Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — researchers in the European Research Area: one profession, multiple careers’ (COM(2003) 436 final)
Date: 2004-02-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU research policy, remuneration of work, research staff, working conditions

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/3

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — researchers in the European Research
Area: one profession, multiple careers’

(COM(2003) 436 final)

(2004/C 110/02)

On 18 July 2003 the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-
mentioned communication.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 2 February 2004. The rapporteur was Mr Wolf.

At its 406th plenary session of 25/26 February 2004 (meeting of 25 February) the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 103 votes in favour and one abstention.

1. Summary

1.1
The Committee has pointed out in the past that human
capital is the most sensitive and valuable resource for research
and development and that it supports the Commission's efforts
to maintain and develop human resources.

1.6
The greatest discoveries are not the result of specific
goals but rather of attempts to reveal the laws of nature. Being
able to do this with adequate resources and free of political
interference is not only part of the fundamental freedom of
research, but also — in an appropriate balance with targeted
research and development — a precondition for future progress
and prosperity.

The Committee therefore welcomes the Commission's
1.2
communication on problems facing career researchers in the
EU as well as the proposals and initiatives it sets out. It whole-
heartedly supports the Commission in its efforts to bring about
substantial improvements to the current situation and calls on
the Member States to contribute to this goal. There is an urgent
need for action.

1.7
The Committee is very concerned that in many Member
States these conditions are not being met to a sufficient degree,
if at all. Apart from the well known and serious economic
consequences of
this failure is also the source of a
worrying brain drain, with the best young researchers leaving,
usually for the USA.

this,

The Committee agrees with the Commission that
1.3
improvements are needed both in relation to researchers'
contracts and to the adaptation/portability of all aspects of
social security and retirement provision, which are so impor-
tant for all types of mobility.

1.4
As long as these requirements are not being met, as a
result either of an incomplete European internal market or of
the
inadequate arrangements in individual Member States,
Commission should, for example in the framework of its mobi-
lity programme, compensate as
the
remaining shortcomings and create more far-reaching incen-
tives. Family cohesion and related issues are particularly impor-
tant here.

far as possible for

that

The Committee also points out, however,

the
1.5
following incentives are needed if people are to embark on a
career in research: attractive contracts for individual researchers
reflecting the importance of research and development, and
planning certainty for the funding of research institutes and
industrial research laboratories, involving a long-term commit-
ment. Research policy must not be a prey to short-term
budgetary planning or policy experiments. Rather, it should set
out appropriately to promote the potential and capacity of
researchers on the basis of self-reliance and to the benefit of
the community.

The Committee therefore appeals to the Council, the
1.8
Parliament and the Commission, but particularly to the
Member States and European industry, to honour their repeat-
edly stated commitment to increase investment in research and
technological development to 3 % of GDP by 2010. Investment
in research and development which bears comparison with
competing economies is a basic precondition for achieving the
Lisbon objectives.

1.9
The Committee also supports the individual measures
proposed by the Commission, such as the European Research-
er's Charter and the Code of conduct for the recruitment of
researchers. Both texts could be very helpful in many cases,
with the strong reservation, however, that the application of
these texts (as proposed by the Commission) must be voluntary
and must on no account lead to over-regulation (excessive
bureaucracy) in an area which is in any case in some respects
already over-regulated.

1.10
The guiding principle of research policy must remain
the Lisbon objectives. Thus, competition between research
systems and institutions for the best structure, facilities and
personnel policy must be allowed and supported and not
hampered by over-regulation. The conduct of the majority will
be guided by the example of the successful. The successful
must be recognised, supported and allowed a free hand within
ethical and legal limits.

C 110/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Incentives

and selection procedures

1.11
research
careers, which should begin in schools, should be structured
and achievements acknowledged in such a way that a sufficient
number of the brightest and best will opt for an (academic)
scientific training, with the pick of the bunch taking on a
leading role.

for

1.12
As well as the researchers themselves, society also
invests in the acquisition by researchers of the necessary broad
and demanding basic and advanced specialised knowledge.
Policy-makers, on behalf of society, thereby take on responsi-
this investment
bility for ensuring that
to the best
possible use. This must
include providing researchers with
for
appropriate career paths with attractive opportunities
branching out, without the danger of finding themselves at a
dead end. The Committee supports the Commission in its
efforts to carry out this task.

is put

1.13
A very important aim, which is also stressed by the
Commission, is improving career mobility between academia
and industry and stepping up exchanges of staff. Despite
progress in some areas much remains to be done. The signifi-
cant increase in industry's commitment to research and devel-
opment which is called for could contribute to this.

In order

to protect

1.14
researchers from an excessive
burden of administrative tasks and problems, including related
active and passive assessment procedures, a situation should be
avoided where too many separate vertical as well as horizontal
(parallel) approval and guidance bodies are involved, as this
will not only unnecessarily reduce efficiency and place the
most able under unnecessary work pressure but also lead to
unclear and in some cases mutually contradictory requirements
and decisions.

Society and policy-workers must ensure that the condi-
1.15
tions for the emergence and continuation of excellence and
top-level performance exist or where necessary, are created.

For

its numerous

1.16
specific comments and detailed
recommendations the Committee would refer to the chapters
of this opinion set out below.

2. Introduction

2.1
In January 2000, the Commission adopted a Communi-
cation proposing the creation of a European Research Area
(ERA) (1). The Committee adopted a comprehensive and
supportive opinion (2) on the subject in which it addressed
problems of mobility and those aspects connected with a career
in science and suggested appropriate measures to deal with

these problems. The Committee has since discussed the subject
in opinions (3) on other Commission documents and suggested
appropriate measures.

