Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the communication from the Commission entitled ‘Europe and Basic Research’ (COM(2004) 9 final)
Date: 2004-02-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU research policy, European Union, Japan, basic research, scientific research

C 110/98

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the communication from the
Commission entitled ‘Europe and Basic Research’

(COM(2004) 9 final)

(2004/C 110/16)

On 14 January 2004, the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the Communication from the
Commission entitled ‘Europe and Basic Research’

The European Economic and Social Committee instructed its Section for the Single Market, Production and
Consumption to prepare its work on this subject.

In view of the urgent nature of the work, the EESC appointed
Mr Wolf as rapporteur-general at its 406th plenary session,
held on 25 and 26 February 2004 (meeting of 26 February
2004), at which it adopted the following opinion, by a unani-
mous vote:

1. Introduction and gist of the Commission's communica-

tion

1.1
For a long period it was the prevailing view amongst
both the Member States and also amongst the EU Institutions
that basic research was predominantly the responsibility of the
to
individual Member States, whilst
concentrate mainly on applied research and development work.
This standpoint was based on what was, with the benefit of
hindsight, a rather one-sided interpretation of Article 163 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community (1).

the Community was

1.2
An initial change, triggered by two pioneering actions
and decisions, came about at the beginning of 2000. Two
elements were of decisive importance in this context: on the
one hand, the Communication from the Commission entitled
‘Towards a European Research Area’ (2), which did not explicitly
describe basic research as an EU responsibility but made it clear
that this was the case; and on the other hand, the decisions
taken at the Lisbon European Council (3), which included, inter
alia, the ambitious and important objective of making the EU a
knowledge-based economy and society, whilst not, however,
explicitly stressing the
importance of basic
fundamental
research.

At much the same time, the EESC, in its opinion (4) on
1.3
the Communication from the Commission entitled ‘Towards a
European Research Area’, drew attention to the importance of
a balanced relationship, and the requisite interaction, between
basic research and applied R&D. In its opinion, the EESC expli-
citly urged that basic research for the purpose of broadening
our knowledge be adequately promoted, as such research was
the source of new discoveries, concepts and methods.

This view has

1.4
since gained widespread acceptance.
There is a clearer awareness of the need for a knowledge-based
the
economy and society,

together with a recognition of

(1) Incorporated, to a large extent, in the draft Constitution of 18 July

2003 in Article III - 146

(2) COM(2000) 6 final
(3) Lisbon European Council, held on 23 and 24 March 2000
(4) OJ C 204 of 18.7.2000

importance of making progress in all scientific disciplines,
including basic research,
if the Lisbon objectives are to be
achieved in reality.

1.5
Europe has undeniable strengths in basic research, too,
both at university level and in a number of special organisa-
tions (5). More initiatives should, however, be taken at Com-
munity level.

1.5.1
Historically, the first initiatives in the field of scientific
cooperation in (western) Europe concerned basic research
projects. This cooperation derived from the need to establish
centres for the use of large-scale facilities and to attain a critical
mass, the cost of which was beyond the financial capacity, or
exceeded the readiness to pay, of individual Member States.

Thus, CERN (high-energy physics) was founded in the
1.5.2
1950s,
establishment of ESO
and the 1960s
saw the
(astronomy), EMBO and EMBL (molecular biology) (6), together
with the Franco-German ILL (7). ESRF (8) was set up later. Large
experimental plants (9), exploited on a bilateral or multilateral
basis, have also been built in individual Member States in the
meantime.

1.5.3
Even European programmes which are particularly
high-tech and applications-oriented, such as space travel and
fusion research,
interact very closely with basic research and
require considerable input from such research.

(5) OJ C 204 of 18.7.2000
(6) CERN - European Organisation for Nuclear Research; (ESO) – Euro-
pean Southern Observatory; EMBO – European Molecular Biology
Organisation; EMBL – European Molecular Biology Laboratory

(7) Institute Laue-Langevin in Grenoble
(8) ESRF – European Synchrotron-Radiation facility, also based in

Grenoble

(9) e.g. DESY (German Electron Synchrotron), Hamburg

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/99

1.6
It has thus been possible to establish institutions which
have since assumed world-wide importance and have made a
decisive contribution towards establishing Europe's reputation
as a leading scientific area (10). Furthermore, these institutions
have a great impact on and serve as a magnet for a great
variety of research work carried out at universities and other
research institutes. This has led to the formation of valuable
cooperation networks, a vital prerequisite for the achievement
of joint success.

frequently covers

1.7
The research carried out by the European Science Foun-
dation (ESF), too, which is a non-specialised organisation set up
in the 1970s,
relatively basic research
subjects. The same applies to the work carried out under the
R&D framework programme of the EU; this work, which forms
part of the broader thematic actions undertaken by the EU, also
requires and includes an albeit relatively small degree of basic
research.

