Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the specific programme  People  implementing the 7th Framework Programme (2007-2013) of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities
Date: 2006-04-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, EU research policy, cooperation policy, research and development, research staff, technological change, vocational training

C 185/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the

Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Specific Programme to be carried out by means of
direct actions by the Joint Research Centre under the 7th Framework Programme of the European
Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013)

Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Specific Programme ‘Cooperation’ implementing
the 7th Framework Programme (2007-2013) of the European Community for research, technolo-
gical development and demonstration activities

Proposal for a Council Decision Concerning the specific programme: ‘Ideas’ implementing the 7th
Framework Programme (2007-2013) of the European Community for research, technological devel-
opment and demonstration activities

Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the specific programme ‘People’ implementing the 7th
Framework Programme (2007-2013) of the European Community for research, technological devel-
opment and demonstration activities

for a Council Decision on the Specific Programme:

Proposal
implementing the
7th Framework Programme (2007-2013) of the European Community for research, technological
development and demonstration activities

‘Capacities’

Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Specific Programme to be carried out by means of
direct actions by the Joint Research Centre implementing the 7th Framework Programme (2007-
2011) of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training
activities

Proposal
for a Council Decision concerning the specific Programme implementing the
7th Framework Programme (2007-2011) of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom)
for nuclear research and training activities

COM(2005) 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445 final

(2006/C 185/02)

On 14 November 2005, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 166 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

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 28 March 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Wolf,
the co-rapporteur was Mr Pezzini.

At its 426th plenary session, held on 20-21 April 2006 (meeting of 20 April), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 132 votes to two:

1. Summary

concern the

The Commission's proposals

research
1.1
the proposed seventh research and
content and themes of
development programme (2007-2013) and seventh Euratom
framework programme
the Committee has
already commented on the Commission's earlier proposals for
these programmes. The present Committee opinion therefore
complements the previous opinion on the two framework
programmes.

(2007-2011);

1.2
In its previous opinion, the Committee recommended
making the urgently needed R&D investments proposed by the

Commission available in full and not allowing them to become
a pawn in — or fall victim to — the negotiations on the EU's
future overall budget.

1.3
Clearly, the objective set out in the Lisbon strategy of
making Europe the world's leading economy calls for a substan-
tial increase in R&D investment. Europe is competing in this
respect not only with countries such as the USA, Japan and
Korea, but also with China, India and Brazil. The United States
and Japan in particular have made R&D investment a national
priority for strengthening their international competitiveness,
and have made the requisite funding available. Hence, in view
of ongoing global developments, the objective of investing 3 %
of EU GDP in research and development, which was set by the
Barcelona European Council in support of the Lisbon strategy
and which has not yet been achieved, is a moving target. Late
achievement of this target will mean that the EU is still lagging
behind.

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/11

1.4
In view of the overall EU budget which the Council has
adopted since then and its implications for the research budget,
the Committee therefore reiterates its further recommendation
that R&D be given a substantially higher share than hitherto —
i.e. about 8 % — and that the increase envisaged in the Council
decision should be introduced at an earlier stage instead of
waiting for seven years.

1.5
At the heart of the Commission's proposals is the ‘coop-
eration’ specific programme. The Committee supports funding
for the important research themes included in the programme
such as energy, health,
information technology, nanotech-
nology, the environment, transport, socio-economic sciences
and the humanities, as well as the new themes of space and
security. Chapter 4 includes detailed comments on the
programme, and recommends an increased share of funding
for individual areas.

In general,

the Committee recommends providing as
1.6
much scope for flexibility as possible, rather than rigidly allo-
cating budgetary resources to the various themes. This should
enable the Commission to respond promptly and without addi-
the
tional political measures during the implementation of
programme to any shifts in emphasis during the period, to new
issues which arise or to necessary restructuring in view of the
cross-cutting nature of many of the programme's themes.

