bid to ensure that, because of this inherent time lag,
politicians do not neglect innovations in favour of tried and
tested technologies.

6.3.4. Moreover, the question cited in point 6.2.1 wrongly
implies that the findings of a research policy implemented
‘around the real aims of society’ will necessarily all be ‘good’,
with any subsequent harmful applications or impacts thus
ruled out from the start (see also point 3.4.5).

6.4.
The question cited in point 6.2.1 also implies that
society can and should be fully involved ‘in seeing through the
research agenda’.

6.4.1.
Even though it is not clear who is in a position to
conduct research other than researchers themselves, the ESC
recognises as constructive and worthy of support the Com-
mission’s intention:

— to clearly address the primary competence of politics
when awarding the financial resources required for
research;

6.4.1.1.
Thus objective, external criticism of science (e.g.
from citizens’ action groups, consumer associations or lay-
men’s organisations) may have quite a beneficial effect. It may
lead to a rethink or even scepticism, particularly where
internal,
institutional-level discussions risk breaking down
because of, for instance, centralised machinery or economic
and/or political pressures (e.g. BSE).

Accordingly, the ESC backs the Commission’s further
6.4.2.
statement on this point in its staff Working Paper that ‘there
should be comparative studies of the lessons to be drawn from
both European and national experience in this area in order to
promote the dissemination and application of best practice’.

6.4.3.
The issues raised in point 6.4 above relate mainly to
targeted research. The ESC would therefore again stress that
the scenario outlined above can only thrive on a broad
foundation of diversified fundamental research which is not
tied to specific applications. The ESC thereby underlines and
extends the Commission’s point in its paper that ‘research must
retain a sufficient degree of inquisitiveness and impartiality’.

6.5.
The question cited in point 6.2.1 also implies that
‘society’ knows what ‘real aims’ it wants to see research focus
on.

‘Society’, however,

6.5.1.
is an abstract concept and in
reality is a highly diverse amalgam comprising a whole range
of different cultures, religions, perspectives,
lifestyles and
goals. Initially, the ‘interests’ of this abstract concept can be
determined empirically only as the amalgamation of all
individual perceptions, expectations and, if necessary, fears.
This amalgamation of all individual interests is both diffuse
and fluid and therefore scarcely comprehensible to politicians.

It requires the horizontal and vertical organisation of
6.5.2.
trade
society (intermediary groups, parties, associations,
initiatives, combines, etc.) to
unions, foundations, citizens’
channel and aggregate these interests. The importance of the
mass media in this context should not be underestimated.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/163

6.5.3.
Not until the completion of this very complicated
brokering and condensing operation, in the course of which
individual interests are transformed, filtered and merged in a
variety of ways, can these interests become the ‘interests of
society’, which trigger and become the subject of political
action by superordinated bodies.

6.5.4.
Democratic procedures and institutions play a decis-
ive role in this collecting, counterbalancing and condensing
operation. This is also where the ESC comes into play at
European level as a body of the European Communities.

6.5.5.
It is therefore important that every government,
administration or party is aware of the difference — which
may extend to constituting a conflict — between the individual
interests existing at the start and their politically effective
amalgamated form.

6.6.
This uncertainty with regard to the basis of decision-
making, however, does not absolve politicians of their duty to
act. Damage must be averted and risks mitigated. This generally
requires some knowledge of future developments and this is
often limited or, at worst, non-existent (see point 4.8.4).

6.6.1.
inevitably also includes experimenting with society.