1.8
The Commission's Communication also addresses the
role, importance and current situation of basic research in the
European Research Area, and sets out observations on possible
measures to be taken by the Commission to promote basic
research in the EU not only much more intensively than in the
past but also on a systematic basis.

The Commission's Communication thus covers

1.9
following aspects of basic research:

the

— Basic research and its impact,

through foundations is limited.

1.10.2
Unlike in the USA, where the private sector has
always defended the idea of the need for public funding of
basic research (11), European industry has also for a long time
advocated giving priority to public funding for applied research
carried out by companies themselves. The importance of basic
research for economic competitiveness is, however, starting to
be recognised more and more in Europe, including by the busi-
ness world (for example the European Round Table of Industri-
alists).

1.11
The further measures referred to in the Commission's
proposal will also be based on the views expressed on this
issue by a large number of key figures, organisations and insti-
tutions, such as a group of 45 Nobel Prize winners, the Euro-
pean Science Foundation (ESF), the Association of Heads and
Presidents of National Research Councils (EuroHORCS) (12), the
Eurosciences Association, the Academia Europeae, the Euro-
pean Research Advisory Board (EURAB) and an Adhoc Group
of individuals (ERCEG) set up following the conference on the
European Research Council (ERC) held in Copenhagen on 7
and 8 October 2002 under the Danish presidency of
the
Council of the EU (13).

1.12
the first quarter of 2004, namely:

The Commission is thus planning follow-up action in

— a broad debate on the Commission's Communication
within the scientific community and the groups concerned,
in conjunction with the reflections on a European Research
Council;

— a debate at the political level within the Council and the
the Commission's

European Parliament on the basis of
Communication.

— The situation worldwide and in Europe,

2. General comments

— Basic research at EU level,

— Prospects

— Next steps.

The

EESC expressly welcomes

the Commission's
2.1
Communication and the observations and planned measures set
out in this Communication. In giving its endorsement to the
Commission's Communication,
the EESC would also draw
attention to its recent opinions on R&D in which it has drawn
attention time and again (14) to the need, in the light of the
objectives set at the Lisbon European Council, for the EU to
promote basic research adequately – i.e. much more than it has
done hitherto.

1.10
the Commission notes the following:

As regards the situation of basic research in Europe,

1.10.1
In Europe, the private sector is relatively inactive in
basic research. Only a few companies have strong research
capabilities in this field, and their activities generally tend to
the funding of research
focus on applied R&D. Moreover,

(10) The EESC also draws attention to the fact that the revolutionary
Worldwide Web communications system, which forms the basis
for the Internet, is a development pioneered by CERN which was
originally intended to be used only for the transfer of scientific data
between laboratories participating in its research.

(11) See the report on ‘America's Basic Research: Prosperity Through
Discovery’ of the Committee for Economic Development, which
comprises representatives of the major industrial groups. There are,
however, companies in the USA, such as IBM or Bell Labs, which
continue to be extensively engaged in basic research, and, albeit to
a decreasing extent, in very basic research.

(12) EuroHORCS: European Heads of Research Councils, EURAB: Euro-
pean Research Advisory Board, ERCEG: The European Research
Council Expert Group, Chair: Professor Federico Mayor.

(13) On 15 December 2003 the Danish Minister for Research sent his
EU colleagues copies of the final report drawn up by the Expert
Group. In its report the Expert Group endorsed the establishment
of a European Fund for Basic Research which would be funded
primarily from new resources made available under the research
framework programme of the EU and which would be adminis-
tered by the European Research Council.

(14) OJ C 221 of 7.8.2001 (see points 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.4 and

4.4.5).

