Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Responding to the Five-Year Assessment of Community research activities (1999-2003) carried out by high level independent experts (COM(2005) 387 final)
Date: 2006-05-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, EU research policy, project evaluation, research programme, self-employed person, technological change

18.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/1

II

(Preparatory Acts)

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

427TH PLENARY SESSION, HELD ON 17 AND 18 MAY 2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the
Commission to the Council,
the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions Responding to the Five-Year Assessment of Com-
munity research activities (1999-2003) carried out by high level independent experts

the European Parliament,

(COM(2005) 387 final)

(2006/C 195/01)

On 24 August 2005 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 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 25 April 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Braghin.

At its 427th plenary session, held on 17 and 18 May 2006 (meeting of 17 May), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 108 votes to one with one abstention.

1. Gist of the Opinion

focused efforts at communication and at involving companies
and producers' organisations and associations in order, among
other things, to identify strategic fields of research in which
European research excellence could emerge.

The EESC values and supports the efforts made in the
1.1
third five-year assessment and the engagement on a large scale
of such high-powered intellectual resources and hopes that the
recommendations from the various groups of experts, and
particularly the panel responsible for the overall assessment (1),
will serve as a constant point of reference in the implementa-
tion of the framework programmes, in the future framing of
the research and innovation policy and, more generally, in the
policies implementing the Lisbon Strategy.

1.2
for
The EESC has repeatedly expressed its support
substantially increasing the European R&D budget and there-
fore regrets the proposed reduction of this sum because it
contradicts the priority of development imposed by competitive
global challenges and called for by the Lisbon strategy.

1.4
The EESC calls for instruments to be developed to
encourage private funding of research and development (from
risk capital and venture capital to targeted EIB funding and
credit facilities for research) to smooth the path from research
results to specific business initiatives.

1.3
The EESC stresses the importance of greater commit-
ment by industry to research and innovative development to
achieve the Barcelona Council goal and hopes to see more

(1) Five-Year Assessment of the EU Research Framework Programmes
1999-2003, European Commission, DG Research, 15.12.2004.

1.5
The EESC agrees with the panel's position on the need
to offer researchers greater autonomy and responsibility (albeit
while respecting ethical principles), to give careers in science a
higher profile, to guarantee greater interdisciplinary as well as
spatial mobility and to integrate the Marie Curie system of
grants with national and regional programmes and use them
specifically to boost mobility between public and private
sectors.

C 195/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.8.2006

1.6
The EESC calls for priority to be given to policies aimed
at developing university teaching in science and engineering,
increasing the number of female researchers, making careers in
science more attractive and bringing researchers working
abroad back into the European Union. It would also be helpful
to have more science and technical courses in upper secondary
education and a policy for promoting science as a degree
option at university.

outside world, rather than exclusively according to a linear
model
in which innovation is the work of basic research
(mostly at the academic level), while development and applica-
tion compete with industrial research — a model which has
governed scientific research until recent years (3). The key char-
acteristics of
interactive
learning, uncertainty and risk.

research today are

cooperation,

1.7
In the interests of simplification, the EESC hopes to see
calls for proposals which have clearer types of schemes and
activities and categories of participants, greater flexibility and
freedom of choice for the applicant, and simple guides on
administrative and financial management, especially for the
Contractual Agreement between participants.

2.3
The interactive model explains the success of regional
clusters: these form a ‘system’ which acts beneficially on the
behaviour of companies and universities, as well as creating the
right social and cultural context, an effective organisational and
institutional framework, an infrastructure network, and regula-
tory systems equipped to take on the challenges of competi-
tion.

1.8
The EESC suggests an ongoing evaluation of the effec-
tiveness of the procedures used, including those for checking
formal compliance and assessment, and, in well-defined devel-
opment projects, the inclusion of checkpoints at which activ-
ities and anticipated results are monitored at precise and prede-
termined stages. Provision of funding and the continuation of
the project itself should be conditional on such monitoring.

2.4 Global competition

1.9
The EESC also suggests investing particular efforts into
putting in place a series of indicators which would allow real
measurement of performances in terms of competitiveness and
development. Such research performance indicators should
measure the efficacy of funded activities in terms of further
scientific progress, the EU's global development and targeting
the priorities in future activities.