The Committee reiterates its support

1.7
for the ‘ideas’
specific programme. It feels that the main challenges presented
by the programme, apart from securing adequate funding, lie
in the selection of proposals for projects and in the manage-
ment of the programme. The Committee is pleased to note that
the independent European Research Council (ERC) will be put
in charge of these demanding tasks.

1.8
The Committee has stressed on several occasions that
the key to successful and competitive European R&D lies not
only in cutting-edge equipment, funding and adequate general
conditions, but also in sufficient highly qualified and creative
scientists. The ‘people’ specific programme covers measures
enabling the Commission to pursue this goal. The Committee
strongly supports these measures. In addition, the Committee
would refer to its earlier comments on the European Charter
for Researchers published by the Commission.

The ‘cooperation’ specific programme is a particularly
1.9
good example of
roles. This
the Community's ‘subsidiary’
mainly concerns research infrastructures — such as large appa-
ratus, scientific instruments and computers — whose costs and
potential exceed the capacities of individual Member States.
The ‘research for SMEs’ sub-programme, which is included
under ‘capacities’, ties in with previous Committee recommen-
dations to involve SMEs more closely in innovation.

1.10
the Committee refers to its earlier
recommendation to drastically cut red tape for applicants, to

In conclusion,

simplify procedures and at the same time to ensure maximum
continuity in support instruments and award procedures.

2. Introduction

2.1
The Commission's proposals, set out in seven separate
documents, complement its proposal (1) on the 7th R&D frame-
work programme (2007-2013) and the 7th Euratom frame-
work programme (2007-2011), and they contain detailed
information on the research content and themes of the
support measures provided for.

2.1.1
Hence, this EESC opinion is a brief adjunct to the
existing opinion (2) on the 7th R&D framework programme
(2007-2013) and the Euratom programme (2007-2011), and
to the observations and recommendations set out therein.

Hence,

2.1.2
this opinion is mainly concerned with
research content, rather than structures and instruments.
For example, the opinion does not return to the important
issue of optimising the innovation triangle — basic research,
applied research and development — nor to the recommenda-
tion that in future the Commission officials supervising the
project should continue to be experts with research experience
and close familiarity with the relevant specialised theme, a
requirement which entails sufficient continuity in terms of
staffing. These arguments have been covered in detail in earlier
opinions (3).

2.1.3
However, one important aspect should be mentioned
at the outset, concerning the budgetary allocation to or subdi-
vision of individual programme elements. The Committee has
already recommended providing as much scope for flexibility
as possible here,
enabling the Commission to respond
promptly and without additional political measures during the
implementation of the programme to any shifts in emphasis
during the period, to new issues or to necessary restructuring
in view of the cross-cutting nature of many of the programme's
themes.

The Commission had proposed an increase in the
2.2
budgets of
the two framework programmes to a total of
EUR 72.7 billion (4). This would still be less than 8 % of the
proposed total EU budget for 2007 — 2013 of EUR 1025
billion. In the EESC opinion on the seventh R&D framework
programme referred to above, the Committee recommended
making the urgently needed R&D investments proposed by the
Commission available in full and not allowing them to become
a pawn in — or fall victim to — the negotiations on the EU's
future overall budget.

(1) COM(2005) 119 final./2 - 2005/0043 (COD) - 2005/0044 (CNS).
(2) OJ C 65, 17.3.2006.
(3) OJ C 157, 28.6.2005, Guidelines for future European policy to support

research, and OJ C 65, 17.3.2006.

(4) At 2005 prices without allowing for inflation; depending on indexa-

tion for inflation, various figures have been quoted.

C 185/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

However, on 19 December 2005,

2.2.1
the European
Council agreed to a total EU budget of only EUR 862.4 (5)
billion. As a result, the EU research budget might also be signif-
icantly lower (6)
than that proposed by the Commission,
although ‘the European Council (7) believes that EU funding for
research should be increased such that by 2013 the resources available
are around 75 % higher in real terms than in 2006’. The Commis-
sion will draw up a revised proposal, in line with this figure.
As a result, the political decision-making process on the two
framework programmes is not yet finished.