Politics means acting on behalf of society and

6.6.2.
eliminated, merely defused:

This dilemma affecting political action cannot be

economic, political, social and cultural environment in which
science enjoys broad public support and where creativity and
inventiveness can develop most effectively. The key elements
of such an environment are:

— to promote communication between citizens and scien-
tists (i.e. the players making up society and the scientific
community) and reduce existing barriers;

— to provide information about science in schools, univer-
sities and the media; to bring out clearly the research
process, the acquisition of knowledge and the inspiration
which drives scientists; to show the strengths and limi-
tations of science in order to counter unrealistic expec-
tations (which can result in scepticism towards science);

— to deploy for this purpose ‘media information officers’
(experienced staff trained in the mass media including the
public television stations to be found in some Member
States) in order to reach broad sections of the population
effectively and to ensure that the information is delivered
in an appropriate form;

— to ensure that these media information officers not only
have specialised scientific training, but are also educated
in the background, methods and history of science in
general;

— to make clear the risk potential of any creative venture
(even pure science, philosophy and art). (Let us not forget
the socio-cultural and intellectual upheavals that resulted
from Copernicus’ planetary theories, Darwin’s theory of
evolution, Marxism and Freudian psychoanalysis. The
potential for socio-ideological conflict remains great, e.g.
genetics, intelligence research, socio-biology or gender
studies.);

6.6.2.1.
by an awareness of the limited predictability of
future developments (and the impact of political decisions)
and a readiness to take corrective action to counter unwelcome
developments or undesirable consequences of earlier action,
and

— to make people aware that the risk potential of new
technologies or research programmes cannot in principle
be fully assessed on an objective basis. (What would be
the impact of successful geriatric research which resulted
in the average lifespan rising to, say, 120 years?)

by developing the best possible knowledge base
6.6.2.2.
(‘research policy’) for political decisions and recognising not
only the conditions under which science operates but also its
potential and limitations.

6.7. While detailed statements on overall policy (6.6.1)
would go beyond this ESC opinion’s scope, brief consideration
will now be given to the issue raised in point 6.6.2.2, in part
recapitulating what has already been said in sections 2 to 4
above.

6.7.2.
The second condition for developing an optimum
knowledge base is the maintenance or establishment of the
best possible internal operating environment
for science.
Independent
Commission-sponsored
(including
research) should be carried out into this issue and their findings
should be made available to policymakers. Key measures
which can be identified include:

studies

— strengthening the interplay between fundamental and
applied research in a diverse, multi-polar scientific system;

— protecting scientific freedom;

6.7.1.
The first condition for developing the best possible
knowledge base is the maintenance or establishment of an

— securing freedom for applied research as well;

C 221/164

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

— guaranteeing scientists’ independence, for example, from

political, ideological or economic pressures;

— protecting and strengthening — within the framework of
policy directives — the scientific community’s autonomy
and its right to run its own affairs;

— studying the impact, administrative burden and effective-
ness of the various application and approval procedures;

— taking account of the diverse range of social aims and

interests;

— also fostering and being open to knowledge in which

‘society’ currently has no interest.

The following points amplify what is said above and

6.8.
also look at some specific aspects of the issue:

6.8.1.
The ESC backs Commission moves to conduct
regular dialogue — including dialogue at European-level —
between representatives of society and the scientific com-
munity on research objectives and the associated ethical issues,
as well as on potential applications and other aspects of
technology that might be developed as a result. This dialogue
should bring in representatives both of major scientific societi-
es (e.g. the European Physical Society, Academia Europaea and
national scientific societies) and of institutions promoting
research (such as organisations, foundations and associations),
and include visits to research establishments and discussions
with individual researchers on site. Apart from securing the
requisite consensus as regards content, expectations, support
etc., dialogue can also help foster better understanding between
researchers and representatives of society.

6.8.1.1.
The ESC would emphasise its intention to be
closely involved in this dialogue on the basis of its remit and
membership. As a next step, the Committee calls on the other
EU institutions to join it in staging a hearing on this issue,
attended, inter alios, by representatives of academia, industry,
consumers and other relevant organisations and by leading
figures in the field.

6.8.2.
A key principle of any research policy should as far
as possible be to adopt a ‘bottom-up’ approach, with the ‘top-
down’ approach only applied where necessary. Similarly, there
should be as much decentralisation as possible and only as
much centralisation as required.
this
principle does not thwart the objectives of the European
research area, but means that responsibilities and the powers
of decision and initiative, etc. are to be delegated as far as
possible under the Commission’s research policy, too.