2. The challenges facing European research

(1999-2003) of

The third five-year assessment

2.1
the
framework research programmes is an analytical exercise of
great scope and depth (2). In the main, the EESC agrees with
the analyses and recommendations put forward by the panel of
experts and endorsed by the Commission. In the light of global
competition and the Lisbon Strategy and Barcelona Council
goals, the EESC stresses the necessity and urgency of giving
careful consideration to the priorities and underlying aims of
Community research, particularly with a view to increasing the
involvement of the production sectors.

2.2
The reality today is that scientific and technological
innovation is increasingly proceeding through the cross-fertili-
sation of different disciplines involving extensive multidisci-
plinary interaction between universities, companies and the

(2) The assessment process involved numerous documents and reports,
available to the public on the site: http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/
irc/rtd/fiveyearasskb/library.

2.4.1
Europe is facing an unprecedented challenge in terms
of global competition and potential for growth and is tackling
this less efficiently not only than its traditional competitors, but
also than the major emerging countries. Growth rates of R&D
spending in India and China in particular are extremely high,
reaching almost 20 % p.a.
in the latter country, which is
expected to match the EU's R&D spending as a percentage of
GDP in 2010. Many European companies invest in China not
only because of lower costs, but also because of the favourable
combination of highly-skilled manpower
and
dynamic markets for technologies and high-tech products (4).
Since research and innovation are key factors in responding to
such challenges (5), Europe must mobilise sufficient funds and
all its intellectual resources to promote science, technology and
innovation (6).

and large

2.4.2
The most recent figures, however, make disturbing
reading, with spending on research stuck at around 1.9 % of
GDP since 2001. If annual growth were to remain at the 2000-
2003 rate (0.7 %) until 2010, the figure would be no higher
than 2.2 % of GDP. It must be remembered that the USA's
larger GDP means that its R&D activity is far greater in abso-
lute terms, which means it can more easily achieve the neces-
sary critical mass. The main reason for the gap in Europe's

(3) See: Keith Smith, The Framework Programmes and the changing
JRC/IPTS, Seville,

economic landscape, European Commission,
December 2004, pp. 11-12.

(4) Potočnik, preface to Key Figures 2005 — Towards a European
Research Area Science, Technology and Innovation, DG Research, 2005,
p. 5.

(5) The EESC has addressed this subject at length in a number of
opinions, most recently INT/269 CESE 1484/2005 Opinion on the
seventh framework programme for research and training, rappor-
teur Mr Wolf, points, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4. (OJ C 65, 17.3.2006).

(6) See the introduction by the chairman, Erkki Ormala, and the Five-
Year Assessment of the EU Research Framework Programmes 1999-
2003, cit.

18.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/3

R&D spending and that of its main competitors is the lower
private sector input (55.6 % of total spending in the EU in
2002 against 63.1 % in the USA and 73.9 % in Japan). More
in the same
alarmingly still, private funding of research fell
period and better overall conditions seem to be attracting Euro-
pean private investments to other parts of the globe: in the
1997-2002 period, European businesses increased research
investment in the USA by 54 %, in real terms, compared with
38 % in the opposite direction (7).

coordinating not only national research policies, but also poli-
cies of education and human resources development, intellec-
tual property protection,
through
innovation development
collaboration
and synergetic
constructive
fiscal
between universities and companies, and so on.

leverage,

2.5 The key goals

2.5.1
key goals:

The EESC concurs with the analysis identifying four

— attract and reward the best talent;

— create a high-potential environment for business and indus-

trial RTD;

— mobilise resources for innovation and sustainable growth;

— build trust in science and technology.

2.5.2
Comparing and coordinating Community and national
research policies is vital to meet the key challenge laid down by
the Barcelona Council — allocating 3 % of GDP to research
before 2010 and, in the process, increasing to two-thirds the
amount of research financed by the private sector. This goal
can only be achieved if a) Europe makes itself more attractive
to investors in research, b) the right framework conditions are
put in place to increase the efficacy of research, c) the stimulus
effect of public investment in private research is boosted, and
d) research policies are made more efficient and coherent at
both Community and national level (8).