2.2.2
Clearly, the objective set out in the Lisbon strategy of
developing Europe as the world's leading economy calls for a
substantial increase in R&D investment. Europe is competing in
this respect not only with countries such as the USA, Japan
and Korea, but also with China, India and Brazil. The United
States and Japan in particular have made R&D investment a
national priority for strengthening their international competi-
tiveness, and have made the requisite funding available. Hence,
in view of ongoing global developments,
the objective of
investing 3 % of EU GDP in research and development, which
was set by the Barcelona European Council in support of the
Lisbon strategy and which has not yet been achieved,
is a
moving target. Late achievement of this target will mean that
the EU is still lagging behind.

2.3
In view of the current situation, the Committee feels
that it is necessary once again to quote from the opinion
referred to above, and reiterates its comments that (i) ‘effective,
high-quality research and development that enjoys an adequate
level of support is in fact the basic foundation and sine qua
non for innovation, competitiveness and prosperity, and thus
also for cultural development and the provision of social
services’,
‘the Commission's proposal … is a minimum
amount that must be increased still further in the longer
term so as not to gamble away — but rather to maintain
and strengthen — Europe's position as the cradle of
‘without such
modern science and technology’, and (iii)
action, it will not be possible, even in the longer term, to
meet the Lisbon objectives’.

(ii)

2.4
The Committee also reiterates its comment that Euro-
pean cooperation on research and development is an effective
catalyst for European integration and cohesion. Given that
the European Union is currently struggling to secure public
support for its constitution, this is a particularly important
consideration. It should also be mentioned that an adequate
level of R&D is crucial not only for achieving the Lisbon objec-
tives but also for dealing with current issues and problems in
areas such as health, energy supplies and the environment.

2.5
The Committee would therefore reaffirm its recommen-
dation that within the overall EU budget which has been
decided on, R&D should be given a substantially higher share
the increase
than hitherto — i.e. about 8 % — and that

(5) At 2005 prices.
(6) Current estimates are in the region of EUR 49.5 billion (e.g. FAZ

No. 11 2006, p. 14).

(7) Council of the European Union 1591505, CADREFIN 268, point

10, 19 December 2005.

envisaged in the Council decision should be introduced at an
earlier stage instead of waiting for seven years.

acknowledges

The Committee

2.6
the Commission's
proposal (8) to establish a European Institute of Technology
(EIT). Without going into the details of this proposal here, it
should be pointed out that the requisite expenditure on this
proposal ought certainly not to be charged to the budget for
the specific programmes discussed in this opinion.

2.7
The Committee also refers to its earlier recommendation
to drastically cut red tape for applicants, to simplify proce-
dures and at the same time to ensure maximum continuity in
support instruments and award procedures. The Committee
will set out its views on this matter in greater detail
in its
comments on the Commission's proposals concerning ‘rules for
participation’ (9).

3. Gist of the Commission's proposals (10)

research and development under

The Commission's proposals set out and define all areas
3.1
of
the 7th framework
programme and the Euratom programme, i.e. the full range of
research themes, content, methods and tools. There are also
proposals concerning the contribution to be made to these
activities by the Joint Research Centre. In addition the propo-
sals outline measures to secure and consolidate the human
resources required. Altogether there are seven Commission
documents which also include very detailed information on the
individual sub-programmes.

The structure of these sub-programmes is summarised

3.2
as follows, with percentage shares of the total budget:

A — R&D framework programme (total budget: EUR 72 726
million) 2007-2013

Cooperation

Ideas

People

Capacities

Non-nuclear actions of the Joint Research Centre

61.1%

16.3%

9.8%

10.3%

2.5%

B — Euratom programme (total budget: EUR 3 092 million)
2007-2011

Fusion energy research

Nuclear fission and radiation protection

Nuclear activities of the Joint Research Centre

69.8%

12.8%

17.4%

3.3
A detailed description of the Commission's proposals is
given in chapter 3 of the EESC opinion on the 7th R&D frame-
work programme (CESE 1484/2005).