In this communication the Commission — in the
2.2
context of
the Lisbon objectives and the decisive role of
research and development in achieving these — addresses the
important question of professional and career opportunities for
researchers in the European research area.

2.3
The Commission writes that ‘the Communication reveals
structural weaknesses as well as marked differences concerning
each of these elements, according to the sectors in which
researchers operate or the geographical,
legal, administrative
and cultural environments in which they work. These differ-
ences and the lack of openness of researchers' careers in
Europe, prevent the development of proper career perspectives
at European level as well as the emergence of a real employ-
ment market for researchers in Europe, whether considered
from a geographical, sectoral, or gender perspective. These
differences also have significant repercussions on the attractive-
ness of young people for careers in RD, as well as on the
overall public recognition of researchers’.

3. Content of the Commission Communication

The communication aims

3.1
to analyse the different
elements which characterise the profession and defines the
various factors which condition the development of researchers'
careers at European level, namely:
the role and nature of
research training, the differences in recruitment methods, the
contractual and budgetary dimension, and, finally, the evalua-
tion mechanisms and the progress perspectives within the
therefore very broad and
career. The communication is
comprehensive in its scope, making it extremely difficult to
give a brief summary of its content - where this is not specifi-
cally discussed below.

The communication deals, inter alia, with the following

3.2
main themes:

a

researcher;

political background; definition of
career
prospects; workforce needs; public recognition of careers in
R&D; pathways between academia and industry; European
dimension; gender differences; factors shaping careers in R&D;
research training; environment; doctoral programmes; recruit-
ment methods; employment and working conditions; deregula-
tion in the academic career system; remuneration as career
incentives; need for alternative tenure opportunities; evaluation
systems; proposed actions and initiatives.

(1) COM(2000) 6 final, 18.1.2000
(2) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000

(3) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001 and OJ C 95, 23.4.2003

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/5

As part of the proposed measures and initiatives the

3.3
Commission will, inter alia:

apparatus) and infrastructure. It also entails a demanding phase,
extending over a period of years, of building the teams involved
and getting them up to speed, while also requiring the neces-
sary budgets for the scientific exploitation of these resources.

— set up a High Level Group in order to identify more exam-
ples of good practice related to different employment
opportunities, such as intersectoral mobility or new tenure
track models, and disseminate them widely to the research
community;

4.4
Political and business decisions are needed to conduct
research on a broad and long-term basis, to provide sufficient
resources to this end and to guarantee planning certainty. The
latter factor in particular plays a decisive part in motivating
young people to seek a career in research,
in obtaining,
retaining and making optimum use of human resources.

i.e.

— launch the development of
Charter’, a framework for
human resources in R&D, based on voluntary regulation;

the ‘European Researcher's
for

the career management

— outline

a

‘Code of

recruitment of
researchers’ based on best practice, to improve recruitment
methods.

conduct

the

for

4. General comments

4.1
The ESC is extremely pleased that in its communication
the Commission addresses the important and in the past
neglected issue of research careers. The Committee entirely
agrees with the Commission that ‘human resources are to a
large extent the key of research efforts, excellence and perfor-
mances’, and it supports the Commission in its objective of
tackling this problem in a Community context. The Committee
pointed out in an earlier opinion (4) that human capital is the
most sensitive and the most valuable resource for research and
development and that it therefore supports the Commission's
efforts to enhance human resources. The Committee sees a
need for clear improvements here and is glad that the Commis-
sion intends to act.

As well as the researchers

4.2
themselves, society also
invests in the acquisition by researchers of the necessary broad
and demanding basic and advanced specialised knowledge.
Policy-makers, on behalf of society, thereby take on responsi-
to the best
bility for ensuring that
this investment
include providing researchers with
possible use. This must
appropriate career paths with attractive opportunities
for
branching out, without the danger of finding themselves at a
dead end. The Committee supports the Commission in its
efforts to carry out this task.

is put

But

the Committee also points out

4.3
that successful
research and development requires appropriate, competitive,
(large
and unfortunately also often expensive equipment

(4) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000

4.5
The Committee is therefore very concerned that these
conditions are currently not being adequately met, if at all, in
many Member States. Apart from the well known and serious
economic consequences of this, this failure is also the source of
a worrying brain drain (5), with the best young researchers
leaving, usually for the USA.

The Committee

therefore urgently appeals

4.6
to the
Council, the Parliament and the Commission, but particularly
to the Member States, to honour their commitments, e.g. those
entered into at the Barcelona European Council, and increase
investment in research and technological development (RTD) to
3 % of GDP by 2010 and at the same time ensure planning
certainty and research freedom — particularly with a view to
sufficient fundamental research (6). Investment in research and
development which bears comparison with competing econo-
mies (7)
is the basic precondition for achieving the Lisbon
objectives, i.e. making the European Union the most competi-
tive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by
2010.

4.7
The Committee would draw attention to its earlier
recommendation (8) that increasing Community R&D invest-
ment by 50 % be made a medium-term policy objective for the
period after the sixth R&D framework programme.

This must obviously be complemented by effective
4.8
measures designed (i) to acquaint young people with science
and research and (ii) to give greater weight to the teaching of
science, technology and mathematics in school curricula and to
present these subjects in an attractive way. Research and devel-
opment are the foundation of our current way of life and they
sow the seeds of future innovation, prosperity and peace (9).