2.5.3
In the light of the analyses carried out in the assess-
ment process and the views expressed by many stakeholders,
the EESC believes a more incisive intervention is needed, with
actions coordinated between the Commission and the Member
States, to improve the insufficiently research-friendly environ-
ment. A package of direct measures needs to be conceived to
make the system more innovative and competitive at EU level:
fragmentation and inadequate coordination of
forces is an
obstacle to achieving critical mass and the necessary focus. The
very different job also needs to be tackled of comparing and

(7) All the figures in this point are taken from: Key Figures 2005, cit.

pp. 9-10.

(8) See the preamble and Key Figures 2005, cit., p. 3.

2.6 Recommendations concerning future European research policy

2.6.1
The EESC has repeatedly expressed its support for
substantially increasing the European R&D budget in the future
and in so doing has strongly backed the Commission's proposal
for increased funding of the 7th Framework Programme and,
eventually, for a subsequent long-term increase (9). It does not
welcome the prospect raised by the Council that this amount
would be substantially reduced to around 5 % of the EU's
general budget instead of the 8 % envisaged by the Commission
and believes that this contradicts the priority of development
imposed by competitive global challenges and called for by the
Lisbon strategy.

2.6.2
The EESC has always supported the creation of a Euro-
pean Research Area (10) and has endorsed the establishment of
a body such as the European Research Council (ERC), which
in particular, become a key instrument in promoting
could,
scientific excellence through frontier science areas identified via
a bottom-up process. The EESC is pleased that its recommenda-
tions concerning, in particular, the autonomy of the ERC and
the composition of its scientific council have been followed,
and reiterates the importance of involving first-rate scientists,
including ones from the world of industrial research (11).

2.6.3
The EESC agrees that a broad range of coordinated
actions is needed for optimal integration of the new Member
States, but does not believe adequate instruments have been
put in place in this regard. The process of transition these
countries have undergone in the assessment period under
discussion makes it more difficult to pinpoint the best actions
to take in order to build an economy firmly grounded on devel-
opment of knowledge and research. The approach geared to
‘strengthening research’ is particularly relevant in these coun-
tries, but will have to be focused on the ‘production of innova-
tion’ in order to activate the development levers which they
require.

(9) INT/269-CESE 1484/2005, point 1.4 and points 4.1 to 4.6. pp. 9-

10. (OJ C 65, 17.3.2006).

(10) See especially INT/246 – CESE 1647/2004 in OJ C 156 of
28.6.2005: Opinion on the Communication from the Commission
Science and technology, the key to Europe's future, rapporteur
Mr Wolf, and the complementary opinion on the same subject,
rapporteur Mr Van Iersel, co-rapporteur Mr Gibillieri, CCMI/015 –
CESE 1353/2004.

(11) INT/269-CESE 1484/2005, point 4.11. (OJ C 65, 17.3.2006).

C 195/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.8.2006

3. Remarks on the recommendations concerning the

Framework Programme

Potočnik. However, the proposals put forward appear not to
have solved the difficulties and problems encountered by parti-
cipants.

3.1 Private sector involvement

3.1.1
The EESC agrees with the panel's recommendations
and stresses in particular the importance of greater participa-
tion and involvement by industry as a sine qua non for
achieving the Barcelona Council goal. It will be easier to reach
this goal if the world of business plays a more active role in
strategic choices and in identifying fields of research in which
European research excellence could emerge more fully.

3.1.2
To ensure such participation, the EESC thinks a more
focused effort of communication is needed, involving compa-
nies and producers' organisations and associations, not least to
facilitate involvement of SMEs and so raise participation from
the far from satisfactory current
level of 13 %. Their very
nature requires that the 7th FP and the competition and inno-
vation FP must not be seen as alternatives, but as complemen-
tary and synergetic.

The EESC believes the traditional

instru-
3.1.3
ments (12) and the new ones already provided for the 6th FP
should not be substantially modified, in order to avoid inadver-
tently erecting new barriers to access (as the experts found at
the outset of the 6th FP), but should be adapted in line with
experience accrued to make them more user-friendly.

financial

The Integrated Projects (IPs) and the Specific Targeted
3.1.4
Research Projects (STREPs) are the instruments preferred by
SMEs and should therefore be improved to further facilitate
their participation. There is no doubt that the Technology Plat-
forms and — even more — the Joint Technology Initiatives
will help achieve this goal. The Networks of Excellence, which
universities and public research centres value and participate in
on a large scale, should be developed to further encourage
involvement of
industry and as instruments for boosting
researcher mobility, with increased and more promising
exchanges between private and public sectors.