C 110/100

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

for

the

2.2
The EESC supports, in particular, the Commission's call
for the research budget of the EU to be substantially boosted.
In so doing it would especially refer to its opinion (15) on the
Sixth R&D Framework
Commission's proposal
Programme and its recommendation that
the overall R&D
budget of the EU be increased by 50 % in the medium term
(with reference to the budget of EU-15). The EESC also
supports the Commission's intention to follow the recommen-
dations of the Mayor Group and to make increased support for
basic research one of
the EU's future
research measures. In this context, the EESC would draw atten-
tion to the alarming indicators produced by the Commission
which show that the gulf between the EU and, for example, the
USA in the scientific and research fields is even still expanding.

the focal points of

2.3
The EESC also endorses the initial observations on the
establishment of a ‘European Scientific Council’, which could
assume responsibility at EU level for the tasks carried out at
Member-State level by bodies such as the Research Councils in
the UK,
(German
Research Council) in Germany, the ‘Vetenskapsradet’ (Science
Council) in Sweden, the NWO in the Netherlands, the FRNS in
Belgium, etc. These bodies provide, on request, funding for
projects or grants to projects carried out by individual research
teams, as in the USA.

Forschungsgemeinschaft’

‘Deutsche

the

2.4
The EESC agrees with the Commission that it is hardly
possible to define strict criteria for drawing a distinction
between basic research and applied research. The EESC does
not, however, see this as a problem (and therefore recommends
that a degree of discretion be authorised at a practical level), as
there is, and should be, fruitful interaction and even collabora-
tion between these two categories of research.

The EESC draws attention to the recommendation
2.4.1
which it made in an earlier opinion (16)
the interplay
between fundamental and applied research in a diverse multi-
polar scientific system be strengthened.

that

In the EESC's view, there is, however, a need, as part
2.4.2
of the further action in this field, for the Commission to define
the term ‘basic research’ (or propose a definition of the term) in
such a way that the definition provides a sufficiently practical
basis for taking decisions on aid applications. In this context,
the EESC draws attention to the definition which it recom-
mended in an earlier opinion (17).

In its Communication, the Commission also addresses
2.5
the highly complex issue of
intellectual property rights in
connection with basic research. It is a well-known fact that
discoveries are not patentable, whereas inventions are. As there
is a need for research workers to publish their findings without
delay (see below), with a view, inter alia, to enabling knowledge

(15) See OJ no. C 260/3 of 17.9.2001
(16) See OJ No. C 221 of 7.8.2001, point 6.7.2
(17) CESE 1588/2003, point 4.5.3.

to be disseminated, they thus face a conflict.

2.5.1
This conflict derives from the question which arises
when discoveries are made, namely whether the discovery in
question could not lead to an application which should be
patented; in that case, a patent application would clearly have
to be made before the findings in question were published. As
a result of this conflict, either the dissemination of knowledge
and, thus scientific reputation suffers or potential patent protec-
tion for new, and possibly pioneering, ideas is lost, to the detri-
ment of the EU and inventors.

This conflict could be considerably eased by intro-
2.5.2
ducing a so-called ‘grace period’ (18). The EESC therefore reiter-
ates the recommendation which it has made on numerous
earlier occasions (19) that the ‘grace period’, which is customary
in the USA, also be introduced in the EU. The EESC also takes
the opportunity to re-emphasise the need to introduce a Euro-
pean Community patent. This would remove a serious
handicap for EU businesses and researchers.

2.6
Furthermore, the EESC wonders how and whether the
promotion of basic research (with a view to meeting the Lisbon
objectives) could be explicitly enshrined in future EU treaties or
decisions.

3. Specific comments

3.1
The EESC also largely agrees with the stocktaking
presented by the Commission and its analysis of the current
situation as regards basic research.

3.1.1
The EESC does not, however, agree with all the points
made by the Commission. The Commission states, for example,
that: ‘Along with its assets, Europe... suffers from a number of
weaknesses as far as basic research is concerned. These are
largely due to the compartmentalised nature of the national
research systems and, above all, to the lack of sufficient compe-
tition between researchers, teams and individual projects at a
European level’, and concludes that there is a need for better
coordination of activities, measures and national programmes
in the field of basic research.

3.1.2
The EESC takes the view that the Committee's observa-
tion concerning the ‘compartmentalised nature of the national
research systems’ and the ‘lack of sufficient competition’ – an
observation which generally does not probably hold good in
the case of those institutions which supervise or direct research
at a political level – is misleading, both from a general point of
view and with regard to scientific research. This observation
fails to recognise or give adequate consideration to, above all,
one decisive characteristic of scientific research.