(5) A two-way movement of scientists between Europe and,

for
example, the USA is of course extremely useful and sensible from
the point of view of exchange of experience and networking of
knowledge and methods. This should not, however, be a one-sided
brain drain of the best young scientists, of the kind encouraged by
the present situation. In this way economic value is not added in
the EU, where the heavy investment in training was made; instead it
benefits a competing economy

(6) See also point 4.1.1.3.
(7) ‘Dual purpose’ R&D investment in general scientific and technolo-
gical research part-funded from the defence budget (e.g. USA) is an
important component of this kind of comparison.

(8) OJ C 260, 17.9.2001
(9) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, points 3.2.3 and 3.2.4

C 110/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

4.9
There is, however, insufficient public awareness of the
importance of, preconditions for, and scope of this issue. Its
importance is also insufficiently reflected in school curricula
and teaching.

objectives set out
in the communication to be met. The
Committee considers the development of analytical studies,
referred to several times in the communication, to be poten-
tially helpful in individual cases but by no means sufficient.

talented young people to opt

As the Commission rightly points out, the motivation
4.10
of
for an academic training
leading to a career in research, and the subsequent career deci-
sions of trained scientists as to the institution or country where
they wish to work also depend on social attitudes and the
importance which society attaches to these activities.

4.15
Rather, the right political steps are needed, particularly
on the part of the Member States. The communication contains
no specific proposals to this end, however, or any discussion of
the legal basis.

4.11
The value attached to research is reflected not only in
public opinion but also in the continuity, reliability and firm-
ness of political and business decisions. This is true both at
Community level and especially in the Member States. Human
resources, material resources and work opportunities offering
the necessary scope for career development and their financing
are closely interconnected factors (10).

4.12
If the will is there, if the necessary material conditions
are met and the decision is taken to promote research and
development at Community level and in the Member States (11),
to reward researchers appropriately and to make a special
effort in those Member States in which catching-up is needed,
it will be easier to solve the other problems highlighted in the
‘These differences and the lack
Commission's communication:
of openness of researchers' careers in Europe, prevent
the
development of proper career perspectives at European level as
for
well as the emergence of a real employment market
researchers in Europe, whether considered from a geographical,
sectoral, or gender perspective’.

4.13
Careers in research in the European Research Area
necessarily require mobility and flexibility. This should not,
however, be at the expense of personal and family living condi-
tions and social benefits. The Committee therefore supports the
Commission in its objective of working towards a solution for
the associated problems, and calling for/guaranteeing an appro-
priate and internationally competitive contractual status for
researchers.

4.16
Calling for specific measures does not, however, imply
over-regulation and resulting restrictions on the freedom to
shape individual approaches or allow competition between
alternative approaches.

4.17
The Committee therefore also recommends that the
experience already accumulated in the implementation of
thematic actions under the R&D and EURATOM framework
programmes, the Socrates and Marie Curie programmes and
the mobility programme (12) be exploited more than hitherto,
and that in particular the experiences and problems of scientists
with a ‘European’ career already behind them be taken into
account. Possible legal obstacles (13) should be tackled at an
early stage and appropriate solutions identified.

5. Specific comments

5.1 Chapter 2: Definition of a researcher

5.1.1
the content of Chapter 2 of the Commission communication.

The Committee concurs with and endorses most of

5.1.1.1
The Committee understands why the Commission
has used the OECD's definition of research from the 2002 Fras-
cati Handbook: ‘Research and experimental development (R&D)
comprise creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in
order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge
of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowl-
edge to devise new applications.

4.14
The Committee on the whole supports the measures
and initiatives proposed and planned by the Commission. It
doubts, however, whether they will be sufficient to enable the

(10) See, for example, Jürgen Enders (Ed.): Academic Staff in Europe.
Changing Contexts and Conditions (2001), Westport, CT: Green-
wood Press, 2001

(11) See also Committee Opinion OJ C95, 23.4.2003 on the Commis-
sion Communication – More Research for Europe – Towards 3 %
of GDP.

5.1.1.2
the
The Committee nonetheless proposes
Commission revise the definition particularly in view of the
Lisbon objectives — to include key concepts such as science/
nature and technology.

that

(12) The experience of institutions in the Member States, such as the

Humboldt Foundation, should also be exploited.

(13) European Court Reports 1996, p. II-02041; IA-00553, II-01471

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/7

5.1.1.3
The decisive importance of sufficient non-commer-
cial primary fundamental research (14) should be spelled out.
The greatest discoveries are not the result of specific goals but
rather of attempts to reveal the laws of nature. Being able to do
this with adequate resources and free of political interference is
not only an important part of the fundamental freedom of
research, but also — in an appropriate balance with targeted
research and development — a precondition for future progress
and prosperity.

In this connection the Committee would refer to its
5.1.1.4
earlier recommendation (15) supporting all measures which help
to reduce the polarisation between the humanities, social
sciences and economics on the one hand and sciences/tech-
nology on the other, and bring them closer together. This also
includes two-way dialogue on issues such as methodology,
conceptualisation, and the evaluation and verification of results.

5.1.1.5 Moreover, knowledge should not only be broadened
but also deepened. The Committee recommends that
these
comments be taken into consideration when revising the defini-
tion.

5.1.1.6
The Committee also notes that the Commission's
proposed definition of a researcher makes no mention of the
high degree of proven knowledge, ability and independence
required in order to qualify for the description ’researcher‘.

the

5.1.1.7
suggests
The Committee
following slightly
’Experts engaged in the
amended definition of researchers:
conception or creation of new knowledge, products, processes,
methods and systems, and in the management of the projects
concerned,
their
training and experience‘.

for which they are qualified by virtue of

5.1.1.8 Where not otherwise
to
researchers should be taken to mean scientists or engineers
with the requisite qualifications.

references

specified,

5.1.2
The Committee would refer to the description of
research and development which it formulated in an earlier
opinion (16). In line with this description, the Committee also
supports the Commission's intention of not restricting too
greatly the possible career variants and paths in the R&D area.