3.2.2
Drawing on experience gathered by the experts and
directly by the stakeholders, the EESC suggests that the difficul-
ties met by participants in the projects under the current
Framework Programme be systematically collected and analysed
so that mechanisms more tailored to the present reality can be
proposed. These could be helpful to ongoing evaluation on the
effectiveness of the procedures used and the procedures of
formal control and assessment.

3.2.3
It would also be helpful, in well-defined development
projects, to include checkpoints at which activities and antici-
pated results are monitored regularly. Provision of funding and
the continuation of the project itself should be conditional on
such monitoring at precise and predetermined stages.

As far as the modalities of participation and adminis-
3.2.4
trative and financial management are concerned,
it could be
useful to have more detailed and unambiguous guidelines for
the Contractual Agreements between participants, greater flex-
ibility and freedom of choice for the applicant, and calls for
proposals which set out more clearly the kinds of schemes and
activity and the categories of participants.

3.2.5
It has been noted that a relatively small core of organi-
sations has participated a number of times and in a number of
programmes, often acting as prime contractor (the case in
around an estimated fifth of the projects) (13). Concentration of
this kind is somewhat disturbing: on the one hand,
it says
something about the difficulty of participating, especially for
those entering a research competition for the first time; on the
other, it restricts the implementation of new projects aimed at
radical innovation and greater risk (as called for in the second
recommendation).

3.2 Simplifying management and procedures

3.3 Incentives for research

3.2.1
Simplification of management and procedures is a
recurring theme with every new Framework Programme: many
improvements have been made down the years, from a number
of documents on simplification to the sounding board of repre-
sentatives of small research groups set up by Commissioner

3.3.1 Ways of encouraging private RDT funding still need to
be better defined, while the market forces capable of triggering
a virtuous cycle of synergy are not clearly identified and so are
not available, as they should be, in the short term. Fiscal incen-
tives, strengthening of intellectual property rights and facili-
tating interventions of risk capital are goals rather than instru-
ments of action.

(12) See the EESC opinion currently being prepared on dossier INT/309.

(13) Five-Year Assessment, cit. p. 7.

18.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/5

3.3.2
The EESC would particularly like to see instruments
developed to foster the spirit of entrepreneurship among Euro-
pean researchers, and other instruments put into place (from
risk capital and venture capital to targeted EIB funding and
credit facilities for research) to smooth the path from research
results to specific business initiatives.

of ‘attracting and rewarding the best talent’, as the first of the
key objectives puts it. There is no clear prospect of the ‘Euro-
pean researcher’ status which should be the nub of such action.

3.3.3
The recommendation of ensuring greater participation
of high-tech SMEs, which (as made clear in many previous
the EESC fully endorses, must be supported by
opinions)
specific instruments in addition to the Joint Technology Initia-
tives, the Technology Platforms and the opportunities provided
by the ‘Ideas’ project. The EESC hopes that this will be a key
objective and will accordingly receive special attention in the
practice of the Open Method of Coordination.

3.3.4
In the EESC's view, if encouragement is to be given to
more innovative research geared to improving competitiveness,
unresolved intellectual property issues must be addressed, parti-
cularly the Community patent, the patentability of computer
implemented inventions and inventions in new areas of knowl-
edge, and the full implementation of the Directive on the Legal
Protection of Biotechnological Inventions.

3.4 Human resources

3.4.1
In the EESC's view, making careers in science and
technology attractive by improving the social, as well as
economic, standing of the researcher is a priority. There can be
no doubt that the growing trend for people to undertake post-
graduate studies and conduct research in other countries (in
academia and elsewhere)
is a form of mobility which helps
researchers to develop, since the interchange of knowledge and
working methods
It
becomes problematic, however, when such mobility is in one
direction only and the country of origin is unable to offer the
conditions of work, career,
social prestige and adequate
economic reward to attract people back (14). All European
countries must be attractive for young people embarking upon
a research career. In particular, there should be easier access to
for new human
the EU,
resources coming from emerging countries,
including China
and India.

is a unique process of enrichment.