(18) This provision was earlier enshrined in German patent law in the
form of a period of grace prior to publication which does not
infringe novelty status.

(19) See, in particular, OJ C 95/48 of 23.4.2003, point 5.2.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/101

One of

3.1.3
the most important motivating factors for
research workers, in addition to the search for knowledge and
the endeavour to find and develop new ideas – is the competi-
tion between rival groups or laboratories and the desire to
exchange ideas with specialist colleagues working elsewhere.
Excessive competition or ambition is, however, detrimental to
the very nature of scientific research. It may lead researchers to
adopt a superficial approach and it may have a damaging effect
on the careful, thorough approach required by scientific work
or jeopardise the endeavour to discover new knowledge.

This exchange of

3.1.4
ideas and competition can be
observed, for example, at international scientific conferences or
congresses and in reputable international specialist journals.
The national and international reputation of individual research
workers (and hence, also, their career prospects) and that of the
institutes for which they work also rests on who is the first to
discover and publish important new findings.

its funding-distribution processes.

3.1.9
to be
The above observations are not, however,
construed as opposition to further ‘open coordination’ and
hence ‘Europeanisation’ of the basic research programmes of
the individual Member States,
insofar as these processes are
necessary and helpful. These objectives should, however, prefer-
ably be achieved by providing adequate incentives for ‘bottom-
up’ processes generated from within the sectors concerned and
also by providing support for projects (22) or large-scale facil-
ities which, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, exceed the
capacity or ambition of national aid programmes and from
which European networks are built up in the fields concerned.

3.1.10
There is also a need to develop a cultural environ-
ment and administrative and financial context that encourage
excellence, provide scope for more open work programmes
and topics, and become more attractive for researchers.

Such conferences or congresses are generally organised
3.1.5
by the respective scientific societies or associations and provide
– on the basis of a trade-off between cooperation and competi-
tion – an international forum for the exchange of the latest
findings and plans,
for the launching of new cooperative
ventures and also for demonstrating capabilities and achieve-
ments and for bringing competition into play.

synergy and exchange of

The Committee reiterates its concern regarding the
3.1.11
insufficient
researchers between
universities and the business sector. This creates a split between
basic and applied research, makes it difficult to achieve synergy
between different technologies, methods and approaches, and
reduces interdisciplinary work, while also encouraging people
to focus too much on scientific publications and on short-term
results.

The fact that highly international teams (20) work on
3.1.6
many research projects, and that many projects form part of
international programmes (21), also promotes the exchange of
knowledge and coordination of effort.

All of

3.1.7
the abovementioned factors do, of course,
prompt the various institutions and their research workers to
draw conclusions and thus also bring about a constant process
of adjustment and reorientation of research programmes,
in
line with the timeframe for scientific research.

3.1.8
As the EESC has already stressed in one of its earlier
opinions, the Commission should be more aware of and do
more to recognise and exploit this process of self-regulation
and adjustment in the scientific and research sectors which is
now coming into play at international level and is also partly
promoted by competition. The Commission should therefore
involve, more than has hitherto been the case, recognised
leading scientists and representatives of scientific societies and
associations (bodies which are supported and funded by their
members and therefore take the form of NGOs) in its internal
also
and,
deliberating

particular,

processes

in

(20) For example, over 50 % of the junior research workers and even a
quarter of the directors of the Max Planck institutes are non-
Germans.
(21) This applies,

the
programmes also referred to by the Commission in the fields of
climatology, oceanography, atmospheric physics, etc.

example, particularly in the

case of

for

3.2
The EU should also, preferably, provide assistance to
programmes or institutions which involve a high degree of
interdisciplinary research. This type of research is becoming
more and more important in many key areas; such research
can be carried out most effectively by interlinking the various
disciplines and the requisite facilities at a central point from
where Europe and European networking could benefit.

3.3
In the light of its above comments, the EESC endorses
the Commission's views in respect of the following measures
put forward in the Communication:

— strengthening European support for research infrastructures
and supporting the creation of centres of excellence
through a combination of national and European, public
and private funding;

— strengthening support

the development of human
researcher-training and the development of

for

resources,
careers in science (23);

— supporting collaboration and networking.