5.1.3
Nevertheless, the Committee cannot in general concur
with the statement that ’any of those careers will have to be
treated and valued on equal footing‘. Rather, the important
thing is to identify and recruit particularly inventive and crea-
tive (potential) researchers — in order to achieve the expected
knowledge gain and economic added value for Europe — and
to retain them. To do this exceptional opportunities and incen-
tives will have to be created.

the construction of
is

(14) Here too very expensive large equipment,

which itself requires pioneering technological achievements,
often needed.

(15) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, point 3.9.1
(16) See OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, point 4.7:

’Research is a step into the
unknown and the approaches adopted by the individual or by the
group vary and complement each other according to need, talent
and temperament. 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 mathematical models,
developing the necessary concepts and symbols, developing and
building new equipment,
simple solutions and
harmony. But it is also confirming, making sure, expanding, gener-
alising and reproducing.‘

searching for

5.1.4
But these outstanding abilities and pioneering achieve-
ments are particularly difficult to pinpoint using conventional
assessment models, which are moreover open to abuse.

One source of difficulties is the behaviour of certain
5.1.4.1
authors who tend to quote each other in publications, forming
a ’citation cartel‘ and thus procuring advantages for themselves
in any schematic assessment.

5.1.4.2 Moreover,
in some cases major discoveries have
been published, recognised and quoted in the literature only
after a certain delay.

5.1.4.3
Personality cannot be accurately assessed in a
formal, schematic way. Rather, we must call on the experience
and knowledge of the leading representatives of each branch of
the scientific community in which achievements are being
made or are expected (although even then mistakes, sometimes
of historic proportions, are made).

5.1.5
In this context, with regard to the ’code of conduct for
the recruitment of researchers‘ proposed by the Commission
it be
(see point 5.2.5),
ensured that its — admittedly voluntary — application does
not lead to over-regulation and thus rigidity.

the Committee recommends that

The Committee does not deny,

5.1.5.1
indeed it stresses,
that transparency and equality of opportunity must be ensured
for all applicants within the EU and above all the proportion of
women applicants increased. In this context it acknowledges
the potential usefulness of a code of this kind in achieving this
important objective.

5.1.5.2
In view of the very varied requirements for their
respective tasks and the different cultures of leading research
organisations (17), however, the Committee recommends that
the experience and knowledge of the relevant scientific com-
munity be exploited to complement formal, generalised assess-
ment methods and recruitment procedures. Ultimately, it has to
be ensured that European research institutions are attractive
enough and that they have the will and the opportunity, as
well as the scientific and administrative tools,
to compete
successfully against global competition for the world's best
brains.

The Committee therefore recommends that indivi-
5.1.5.3
dual instances where the wrong approach has been adopted or
where mistakes have been made be dealt with on a case-by-
case basis, and that general (over-)regulation be used only as a
last resort.

(17) Thus for example, at the Max Planck Institute scientists are not
usually sought and recruited by way of vacancy notices. The aim,
rather, is to recruit the most suitable candidate for the task in ques-
tion from among those scientists well known in the worldwide
community for their achievements.

C 110/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

5.1.6
The concept of ’equality of opportunity‘ is therefore
in view of differences within the
also difficult to interpret
Member States and within the research fields, and a more flex-
ible approach is therefore required.

reduce efficiency but usually also lead to over-detailed, unclear
and in some cases mutually contradictory requirements and
decisions.

5.1.7 With regard to the categories of research addressed,
such as fundamental research, strategic research etc., and the
definition of these, the Committee would refer to the recom-
mendation made in earlier opinions (18), particularly with
regard to the internationally accepted concept of
’applied
research‘ which ought to be used (19), and it recommends that
this question be re-examined at the appropriate time by a
group of experts.

5.1.8 O t h e r a sp e cts of r e se a r ch c a r e e r s

5.1.8.1
Actual research activity, i.e. work on scientific and
involves related planning, entrepre-
technological problems,
neurial, administrative and assessment tasks, which to a large
extent can only be performed by scientists.

These include programme proposals, application
5.1.8.2
procedures, reporting, publications, personnel decisions and
related (active and passive) assessment procedures.

If, however, these tasks are required in an uncoordi-
5.1.8.3
nated way of too many institutions and sponsors participating
in the programme, in different formats and degrees of detail
and with different timetables, the work involved will take up
more of researchers' time than their actual research work.

5.1.8.4
In view of the proliferation of application, assess-
ment and monitoring procedures, the Committee recommends
that the Commission look into this question and work out
coordinated procedures which strike a sensible balance and
prevent
a welter of paper-generating but unproductive
activity (20). Any over-bureaucratisation of research must at all
costs be reduced.

Here the Committee would recommend that

5.1.8.5
the
Commission also take a fresh look at its own application and
award procedures and the criteria associated with these. The
scientific community is often critical of these, and it is often
asked whether such applications in view of the substantial
amount of work involved and the very low success rate are still
worth making. Also, procedures and criteria (e.g. for the award
of grants) should not be changed too often.