(8) Press release IP/06/201, 22 February 2006.
(9) COM(2005) 705 final.
(10) See also Chapter 3 of OJ C 65, 17.3.2006.

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/13

4. The Committee's comments

The following comments are based on the content of
4.1
chapters 4-6 of the above-mentioned opinion on the 7th R&D
framework programme, and are difficult to understand without
reference to that document.

4.1.1
The Committee supports the Commission's resolve to
reflect the cross-cutting relevance of many programme compo-
nents and to promote multidisciplinarity through cross-
thematic approaches.

4.1.2
In this connection, the Committee has also discussed
the issue of whether branches of research activity relating to
such cross-cutting themes — e.g. ICT in medicine — should be
included in ICT or rather dealt with as part of the specialised
health sub-programme. For example,
it recommends steering
some of the activities planned as part of ICT more towards the
for instance on health, energy,
specialised sub-programmes,
transport or possibly social sciences, so as to focus on specific
aspects related to each of these areas.

However, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions here;
4.1.3
instead, decisions should be taken on a case-by-case basis,
depending, on the one hand, where the greatest scope for
methodological synergies may be expected, and where, on the
other, optimum linkage can be secured with the specific issues
involved in each area. The Committee reiterates its recommen-
dation that, whatever happens,
‘steps be taken to ensure overall
coordination and the necessary link-ups’.

The Committee also welcomes

4.1.4
the Commission's
intention to respond flexibly to emerging needs, new knowl-
edge and proposals, and to unforeseen policy requirements.
Action by the Commission to promote and coordinate pre-
competitive research and development will help to boost the
EU's competitive position.

4.2 Cooperation — the core of the programme

4.2.1
Health. The Committee emphasises the necessarily
broad scope of the approach which ranges from preparing for
and preventing epidemics and pandemics, to responding to
demographic change with all the accompanying social and
health-related implications and long-term effects,
including
research into old age and disabilities (whereby the latter also
includes separate social and technical aspects,
for instance,
which go beyond health-related issues). In this connection, the
Committee supports the Commission's intention not to neglect
research into rare diseases. The programme should cover all the
relevant scientific and technical
fields — including biotech-
nology, genomics, stem cell research and other multidisci-
plinary approaches, including the issue of requisite quality and
social standards. This concerns both bio-medical research in
universities, clinics and publicly funded research institutes, and
also involves making the European medical and pharmaceutical
sector more competitive. The Committee therefore recom-
mends
framework.
Research and development in the field of health are of key
European and even global interest.

the proposed programme

endorsing

4.2.2
Food, agriculture and biotechnology (biotechnology
is also relevant to the theme of health [point 4.2.1]). The
Committee feels that this programme rightly aims to build or
maintain a European knowledge-based bio-economy. The
objective is to use life sciences and technologies to provide eco-
efficient and competitive products and processes from the agri-
culture,
forest-based and
related industries. In view of the particularly intense agricultural
competition with countries such as Brazil, this is also a very
important sector. One possible new area for development
might be the cultivation of plants that help to clean contami-
nated soil by accumulating pollutants, or on the other hand do
not absorb any pollutants from contaminated soil and can thus
be used safely.

fisheries, aquaculture,

food, health,

4.2.3
Information and communication technologies
(ICT). Products and services in the ICT sector have had a revo-
lutionary impact, changing and enriching science, technology,
administration and even the everyday lives of ordinary citizens.
In terms of both its share of funding and the range of tasks
involved, ICT represents the largest component of the ‘coopera-
tion’ programme, and it has — or may have — an impact in all
other areas. The objective is to make innovative, ICT-based
products and services available in the fields of science, tech-
nology, administration and logistics. Thus, the ICT programme
ranges from the development of innovative hardware (whereby,
for example, chip development clearly overlaps with the nano-
technology programme), hardware systems and networks to
new programming tools, where importance should also be
attached to the accessibility of ICT services by all social groups.
The Committee also refers to its comments on this matter in
point 4.1.2. Whether the ICT programme can actually justify
its lion's share is closely dependent on the extent to which it
fulfils the task of contributing to the other programmes in
future.

Nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials

4.2.4
and
new production technologies. This too is a new and extre-
mely innovative area (11) which, as part of
the interplay
between basic and applied research, has emerged from a whole
range of sources and findings in the field of physical and
chemical research and technology. It has the potential to yield
new or improved products and processes in many branches of
technology. At the same time, this area is so diverse and has so
many ramifications that a very broad view must be taken in
order to identify and harness common features and intercon-
nections within this discipline, elements of which range from
atomic physics, plasma technology and nano-mechanics to
textile finishing. As nano-processes also take place on a micro-
scopic scale barely imaginable to the public at large, construc-
tive dialogue with users is needed on this subject from the very
start, in order to identify and avert potential threats, but at the
same time to calm unwarranted fears. The Commission's wide-
ranging approach, which also includes efforts to impart knowl-
edge, is therefore very welcome and the Committee supports it.

(11) OJ C 157, 28.6.2005.

C 185/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

4.2.5
Energy. The Committee has repeatedly referred to the
key theme of energy. It has also expressed its views on the
subject
in numerous specific opinions and emphasised the
significant research needs in the field (12). A very serious energy
problem awaits us in the medium to long term (13). It involves
both the expected scarcity and price rises for conventional fuels
such as crude oil and natural gas and the vital issue of secure
supplies of such fuels to Europe, and the effects — in most
cases, global effects — of energy use on the environment, parti-
cularly the climate. The only solution to the energy problem
lies in improved or new technologies, which should, nonethe-
less, still offer good value for money. The key to this, in turn, is
energy research. This must cover all aspects (14), from the better
harnessing — and storage — of environmentally sound fuels to
energy-saving technologies and more efficient energy use. This
includes procedures for the partial or complete sequestration
and storage of greenhouse gases. A switch to highly efficient
electricity-generating power stations is also particularly impor-
tant. The Committee finds the Commission's proposals in this
regard correct and balanced, but is very concerned that the
portion of the budget earmarked for it is too small, given the
crucial importance of the task to be addressed. The Committee
would recommend allocating an increased share of the budget
here.

of transport — among other things, the prevention of traffic
jams is a key, live issue at the moment — and the significance
of such a network for European competitiveness (and its
impact on the environment!), the goal of this sub-programme
is also very important and is supported accordingly.

4.2.8 Soci o-e c onomi c sci e nce s a nd t h e h u ma ni ti e s

4.2.8.1
In the Committee's view, the goal of this programme
should be to contribute to an in-depth understanding of the
complex and interrelated socio-economic,
legal and cultural
challenges Europe is confronted with, including issues such as
Europe's historical roots and common elements and also its
borders and neighbours. A task of particular relevance for
laying the Community's intellectual foundations and building
European identity, which also concerns the dealings of Member
States and citizens with one another, would be to establish a
common and uniform description and assessment of European
history in all Member States — or to step up current efforts to
do so — as a basis for the content of history lessons.

4.2.6
Environment (including climate change). Environ-
mental protection is of fundamental importance for the quality
and very foundations of life of both present and future genera-
tions. Recognising and resolving the problems involved — be
the causes man-made or natural — is a particularly ambitious
and potentially vital goal. This task is closely linked with the
most diverse research and policy fields: economy, energy,
health and agriculture, including monitoring tasks and, in view
of the global aspects, international agreements. While environ-
mental research focuses more on identifying — or learning
how to identify — the various problems and their causes, in
other areas — not least energy — the search for solutions plays
a greater role. Budgeting should be flexible to take account of
this.