including organised exchanges,

3.4.2
Programmes involving human resources and mobility
do not appear sufficient to deliver that qualitative leap capable

Critical situations such as these call

3.4.3
for innovative
policies: investment is needed a) to develop university teaching
in science and engineering (a prerequisite for which are more
science courses in upper secondary education and promoting
science as a degree option at university), b) to reduce the
number of those who graduated, but are not employed, in such
fields (an unwelcome situation prevalent in the new Member
States and in Italy, Portugal and Austria), c) to encourage more
women researchers (now little over a third, despite accounting
for more than 63 % of graduates in science and engineering
disciplines) (15), and d) to make careers in science more attrac-
tive.

The EESC considers that such policies, primarily the
3.4.4
responsibility of Member States, should receive particular atten-
tion in the Open Coordination Method, which could also be
usefully applied to higher and tertiary education systems and
research systems in order to identify best practices, appropriate
forms of peer review, concerted action between Member States
and regions, and priority transnational research topics.

3.4.5
Researchers constitute a far lower percentage of the
labour force than is the case in competitor countries (0.54 % in
the EU — and no higher than 0.5 % in all the new Member
States and the countries of southern Europe — compared with
0.9 % in the USA and 1.01 % in Japan). The age of those in the
science and technology sectors is also becoming a cause for
concern (35 % — above 40 % in some MS — in the 45-64 age
group, compared with 31 % in the 25-34 age group) (16). There
is a thought-provoking estimate that 150 000 European
researchers are currently working in the USA and a further
500 000 to 700 000 (17) researchers will be needed over the
next ten years to achieve the Barcelona goal.

3.4.6
The EESC agrees with the panel's position on the need
to offer researchers greater autonomy and responsibility (albeit
while respecting ethical principles), to give careers in science a
higher profile, to guarantee greater interdisciplinary as well as
spatial mobility and to integrate the Marie Curie system of
grants with national and regional programmes and use them
specifically to boost mobility between public and private
research.

(14) The EESC has expressed its views on this issue in many opinions,
most recently INT/269 – CESE 1484/2005, point 4.12 et seq. (OJ
C 65, 17.3.2006).

(15) Key figures 2005, cit pp. 55-57.
(16) Key figures 2005, cit pp. 47-51.
(17) Five-Year Assessment, cit p. 12.

C 195/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.8.2006

3.4.7
The EESC also supports the Commission's effort to
create a European Charter for Researchers (18) as a first step in
the right direction, but considers the Member States need to be
more coordinated and committed to achieve more effective and
better harmonised systems of training, career, remuneration
(including social
insurance, pensions and fiscal regimes) and
social insurance incentives (19).

Addressing the trustworthiness and legitimacy of
3.4.8
science and technology in Europe is an issue to which the
EESC attaches great importance and is a sine qua non for giving
legitimacy to the researcher and recognition to his work: if for
no other reason, an active and coordinated policy between the
Commission and Member States needs to be urgently defined
and allocated the appropriate means and resources.

3.5 The assessment procedure

The EESC notes the considerable efforts made by the
3.5.1
Commission to improve the assessment procedure, as instanced

Brussels, 17 May 2006.

by a series of documents focused on the work of assessors.
However, the real problem lies in the logic of ex-post assess-
ment: if it is limited to verifying formal compatibility with the
goals, it risks losing sight of the real strategic objective, namely
assessing the structural impact of the Framework Programmes
on the EU's economy and research as a whole, the priorities to
pursue and consequent allocation of funds.

3.5.2
The EESC suggests investing particular efforts into
setting up a series of indicators which would really measure
performances in terms of competitiveness and development.
Such research performance indicators should make it possible
to measure the efficacy of funded activities for the EU's devel-
opment as a whole and to steer future activities towards the
priorities established. The EESC is aware, however, that no
automatic evaluation can take the place of delicate judgements
made on a case-by-case basis by appropriate experts.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(18) Commission Recommendation of 11 March 2005 on the European
Charter for Researchers and on a Code of Conduct for the Recruit-
ment of Researchers, OJ L 75, 22.3.2005, p. 67.

(19) See CESE 205/2004, Opinion on the Communication from the
Commission - Researchers in the European Research Area, rappor-
teur Mr Wolf, in OJ C 110, of 30.4.2004.