5.1.8.6
It is also important to prevent the emergence of too
many separate vertical (as well as horizontal/parallel) approval
and guidance bodies (and procedures), as this will not only

(18) INT 197, CESE 1588/2003 of 10.12.2003, points 4.5.3 and 4.5.5
(19) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000. See points 7.1 and 7.1.1:
’Research and
development basically form a system embracing different research
categories and thus also stages of scientific development of poten-
tial new technologies: basic research, application-oriented research,
‘encyclopaedic’ research (e.g. to complete our knowledge about
substance properties, new substances, active substances, etc.), tech-
nological development and product and process development
(…)The distinction between these research categories is sometimes
an artificial one, and innovation results from interaction and cross-
fertilisation between them.‘

(20) See also OJ C 95, 23.4.2003, Appendix, points 8 et seq.

5.2 Chapter 3: Prospects for careers

5.2.1
Prospective workforce needs in R&D: the Committee
shares the Commission's concern about the clear and worrying
discrepancy between macroeconomic analyses and forecasts
(’job opportunities for thousands of researchers‘) on the one
hand and less favourable actual labour market opportunities or
lack of opportunities on the other. Most universities and
research institutions are at present actually experiencing reduc-
tions in private and public-sector budgets and are therefore
unwilling to recruit new staff, and even less willing to offer
long-term employment contracts.

5.2.1.1
maceuticals
researchers in Europe (21).

industry,

Even industry, e.g. the very research-intensive phar-
young

in keeping

difficulty

has

5.2.1.2 Moreover, publicly funded universities and research
institutions are required by their funding bodies to employ a
scientists on a series of
their
significant proportion of
temporary contracts, so as to be able to react more quickly to
budget cuts or imposed programme changes.

In this connection, the Committee would highlight
5.2.2
another important aspect: scientists working in academia or
publicly funded research institutions are usually paid in accord-
ance with public-sector pay scales.

These rates of pay are generally significantly lower
5.2.2.1
the
than in the private sector. The Committee endorses
’Salaries constitute one of the
Commission's statement that:
most visible issues of career recognition. Salaries of researchers
seem to have fallen behind, for example in comparison with
those who are engaged in management positions‘.

5.2.2.2
Lower public-sector pay scales are normally justified
by the generally greater security of public-sector careers (civil
servant, teacher, judge etc.).

5.2.3 Many scientists are, however, deliberately denied this
higher level of job security on grounds of greater flexibility in
the planning of research, budgeting and personnel policy.

5.2.3.1
This disadvantage is, however, by no means counter-
balanced by other advantages or guarantees. A further problem
is that salary ranges are not sufficiently wide to take proper
account of performance and commitment.

(21) Interview with Dr. D. Vasella, chairman of Novartis (Austria) –

Standard 26.1.2004, p. 3

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/9

5.2.3.2
It would, however, be wrong to seek to impose
temporary contracts, with all their consequences, in order to
achieve the flexibility and mobility which is genuinely needed
in the research field, while pay also remains inadequate.

of the best are later offered a research post or junior lecture-
ship.

5.2.3.3 What is therefore actually needed is more appro-
priate rates of pay, with the range substantially extended at the
upper (and only the upper) end and greater flexibility for adap-
tation to individual cases. This would make it possible to
achieve the objectives referred to above by incentive. Universi-
ties and research institutions therefore need more post-doctoral
openings with reliable tenure track conditions. The current lack
of appropriate opportunities and career prospects,
together
with the risk of unemployment, are the main reason why the
best researchers are currently seeking to build their future in
the USA (22) and are hardly likely to return.

5.2.3.4
The problem has hitherto been compounded in the
case of scientific researchers who have to undergo a long
period of
training (doctorate, qualification as university
lecturer). Here change is urgently needed if research is to be
made attractive as a career.

5.2.3.5
young research scientists is the fact that initially

A typically (23) discouraging feature of the ’career‘ of

they are
and again after every change of job or ’career move‘
often given temporary contracts (24) (e.g. for a total of up to 12
years).

5.2.3.6
Once these contracts end, which in most cases has
nothing to do with unsatisfactory performance but is, rather,
dictated by administrative rules or rules on staff rotation and
researchers consequently risk
particularly by budget cuts,
having to abandon their research careers, or in many cases
even becoming unemployed.

5.2.3.7
Researchers with this kind of contract therefore run
the risk of reaching a career dead end at an age (e.g. around
40) where changing direction and making a new start on the
labour market is already extremely difficult, in part because of
industry recruitment policies which favour recent graduates.

It should also be pointed out

5.2.3.8
these same
research scientists have often passed a strict, multi-stage selec-
tion procedure, as only the best are offered the opportunity to
undertake doctoral research after graduation and only the best

that

(22) Even among scientists from Russia, India or China, for example,
working in EU research institutions, there is a tendency for the
successful ones to accept job offers from the USA after a few years.
(23) The career profile outlined here may not apply in all Member

States.

(24) In some cases this is complicated still

further by employment

protection rules.

In order to achieve competence and efficiency,

let
5.2.3.9
alone a leading position in a particular area of science, indivi-
duals and groups must
first undertake demanding further
training and work experience, usually over a period of years.

5.2.3.10
Furthermore, it is often necessary to develop and
set up costly equipment and to establish a stimulating research
climate, with all the associated organisational structures. This
heavy investment in human capital and the necessary research
infrastructure is another result of research which, in addition to
the actual research findings, would be available for further
exploitation.

5.2.4
Unemployment among well trained research scientists
is therefore not only a social problem but also a loss to the
economy of financial and human resources.

It

to opt

is not only demotivating for

5.2.4.1
the researchers
affected or liable to be affected, but also a disincentive to
students, when considering their field of study and future
for a difficult and demanding discipline. A
career,
further demotivating factor
is the gap between enticingly
upbeat public pronouncements and the off-putting — and in
some Member States almost disastrous — reality of the labour
market and career prospects.