In the ESC’s view,

6.8.3.
research
resources for support and guidance purposes requires a solid

programme-based

additional

Using

and sufficient base of top-class institutions which (i) have
the requisite experience and the appropriate equipment and
infrastructure and (ii) are able to take up new issues and tap
into new fields quickly.

6.8.3.1.
and project- or programme-based support.

A balance is therefore needed between institutional

A key issue here is how to measure teaching and
6.8.4.
research standards (if indeed this can be done at all) and what
resources it would be reasonable and productive to devote to
this purpose. There are two sides to this question.

6.8.4.1.
On the one hand, the experience and expertise of
the best and most successful scientists will be required for this
the procedures involved (assessments,
purpose. However,
applications, meetings, hearings etc.) mean that the scientists
concerned are then no longer available for active research.
Research policy mechanisms, support schemes etc. must
therefore be framed so as to secure a balanced and ultimately
productive trade-off between these two considerations.

On the other hand, the selected assessment pro-
6.8.4.2.
cedures must not rule out support for genuinely innovative or
even revolutionary discoveries because, for instance, they fail
to meet the criteria of established research priorities, which
could not of course have foreseen such developments. (Scien-
tific investigations raise doubts as to whether this is possible
at all.)

6.8.5.
For this reason too, it is essential to promote and
cultivate a diverse range of interdisciplinary research methods,
assessment procedures and research structures in order to
encourage and draw on the resultant competition for the best
ideas and findings. This is the optimum breeding ground for
scientific progress.

Good research, especially interdisciplinary research,
6.8.6.
requires a pluralistic and sometimes,
it would seem, even
chaotic environment. This fact must be borne in mind by
politicians and administrations, for it impedes the requisite
insight and overview, which could be gained much more
easily from a clearly structured and monothematic research
environment.

6.9.
The ESC thus strongly recommends that the Com-
mission also make best possible governance a research topic
in its own right, bringing in accumulated experience of
research, its management and assessment, and scientific theory.
The ESC feels that the Commission’s paper and this own-
initiative opinion are a first important step in this direction.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/165

7.

Summary and recommendations

7.1.
‘Science, society and the citizen’ is a topic of major
importance for social policy. The ESC supports the Com-
mission in its efforts to address this issue and to secure
ongoing dialogue among all those concerned. The ESC would
in this dialogue and its
stress its intention to take part
suitability for the task as a EU body.

7.1.1.
This own-initiative opinion contributes towards this
dialogue. As a next step, the ESC urges that the EU institutions
stage a joint hearing on the issue.

This own-initiative opinion deals very comprehensively
7.2.
with the gulf in knowledge and the problems that have arisen
in the relationship between citizens, society and science. These
involve in particular:

— public expectations of science and what it can achieve;

— the opportunities and risks of knowledge-based tech-

nologies, medicine, food etc.;

— the predictability of future developments;

— the nature of science and research;

— the scope and errors of research policy with regard, for

instance, to

— the ability to measure scientific achievement and the

effort required to do this;

— the ‘interests of society’;

— the cooperation network — and requisite trans-
parency — between research, development and
production and between academia,
industry and
consumers;

— the unambiguity of assessing results and the pre-

dictability of risks.

7.2.1.
Therefore, apart from the topics referred to above,
the dialogue between citizens, society and knowledge should
also address, inter alia:

— ethical issues;

— environment and energy policy: biosphere, ecosphere,

resources, economics;

— research policy, e.g. purpose, organisation and assessment

of research;

— research, innovation, industry, consumers.

7.3.
The ESC strongly recommends
measures to reduce this gulf in knowledge.

the adoption of

7.3.1.
These measures should include opening-up universit-
ies and research establishments even more to citizens and a
stronger and firmer commitment on the part of the media to
supply understandable and proper information.

7.3.2.
Above all, however, schools should do much more
than in the past to give citizens a sound educational grounding
in science and research — including the operating environment
in which successful research can function. For this purpose, an
appropriate Europe-wide educational blueprint should be
developed, which also includes issues relating to the candidate
countries.