(22) OJ C 95 of 23.4.2003.
(23) See the Communication from the Commission entitled ‘Researchers
in the European Research Area: one profession, multiple careers’
(COM(2003) 436 of 18.7.2003) and the EESC opinion on this
Communication – CESE 305/2004.

C 110/102

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

a decision, which would in most cases take the form of a rejec-
tion.

3.5.1
On the one hand, it is necessary to avoid a situation
where unsuccessful applicants for funding - who would, in the
circumstances form the vast majority of applicants – may feel a
grudge towards the Commission and the EU, not least because
of their outlay.

3.5.2
And on the other hand, it is necessary to avoid exces-
sive bureaucracy (see above) in proving correct and fair proce-
dures have been followed. For this very reason, the EESC urges
the Commission to seek advice from both organisations with
experience in this field in the Member States and also, above
all, successful and unsuccessful applicants for funding.

The Commission rightly draws attention to the decisive
3.6
role played by basic research in helping universities fulfil their
educational responsibilities; the EESC therefore agrees with the
view expressed by the Commission in its Communication that:
‘In this respect and for this reason, basic research is likely to
remain a central feature of the activities and tasks undertaken
by universities and, along with teaching, the performance of
such research is the reason why they exist’ (see page 6 of the
Communication).
the abovementioned
observation does however apply equally to research bodies
other than universities which (also) carry out basic research
and are linked in many ways, with regard to staffing,
programmes and administration, to the research and educa-
tional work of universities.

In the EESC's view,

4. Conclusion

The EESC strongly supports the Commission in its goal of
ensuring that basic research receives appropriate and systematic
support at EU level too, and of making available, to this end,
‘lean’ administrative instru-
an adequate budget and suitable,
ments. The EESC recommends that the Commission implement
its planned ‘Next steps’ and, in so doing, take account of the
abovementioned observations and detailed recommendations.

The President

of the European Economic and Social
Committee

Roger BRIESCH

the Deutsche

3.4
In the EESC's view, a key tool should be the provision of
adequate financial support for individual projects. As proposed
by the Commission, this could involve a body such as the Euro-
pean Research Council, which should be modelled on the insti-
tutions already working very successfully at national level, such
as
(German
Forschungsgemeinschaft
Research Council) or the (UK) Research Councils. Because of,
inter alia, the points raised below, projects should, however, be
allowed to run for a sufficiently long period. Particular forms of
more institutionalised assistance (24)
(e.g. covering periods of
between 12 and 15 years) should also be considered to a
certain extent.

(DFG)

3.4.1
In this context, two key points - which have already
been addressed in an earlier EESC opinion (25) - should be
borne in mind.

3.4.2
Firstly, there is the question of ensuring that research
workers taking part in projects have adequate personal contrac-
tual arrangements. Because projects are per se of limited dura-
tion, research workers must not suffer any disadvantages in
their contractual arrangements, pay and social
respect of
security cover, and adequate incentives must be provided to
attract and retain particularly well-qualified research workers.

there is

Secondly,

the question of

the outlay (26)
3.4.3
involved for both the applicants and the experts in submitting
applications, providing expertise, etc. There is a need to follow,
in this context, the example of bodies such as the German
Research Council
inter alia, that the
(DFG), and to ensure,
outlay is small in comparison to the potential success if the
requested funding is granted. One possible solution could be to
standardise and amalgamate the application and assessment
procedures of all funding bodies involved – and not subject
them to constant amendment.

In this context, a particularly difficult situation could
3.5
arise if the budget available for basic research were to be drasti-
cally limited and a large number of applications for funding -
far in excess of the budget available - were to be submitted for

Brussels, 26 February 2004.

(24) As is the case with, for example, the ‘special research areas’ funded

by the German Research Council (DFG) in Germany.

(25) CESE 305/2004, point 5.1.8.
(26) CESE 305/2004, point 5.1.8.4

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/103

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following proposed amendment was rejected in the course of the debate (Rule 54(3) of the EESC's Rules of Proce-
dure).

Point 2.6 — Delete.

Reason

Basic research is already funded under the sixth RTD framework programme, and it is appropriate that the mix of basic
and applied research should be decided by the political decision-makers (the Council and the European Parliament) in
the light of strategic objectives at the time. Moreover, practical problems would arise because there is no unanimously
accepted definition of the term ‘basic research’.

Voting

For: 18, against: 43, abstentions: 12.