5.2.4.2
In this sense, the fact that many scientists, particu-
larly young scientists, at present seek and find job opportunities
suited to their abilities outside the EU, above all in the USA, is
in fact to be welcomed, at least for as long as European institu-
tions are unable to offer them appropriate openings. The fact
that this is enormously damaging to the EU and highly advan-
tageous to the host country should be made clearer in policy-
making circles and to the general public.

5.2.4.3
The lack of economic attractiveness and considerable
social risks of a career in research may be one of the reasons
why, even at secondary school stage, so few children are inter-
ested in science and mathematics.

It

is therefore hardly surprising, at

times when
5.2.4.4
research scientists are in demand,
there is a sudden
perceived lack of human capital (see basic underlying premise
of the Commission communication).

that

C 110/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

5.2.5
As the Commission points out, it is therefore essential
in the interests of the career prospects of researchers and for
the achievement of the 3 % target (25), to reduce the apparent
divergence between economic needs in the EU on the one hand
and microeconomic and fiscal behaviour (e.g. government), and
the resulting personnel policies, on the other.

5.2.5.1
Research should therefore not be regarded in a
proprietorial way. It should not be a prey to short-term policy
constraints. Good and successful
experiments or budget
research must be long-term and should not be started, ended or
redirected on a whim, e.g. as a result of economic cycles,
budget crises or current political or planning trends; rather, it
requires continuity, freedom and certainty. Only then will it be
possible to eliminate the problems outlined above and prevent
them occurring in the future.

As the Commission states,

there is moreover an
5.2.5.2
urgent need for
for
branching out in order to avoid this kind of career dead-end,
and instead to offer young people facing a career choice attrac-
tive and secure prospects.

suitable curricula and opportunities

5.2.5.3
It would also be helpful to promote greater mobility
towards industry (see point 5.4) and teaching (e.g. making it
possible to employ researchers for whom no stable employ-
ment is available at universities or publicly funded research
institutions as teachers with research experience in higher
educational
institutions, particularly in view of the frequent
lack of suitably trained staff with research experience).

5.2.6
measures set out in the Commission's communication:

The Committee therefore particularly welcomes the

— Set up a High Level Group in order to identify more exam-
ples of good practice related to different employment
opportunities, such as intersectoral mobility or new tenure
track models, and disseminate them widely to the research
community.

— Launch the development of
Charter‘, a framework for
human resources in R&D, based on voluntary regulation.

the ’European Researcher's
for

the career management

— Launch impact

studies

to assess and benchmark the

multiple career paths of researchers.

— Outline a ’Code of conduct

recruitment of
researchers‘ based on best practise, to improve recruitment
methods.

the

for

However, the Committee recommends that its comments on
these issues be taken into account.

(25) OJ C 95, 23.4.2003

The Committee recommends

5.2.6.1
the initiatives
launched in some Member States (26) in higher education be
extended to non-university research organisations, and that
care be taken to check whether the measures (27) actually lead
to the hoped-for improvements.

that

5.3 Chapter 3.2: The public recognition of careers in R&D

5.3.1
Public recognition of research is an extraordinarily
important factor. The Committee wholeheartedly endorses the
Commission's statement that ’The issue of public support for
researchers is clearly linked to the ways science is perceived as
a means to contribute to the development of society‘.

5.3.2
The Committee also endorses the other points made
in Chapter 3.2 of the communication. It would also point out,
however, that the problems and difficulties of a career in Euro-
pean research, which the Commission communication sets out
to overcome, are connected with the still unrealised completion
of the internal market and are not sufficiently understood by
the public, or in many cases even by politicians. There is there-
fore a particular need for politicians to be properly informed.

5.3.3
It would, however, be an oversimplification to seek
the nub of the problem in a lack of public understanding and
recognition of the importance of research and development.

5.3.4
Although it is true that the public are in general not
sufficiently aware of the extent to which their prosperity is
based on past research and development achievements,
the
majority of people do nonetheless have a degree of respect for
researchers and their abilities.

5.3.5
The real problem is ensuring that politicians make
consistent efforts to improve the personal and professional
situation of researchers and to eliminate the disadvantages
referred to above. The problems referred to above may also
contribute to the lack of appreciation of researchers.

Ensuring that the necessary political will

5.3.6
is there is
unfortunately made more difficult by the fact that the promo-
tion of research and development, and thus of careers in
research, does not generally enjoy the kind of media coverage
and hence public awareness which is needed in political terms;
another problem is that researchers are too few in number to
defend their professional and social interests in a sufficiently
forceful and organised way.

5.3.7
Another related problem is the fact that the time lag
between investment in research and development and tangible
economic and cultural benefits is rather long and usually
exceeds society's political attention span; also that the impor-
tance and potential of new discoveries usually filter only gradu-
ally into the public awareness rather than emerging suddenly
and dramatically.

(26) e.g. the Lichtenberg programme of the Volkswagen Foundation
(27) e.g. Juniorprofessur in Germany (Translator's note:

’junior profes-
sorship‘ – a new class of university teaching/research post intro-
duced under the reform of Germany's Hochschulrahmengesetz
(higher education framework law) open to newly qualified PhDs
and leading eventually to full tenure. It replaces the existing system
of post-doctoral lectureships.)

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/11

5.3.8
The Committee therefore fully supports the Commis-
sion's statement that: ’In order to raise the political significance
of research as crucial to the development of society, the link
between the content of research and the net benefit to society
must be clearly highlighted. Likewise, society should be better
placed to recognise the role of research, the relevance of doing
research and the value of careers in R&D.‘ Society should also
be aware of the necessary operational conditions for excellent
research.

