Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Unlocking and strengthening Europe's potential for research, development and innovation
Date: 2006-12-13
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: industrial policy, industry-research relations, innovation, intellectual capital, research and development, vocational training

C 325/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Unlocking and strengthening Europe's
potential for research, development and innovation

(2006/C 325/05)

In a letter dated 9 August 2006, Dr Schavan, Federal Minister for Education and Research, acting on behalf
of the forthcoming German Council Presidency, requested the European Economic and Social Committee to
draw up an opinion on Unlocking and strengthening Europe's potential for research, development and innovation

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

In view of the urgent nature of the opinion, at its 431st plenary session, held on 13/14 December 2006
(meeting of 13 December), the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Wolf as rappor-
teur-general and adopted the following opinion by 125 votes to one with two abstentions.

Contents

1. Summary and recommendations

2. General standpoints

3. Financial matters and procedures

4. Structural aspects and basic conditions

5. The human factor- Human capital- Scientists and Engineers

1. Summary and recommendations

1.1
The Committee welcomes the request, made in preparation for
the German Council presidency by the German minister for education
and research, for an exploratory opinion on Unlocking and strength-
ening Europe's potential for research, development and innova-
tion. It considers it important and helpful that, in this way, the views
of the Committee — as the bridge to organised civil society — on this
very wide-ranging and multi-faceted topic are able to play a part in
shaping the future of European education, research and innovation
policy.

that

Bearing in mind the fact

1.2
the Commission has
recently published two Communications (1) dealing with the
subject of ‘innovation’ in the full extent of the term and in the
light also of the excellent Aho Report (2), the present opinion
will focus primarily on the twin issues of research and develop-
ment — which are regarded as the absolutely necessary prere-
quisites for any sustainable capacity for innovation — and on
the requisite training. In this way excessively extensive overlaps
with the abovementioned publications are also to be avoided.

Top performances in the scientific and technical field,
1.3
and their conversion into a competitive, economic force, are
essential preconditions to safeguarding our future, for example
with regard to energy and climate issues, preserving and
improving our current global position, and developing rather
than jeopardising the European social model.

(1) COM(2006) 502 final of 13.9.2006 entitled ‘Putting knowledge into
practice: A broad-based innovation strategy for the EU’ and COM
(2006) 589 final of 12.10.2006 on an innovation-friendly modern
Europe.

(2) EUR 22005 ‘Creating an Innovative Europe’ ISBN 92-79-00964-8.

1.4
Europe's aim, therefore, must be to be aware of and
revive its tradition as the leading area for research and innova-
tion. This means doing more to enhance the skills Europeans
will need to achieve that goal, investing significantly more in
research and development, increasing their efficiency, strength-
ening industry's willingness and ability to innovate, and redu-
cing any obstacles that stand in the way.

The most important prerequisite for achieving this goal
1.5
is a social climate that is open to progress, in which society fully
understands this and all its implications, so that politicians at all
levels create the necessary conditions and take decisions that are
conducive to such progress and, however, also so that jobs are
created and enough confidence and optimism is built up in
industry for the necessary investments to be made.

1.6
This includes ensuring that the public is made more
familiar with science and technology than is currently the case
and making better use of
talent by
providing it with more intensive support. Much greater priority
needs to be given to science and technology in primary school
curricula, and even more so in secondary education.

the existing pool of

1.7
Children and young people must be introduced to the
uses of science and technology by means of a step-by-step
approach which places emphasis on concrete examples and
practical experience and teaches them basic terms and laws.
Those who show talent for science and technology should be
encouraged to pursue a — notoriously tough — course of study
in this area and be given a solid basis of knowledge with which
to start a career in this field.

This also means that scientific and technical training in
1.8
universities and technical colleges must, at the very least, match
the highest international standards. The most important capital
for research and innovation are top-qualified and motivated
scientists and engineers of both sexes who maintain and
develop their skills through lifelong learning throughout their
careers.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/17

Furthermore, the EU, Member States and business must
1.9
offer these scientists and engineers attractive work opportu-
nities, incentives, career perspectives and the security they need
to plan their lives. These need to reflect the investment in their
education by society, as well as their own personal investment
in a field of study that is particularly difficult and demanding.
Only in this way will a change in the mobility patterns of key
achievers be attained for the benefit of Europe and away from
the current and much lamented brain drain.

1.10
Finally, the willingness of industry, and in particular
small and medium-sized enterprises, to innovate and invest in
research and development needs to be promoted and made
more attractive and more rewarding through appropriate legal,
administrative and financial framework conditions.

ment in research and development aimed for by the Barcelona
Goals. The Committee takes the view that this is insufficient to
maximise the multiplier and integrating effects that EU funding
has on Member States' research funding and much-needed
industry investment, and thus bring about
the considerable
increase that is needed in these areas.