‘green’,

4.2.7
Transport (including aeronautics). European trans-
port systems are an important element of Europe's economic
and social prosperity, and its cohesion. The Transport sub-
‘smart’
programme is geared to developing integrated,
and safe pan-European transport systems and modes. To this
end, it sets specific technical and logistical development goals
for various transport modes and systems. The further develop-
ment of energy-saving and low-emissions transport modes
is a scientific and technical task that is
(aircraft, cars, etc.)
linked to the energy and environment sub-programmes,
in
which SMEs could also become involved. The respective tech-
nology platforms — ACCARE for aeronautics and air transport,
ERRAC for rail transport, ERTRAC for road transport, WATER-
BORNE for waterborne transport, and hydrogen and fuel cells
— are an important instrument here. Given the importance of
an operational European transport network, not least for the
new Member States, and given the ever-increasing total volume

(12) OJ C 241, 7.10.2002; OJ C 28, 3.2.2006; OJ C 65, 17.3.2006.
(13) See previous footnote.
(14) With regard to the Euratom programme, see Chapter 4.6.

interdependence.

However,
this area also includes aspects such as
4.2.8.2
financial and tax policy, science policy, growth,
economic,
employment and competitiveness, social cohesion and sustain-
ability, quality of life, education, cultural and legislative issues
and global
It also encompasses the special
challenges facing modern society, such as demographic change
(facts, implications, action), migration, social exclusion, cultural
splits, and progress towards a knowledge-based society. To
make this sub-programme more coherent and focused,
the
Committee also recommends that the section dealing not with
communicating science
and better mutual understanding
between science and society (see also 4.5.3), but rather with
research into the relationship between science and society be
switched from the Science in Society programme under the
Capacities heading to the Socio-economic sciences and huma-
nities sub-programme. On the whole, the Committee considers
the
sub-
programme to be very important, especially as it also plays a
crucial role in policy consultations; it should be expanded to
take in some of the issues mentioned above and thus, if neces-
sary, also be strengthened in relative terms.

the humanities

Socio-economic

sciences

and

4.2.9 Se cu r i ty a nd sp a ce

Both security and space are important subjects, which the
Committee supports.

The terrorist attacks of the last few years have made
4.2.9.1
citizens of the western world even more aware of the need for
adequate security and the issue requires not only a broad legal,
social and cultural approach, but also a technological and scien-
tific one as well. However, the subject of security and security
research is not confined to the Common Foreign and Security
Policy; it also concerns areas such as transport, health (e.g. the
EU Health Security Programme), civil protection (including
natural and industrial disasters), energy and the environment.

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/15

4.2.9.2
The general public is yet to be fully aware of the
phenomenal progress made in space exploration and tech-
nology. This is important in terms of both geostrategy and
understanding the world; after all, astronomical observations
and the knowledge,
for instance, of planetary movements
derived from them were a crucial starting point for modern
science. Space research and technology also spearhead the
development of
space
the Committee feels that evenly
exploration is concerned,
balanced collaboration is needed on the programme with
existing European organisations, such as the ESA and ESO.

innovative technologies. As

far as

thus

and visible,

4.3
Ideas. Here the Commission is treading promising new
ground in its support for research. Again, the Committee has
welcomed this on a number of occasions (15). Supporting
research proposals that really stand out within the ambit of
Europe-wide competition — eschewing the hitherto usual
requirement of crossborder cooperation — makes excellence
both possible
for
researchers of outstanding European and international calibre,
which in turn generates particularly fertile ground for innova-
tion. On this question, the Committee again stresses that the
risk of failure has to be faced if mediocrity is to be overcome.
The prime difficulty here, in addition to adequate funding for
lies in its selection procedure and manage-
the programme,
ment. The Committee thinks, therefore, that this demanding
task should fall to a hand-picked independent panel of particu-
larly successful
the European
and recognised scientists:
Research Council (ERC).

creating a magnet

4.4
People. The Committee has stressed on several occa-
sions (16) that the key to successful and competitive European
research and development lies not only in cutting-edge equip-
ment and funding, but also in sufficient highly qualified and
creative scientists. An interest in science and technology must
therefore be instilled during childhood and youth, so that a
sufficient number of those with the requisite talents begin and
complete the very difficult and demanding studies which are
needed in the field.