5.4.4
But here too there is a need to ensure both national
and European compatibility and portability/recognition of the
various components of social security (such as sickness insur-
retirement provision, qualifying
ance,
periods of work conferring pension rights,
recognition of
previous periods of pensionable service etc.).

invalidity insurance,

5.4 Chapter 3.3 Pathways between academia industry

5.4.1
On this subject the Commission states that: ’Collabora-
tive partnerships between academia and industry or private and
public funded research organisations have emerged as a critical
imperative necessary to sustain transfer of knowledge and inno-
vation but it is still unclear how to structure such relationships,
let alone how to exchange personnel or to promote common
training programmes.‘ The Committee endorses this statement
to a great extent, although it no longer regards the situation
quite so critically.

5.4.2
However, the Committee also recognises the need for
further improvements and for a better mutual understanding of
working methods and career criteria.

An important question in relation to the desired
5.4.2.1
curricula is why industry, when recruiting scientists and engi-
neers, generally prefers recent graduates rather than experts
with years of additional research experience, although their
superior knowledge would accelerate the knowledge transfer of
the most up-to-date methods and procedures.

5.4.2.2
The Committee here reiterates its previous recom-
mendation (28) that the existing mobility programme (’industry
host fellowships‘) be modified and stepped up, to provide those
willing to consider this option with definite incentives for the
required mobility, making sufficiently long exchange periods
possible, and long-term exchange attractive for both sides. This
could also create an incentive for industry to recruit older,
experienced scientists.

Finally, it should be recognised that there are different
5.4.5
kinds of gift and ability, some of which are particularly useful
to industry where they can develop to the full, and others
which are more suitable to a scientific university environment.

5.5 The European dimension of careers in R&D (Chapter 3.4)

This chapter contains a detailed analysis of the opportunities,
tasks and problems inherent in this aspect of research careers.

5.5.1
The opportunities are to be found in a significantly
enlarged employment market, which is particularly important
for highly specialised experts, as well as being personally and
economically important. Moreover, the importance of more
European research careers should be stressed in achieving the
Commission's objective (29), which the Committee supports, of
’a stock of material resources and facilities at the European
level‘.

5.5.2
The risk is whether professional experience accumu-
lated in another Member State will be appreciated and recog-
nised on the ’home market‘, with consequent career advantages,
as well as in the lack of compatibility/portability/recognition of
the various aspects of social security (such as sickness insur-
retirement provision, qualifying
ance,
periods of work conferring pension rights,
recognition of
previous periods of pensionable service etc.).

invalidity insurance,

This

5.5.3
requires appropriate measures ensuring that
changes of employer and place/Member State of employment,
and movements between publicly funded research institutions
in various Member States and industry etc., which are a typical
and desirable feature of the career of a ’European‘ researcher,
should not, as has often been the case in the past, be disadvan-
tageous in relation to the requirements outlined above.

In individual cases there has been progress. The obsta-
5.4.3
cles described in the communication are,
less
significant in relations between industry and technically orien-
tated higher educational or research institutions.

for example,

5.5.4
Specific solutions need to be identified and imple-
mented if the objectives set in the Commission's communica-
tion are to be achieved.

(28) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000, point 8.2.2

(29) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000, point 9.6

C 110/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Apart

relevant

from implementing the

5.5.5
research
programmes, it is therefore also necessary to make allowance
for the personal circumstances typical of a career in European
research, inter alia in relation to: pension arrangements, sick-
ness insurance(!), the cost of removals, estate agents' fees, house
purchase and renovation costs, children's education,
family
cohesion(!), unemployment and invalidity insurance, retirement
provision, as well as tax-related (30) questions. Many existing
laws, e.g. taxes on land purchase, are unfavourable to mobility.

A pan-European system of

5.5.5.1
retirement pensions
should, in particular, be established or, where already adopted,
actually applied, so that pension rights can be retained in full
or transferred on changing employer or Member State, without
any overall financial loss to the researcher.

5.5.5.2
Another general problem is the researcher's spouse's
or partner's job. In order not to jeopardise family cohesion,
efforts should be made to identify or create suitable employ-
ment opportunities for partners. An official strategy (31) should
be drawn up in this area.

5.5.6
This view is shared to a great extent by the Commis-
sion, which writes in its communication: ’Finally, the promo-
tion of the European dimension in R&D careers needs to be
embedded in a structured and co-ordinated legal framework at
European level which should guarantee researchers and their
families a high level of social security thus minimising the risk
(Committee's comment:
the risk should be eliminated!) of
losing already acquired social security rights. Within this
context researchers should be able to benefit from the ongoing
work at EU level aiming to modernise and simplify the co-ordi-
nation of the social security systems … In this framework the
specific needs of researchers and their families should be taken
fully into account.‘

The Committee nonetheless recommends that, as long
5.5.7
as these objectives have not been achieved or until
the
proposed arrangements have entered into force, the relevant
mobility programmes and their provisions be developed in
such a way that they not only compensate for existing disad-
vantages but actually create additional, further-reaching incen-
tives. Incentives of this kind are necessary both in order to
make a European research career attractive even for top scien-
tists and in order perhaps to attract such scientists (back) from
the USA after all, for example.