7.3.3.
This must also cover knowledge both of the historical
process and of Europe’s unique cultural contribution which
led to present-day scientific and technological achievements
and established unprecedentedly high living conditions for the
people of Europe.

7.4.
In addition to science’s major contribution to today’s
prosperity and the opportunities it offers for the future, the
ESC also recognises (i) the dangers and risks which may
arise from modern, knowledge-based technology and (ii) the
potential threat to the biosphere as a result of today’s industrial
way of life.

7.5.
The ESC therefore also recommends that (continued)
efforts be made to establish clear standards for the responsible
use of ultra-powerful technologies (developed using scientific
findings) and to monitor compliance. The ESC would stress its
own role in this process.

The ESC recommends that support be given to all
7.6.
measures which lead to less polarisation and closer ties
between the arts and natural sciences. This should also include
mutual exchanges about,
the
definition of terms and the assessment of results.

for example, methodology,

The ESC points out the lack of ‘human capital’

7.7.
in
science and research. ‘Human capital’ is the basic element of
successful research and development, thus also of innovation
and economic competitiveness. The ESC recommends action
to remedy this situation. Some key elements here include
making research and development more attractive — including
to women — and promoting science as a profession with a
commensurate status.

7.8.
The ESC recommends making the operational environ-
ment required for successful and internationally competitive
research and development a research topic in its own right,
and bringing the findings to bear when discussing the issue of
‘governance’
in research policy. The points of view and
recommendations set out in this opinion should be taken into
consideration in this context and defended vis-à-vis politicians
and businessmen.

C 221/166

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

The following is a summary of some of the main

7.9.
points made by the ESC in this opinion:

Initially,

7.9.1.
the ‘aims of society’ are an intangible
abstract concept. A more tightly structured, if still diverse and
not necessarily contradiction-free set of views can be gained
only through complicated democratic condensing processes.

7.9.2.
This uncertainty with regard to the basis of decision-
making, does not however, absolve politicians of their duty to
act. Politics means acting on behalf of society and inevitably
also includes experimenting with society. This dilemma affect-
ing political action cannot be eliminated, but merely defused:

— by an awareness of the limited predictability of future
developments and a readiness to take corrective action
where necessary, and

— by developing the best possible knowledge base (‘research
policy’) for political decisions and recognising not only
the conditions under which science operates but also its
potential and limitations.

7.9.3.
base include, inter alia:

The prerequisites for the best possible knowledge

— an ongoing dialogue between the players representing

science and society;

— an economic, political and cultural environment in which
science enjoys broad public support and where creativity
and inventiveness can develop most effectively;

— the best possible internal operating environment for

science;

— enough people who are ready and able to choose science

as a profession.

Brussels, 30 May 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation
amending Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 establishing an Instrument for structural policies for
pre-accession’

(2001/C 221/26)

On 18 April 2001, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Walker as rapporteur-general to prepare its
opinion.

At its 382nd plenary session on 30 and 31 May 2001 (meeting of 30 May) the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 48 votes to one with two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 established an
Instrument for Structural Policies for Accession (ISPA) in 1999
to assist the central and eastern European countries (CEEC)
which were candidates for membership of the European Union
in meeting the requirements of the acquis communautaire in
the fields of transport infrastructure and the environment. The
in the following year
implementation of
resulted in the grant of Community assistance to a total of
around 80 measures.

this instrument

Pursuant

1.2.
to this regulation, measures eligible for
Community assistance must be of a sufficient scale to have a
significant impact in the relevant field. Experience acquired by
the Commission in appraising applications for financing
submitted by the beneficiary countries shows that they often
have difficulties in part-financing such measures from available
public resources.

1.2.1.
Accordingly, to ensure that ISPA has more impact in
the beneficiary countries, as much funding as possible must be
obtained from the European Investment Bank (EIB) or other
institutions (the European Bank for
international financial