4.4.1
The Committee has already referred to the key role of
universities as educational and research institutions and to the
unsatisfactory situation in this respect in Europe in its opinion
on the seventh R&D Framework Programme (17). Among other
things, it is important to ensure that the scientific and personal
conditions (18) are right for researchers to work on their docto-
rates — which are of importance to their careers. After a first-
rate education,
these people then also need international
experience, an attractive research environment offering suffi-
cient freedom, internationally competitive contracts and career
planning. (The Committee has already commented on the Euro-
pean Charter for Researchers, which is of relevance to this
subject; some aspects of the Charter meet with the Committee's
approval, and others are criticised (19).)

(15) OJ C 110, 30.4.2004.
(16) OJ C 110, 30.4.2004 – Researchers in the European Research Area: one

profession, multiple careers.

(17) OJ C 65, 17.3.2006, Point 4.12.2.
(18) See e.g. Chapter 5.6 of the document referred to in footnote 16.
(19) Point 4.13.2 of OJ C 65, 17.3.2006, and point 5.1.5 of OJ C 110,

30.4.2004.

4.4.2
However, given how important it is for science and
research for researchers to be internationally mobile, especially
between countries that perform particularly well in this area, it
is essential to ensure there is no one-sided brain-drain; among
other things, this means making salaries such that top Amer-
ican researchers, for instance, can also be brought to Europe,
something that at present
is practically impossible. The
Committee therefore supports the Commission's repeatedly
stressed goal of applying the requisite instruments and frame-
work conditions and of working to ensure that the Member
States use the instruments proposed in the People programme,
some of which are already available. Creating attractive condi-
tions for mobility and removing obstacles to it is also particu-
larly important for the European Research Area. The Commis-
sion's vigorous pursuit of this goal is to be welcomed.

Capacities. This programme is a good example of the

4.5
Community's ‘subsidiary’ roles.

This mainly concerns the goal of developing/installing,
4.5.1
sharing and perfecting research infrastructures — such as large
apparatus, scientific instruments and computers, whose costs
and potential exceed the capacities of individual Member States.
In this connection, the Committee is pleased to note that, in
line with its earlier recommendation, preference is to be given
to a bottom-up approach to proposals for the relevant projects.

4.5.2
At the same time, the other tasks listed under Capaci-
ties, such as Research for SMEs, Research for SME associations,
Regions of knowledge and Unlocking and developing the research
potential in the EU's convergence regions and outermost regions are
also very important, particularly for the new Member States
and for SMEs.

4.5.3
The Science and society sub-programme is intended to
stimulate the harmonious integration of scientific and technolo-
gical endeavour and associated research policies into the Euro-
pean social web. This is a matter of the capacity to produce,
use and propagate knowledge, and to generate innovations.
Thus, the sub-programme is concerned, on the one hand, with
presenting an image of science, scientists and their findings to
the European public. The Committee endorses these objectives;
it sees dissemination of knowledge as an important cultural
task, which facilitates innovation. On the other hand, the sub-
programme is also concerned with research on the reasons for
scepticism among certain sections of
the population about
science (or at least some areas of science), scientific methods
and its potential implications. In the Committee's view, these
research activities, which are primarily of a sociological char-
acter, should be incorporated into the ‘Socio-economic sciences
and the humanities’ sub-programme under the ‘Cooperation’
specific programme, so that they can be dealt with in the
broader context of European cooperation provided for there.