5.5.8
In order to make the expansion of the limited employ-
ment market (for scientists/researchers) arising from the realisa-
tion of the European Research Area even more effective, the
Committee recommends that the Commission systematically
develop and improve its existing Internet platform (32) — so as
to ensure that all relevant job offers in the EU by research insti-
tutions, projects and universities as well as firms are listed in an
organised way and with sufficient detail. (This should also be
stipulated in the ’Charter‘.) The Committee proposes that
contact be made with institutions performing this task in the
Member States.

5.6 Doctoral research, doctoral degrees

The Commission addresses the issue of doctoral researchers.
The Committee considers that there are a number of questions
involved here, namely (i) the role and situation of doctoral
researchers and (ii) the need for doctoral-level scientists/engi-
neers/researchers.

5.6.1
In order to be offered the opportunity to undertake a
doctoral research programme, a candidate usually needs a first-
class degree.

5.6.2
Accordingly, obtaining a doctorate can be regarded on
the one hand as a further stage of academic training, and on
the other above all as a passport to an independent research
career.

5.6.3
Doctoral theses also entail the acquisition of other
important general skills, such as the ability to carry out in-
depth research,
the ability to present particularly complex
issues clearly in writing and orally, and, in the field of science
and technology, and particularly in an international environ-
ment, use of the English language.

Doctoral

researchers, as the ’rank and file‘ (33) of
5.6.4
academic research, make an essential and significant contribu-
tion to research activity and thus to the objective of universities
and similar research institutions.

Doctoral

therefore have a strong but
5.6.5
usually unfulfilled claim to have their work (34) recognised as a
fully-fledged professional activity (pay, social benefits).

researchers

(30) In some Member States researchers even have to pay tax on the

reimbursement of mobility expenses!

(31) In recognition of the problem, a joint event is, for example, being
held by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Stifterver-
band für die deutsche Wissenschaft on the subject of dual careers.
See also www.kowi.de and www.dfg.de/wissenschaftliche_karriere/
focus/doppelkarriere_paare/index.html

(32) http://europa.eu.int/eracareers/index_en.cfm
(33) The term is graphic but not always accurate. Doctoral theses may
contain outstanding pioneering work. In individual cases they have
in the past contained Nobel Prize-winning discoveries (e.g. Möss-
bauer, Nobel Prize 1961, R.A. Hulse, Nobel Prize 1993).

(34) As long as it is the main, rather than a subsidiary, professional

activity.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/13

tant criterion is whether that country has attractive institutions
of excellence in their field, where they can work alongside the
most successful scientists, who serve as role models and set
standards.

5.7.2
Society and politicians must therefore ensure that the
conditions are in place, or are created, to nurture excellence
and top-level performance.

5.7.3
However, excellence and the creation of elites are the
result of a complex, laborious and lengthy process of develop-
ment and selection which follows its own rules and depends on
the conjunction of many important and interlinked factors.

5.7.4
Decisive among these are the outstanding examples
set by particularly successful researchers, the attractiveness of
facilities, management which fosters creativity and a wealth of
ideas, the feeling of being involved in discovery or development
and the reasonable expectation of all concerned to be able to
develop their own potential and to contribute their own ideas,
thereby gaining recognition.

5.7.5
All this can only develop and thrive on the basis of
solid, broad and high-calibre university education combined
with a varied research environment
including a sufficient
amount of pure research.

5.8 A European Year of the Researcher

5.8.1
The Committee welcomes and endorses the Commis-
sion's intention to organise a European Year of the Researcher
in the near future.

5.8.2
The Committee sees this as a good opportunity to
promote the research profession and its importance for society
and the Lisbon objectives, as well as to strive for deeper mutual
understanding between civil society and the scientific com-
munity.

5.8.3
The Committee recommends involving the relevant
organisations in the Member States and scientific organisations
operating at European level in this task and declares its willing-
ness to play its own part in so doing.

The President

of the European Economic and Social
Committee

Roger BRIESCH

5.6.6
An inescapable feature of doctoral research is a degree
of dependence on a supervisor, who is largely responsible for
the assessment of the thesis.

5.6.6.1
The task and methods of supervisors should not,
however, go so far that they remove the incentive, or even the
need, for independent action on the part of the researcher,
which is after all a qualification for the job.

Although in most cases

5.6.6.2
the function and task
performed by the supervisor are extremely helpful, in individual
cases these may be abused. This may, for example, be a result
of the inadequate remuneration of the doctoral researchers,
leading to inappropriately heavy demands, essentially serving
the scientific interests of the supervisor, and resulting in an
excessively long period of research.

The Committee

5.6.7
the
therefore
Commission consider a code of conduct on the role and treat-
ment of doctoral researchers, that it initiate discussions on the
subject and that the results be incorporated into the Charter.

recommends

that

5.6.8
In its communication the Commission also states that:
’industry seems eager to employ researchers without doctoral
degrees, considering that those with a doctoral degree are too
specialised (35)‘.

Although it is a regrettable reality, and an obstacle to
5.6.9
mobility between academia and industry, that industry prefers
to recruit young recent graduates,
the Committee cannot
concur with this statement in its sweeping generality. In the
chemical industry in some Member States and other scientifi-
cally and technically orientated sectors a doctorate, and a good
one at that, if not an actual precondition for employment, is
generally at least an important requirement for a successful
career. (This does not generally apply to engineers.)

5.6.10
A doctorate is at all events a precondition for an
academic career, including a career in publicly funded research
institutions. (This does not generally apply to engineers.)

5.7 Scientific attractiveness and excellence

5.7.1 When young people opt for a career in research and
decide where they would eventually like to work, one impor-

Brussels, 25 February 2004

(35) This statement relates to the question of industry's recruitment
practices, discussed above. The practices referred to should be
studied in depth and where possible improved.