C 185/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

because this means that the JCR is answerable directly to the
Commission and the strength of its policy consultations and
flexibility of action derive precisely from this fact, steps must
be taken to ensure that it is subject to the exacting and trans-
parent standards required of all Member State research institu-
tions
review, competition,
international peer
recruitment procedures/staffing policy and monitoring, and
that it is integrated into the international scientific community.
The Committee considers such integration important, not least
in terms of
the socio-economic sciences and humanities
mentioned above.

in terms of

The JRC's

tasks under

the 7th R&D framework
4.7.2
programme (2007-2013) include the general topic — impor-
tant for the Community — of sustainable development (e.g.
climate change, food, energy, transport, chemicals, decontami-
nation). This includes the development of scientific and techno-
logical reference data for various spheres of environmental and
food monitoring;
it also provides a valuable contribution to
framing the Community's legislative provisions. Another Com-
munity task is developing and disseminating internationally
recognised reference bases and promoting a common European
system of measurements. This could include coordinating the
division of labour with national metrological and standardisa-
tion institutions and participation in their programmes.
In
terms of the European single market and European integration
generally, consideration could therefore be given to establishing
a ‘European Bureau of Standards’ which would involve the rele-
vant national
laboratories and institutions such as CEN and
CELENEC, the industries concerned and the JRC.

It is quite right that the JCR should support policy-
4.7.3
making in the nuclear field under the 7th Euratom framework
programme (2007-2011),
including the implementation and
monitoring of existing strategies and the response to new
demands. The Committee also approves of making disposal,
JCR
safety and monitoring a priority in the
programme (with these activities being integrated and coordi-
nated with those of the Member States); this is where the
public has concerns and where reliable solutions are needed. In
the Committee's view, it is particularly important to (further)
develop procedures which will allow an even better monitoring
of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons material and technolo-
gies.

‘nuclear’

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

4.6 The Euratom programme

Here the EESC would first refer to its exhaustive examination
in its opinion on the 7th R&D framework programme and the
Euratom programme and its remarks concerning the Energy
sub-programme.

The issue now in fusion research (20) is (i) to pave the
4.6.1
way for, and complete the construction of ITER, (ii) to work on
all preparations required to operate it — including education
and training of scientific staff, enlisting and mobilising the
research potential of associated laboratories in the Member
States and an international division of labour, (iii) to promote
technological developments (particularly materials and the fuel
cycle) geared to DEMO, and (iv) to research and perfect various
(magnetic) confinement concepts. ITER and further develop-
ment must be embedded in and supported by Member State
research institutes. The Commission's proposals are in line with
these tasks and international commitments, and they enjoy the
Committee's full support.

exploitation and disposal parameters. This

The issue now in fission (21) is (i) to further investigate
4.6.2
and improve the safety of existing nuclear power plants (a task
predominantly for industrial manufacturers and operators) and
(ii) to develop new reactor concepts with even better safety,
fuel
includes
research into the reprocessing of spent fuels (transmutation,
recycling). Other tasks include: (iii) solving the problem of final
storage and securing political approval for this, (iv) supporting
non-proliferation efforts regarding nuclear weapons materials,
and (v) finding out more about the biological effects of (low)
doses of radiation (22) and developing the appropriate measure-
ment technologies (especially individual dosimetry). An impor-
tant specific task in all of this is the education of a new genera-
tion of appropriately trained specialists. The Committee has
misgivings about
in some
Member States and dwindling expertise and asks whether
greater weight should not be attached to these very important
questions, given the likely longer-term and global importance
of nuclear energy use.

the shortage of

‘new recruits’

4.7 The Joint Research Centre (JRC)

4.7.1
R&D framework programme
Euratom framework programme

The JRC is quite rightly incorporated into both the 7th
and the 7th
(2007-2011). However,

(2007-2013)

Brussels, 20 April 2006.

(20) OJ C 302, 7.12.2004.
(21) OJ C 133, 6.6.2003; OJ C 110, 30.4.2004.
(22) See e.g. RTDinfo No. 47, European Commission, January 2006.