1.14.3
Therefore, this part of EU funding should, as a first
step, be increased to 3 % as part of the revision of the EU
budget planned for 2008. This would be a particularly effective
step by the EU towards reaching the Lisbon and Barcelona
Goals, which are still as important as ever, more quickly than
can be expected at present. This is also necessary because the
research efforts of, for example, the USA and China are under-
going rapid growth.

1.11
Special efforts should be made to speed up the conver-
sion of new scientific knowledge gained from research and
development into new products and processes. Through their
staffing policies, businesses must ensure that sufficient scientific
and technical ability is available to them, enabling them to take
part in the innovation process, or at least assess new ideas or
opportunities correctly, and to adapt.

EU law on state aid should therefore be framed in
1.14.4
such a way as to encourage the Member States and enable them
to provide more effective and less bureaucratic support than in
the past, for the research and development plans of universities,
research organisations and industry, and help them establish
networks between them.

Besides

adopting financial or

1.12
fiscal measures, or
measures relating to liability legislation, particular emphasis
should therefore be placed on two-way mobility between
academia and business. Introducing a new and attractive mobi-
lity or scholarship system which involved academia and industry
in equal proportion, facilitating knowledge transfer, training and
continuous professional development, would be
especially
helpful.

1.13
The system should enable top-qualified scientists to
work in industry (and vice versa) for limited periods of time
with a full, guaranteed right of return to their previous career,
rather like the sabbaticals common to higher education.
It
would establish a bridge for the mutual exchange of staff
between academia and business, guaranteeing an optimum
transfer of knowledge.

1.14

Further concrete recommendations and conclusions:

1.14.1
The Barcelona Goals, which were formulated with a
view to implementing the Lisbon Strategy, must be taken very
seriously by all the players addressed therein, if we are to avoid
remaining in final position in the global R and D investment
race. These goals stipulate that overall expenditure in the EU on
R and D is to be increased so that it reaches a level of around
3 % of GDP by 2010. Two thirds of the requisite investment is
to be financed by the private sector.

1.14.5
The budgetary laws of
individual Member States
funds to R&D
should allow for a more flexible flow of
measures. These should be adapted to the cycle of each project.
For instance, it should be possible to transfer allocated funds to
the following calendar or budgetary year.

1.14.6
Efforts to establish a Community patent should finally
be brought to a successful conclusion. The outstanding language
issue could be resolved by applying the long-standing practices
of the international scientific community.

Innovation and progress are based on the combined
1.14.7
effects of basic and applied research coupled with product-orien-
tated development, though the borderline between these cate-
gories is not clearly defined.

For

this

reason, even closer networking of

1.14.8
the
training, research and industrial application pillars is needed.
The Committee therefore welcomes the plans for the European
Technology Institute (ETI), which is aimed at further developing
the innovation capacity of the EU and its Member States by
connecting training, research and innovation activities at the
highest level.

1.14.9
Similarly, it also follows that sufficient EU funding for
fundamental research is needed. The Ideas sub-programme in
FP7 provides a good approach to this.

1.14.2
The current EU budget forecast for 2007-2013 means
that, under its seventh R&D framework programme, the EU
would contribute a share of only 2 % towards the total invest-

1.14.10
However, progress and continuous innovation do
not depend exclusively on science and technology, but also on
innovative business
the motivation of all
models, and the right management methods.

those involved,

C 325/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

People need to be given the best possible opportu-
1.14.11
nities to develop and take initiatives in line with their talents,
skills and creativity. We must therefore also ensure that all the
employees of a given firm or institute have the opportunity to
contribute their own ideas and proposals and are rewarded
accordingly. These are important issues of social research, the
academic discipline of business management, and management
culture in general.

If promoting new approaches to research, innovative
1.14.12
technologies, business practices and business models is to be a
success, one must accept that success involves a certain amount
of risk. Progress and risk are two sides of the same coin.

structures,

Regulation that is too rigid and is aimed at standar-
1.14.13
dising organisational
research programmes and
working methods could impede the development of new
approaches and innovation. The freedom to carry out research
is a basic prerequisite for creative science, new discoveries and
innovative technology, notwithstanding the limits which are
imposed on it by laws relating to ethical
issues and without
prejudice to the appropriate use of allocated funds.

Administrative procedures for

1.14.14
the promotion of
research and development need to be simplified so as to limit
the proliferation of a multitude of application, assessment,
monitoring and auditing procedures — which in many cases
even overlap — and to reduce them to a reasonable level.

1.14.15
Finally, reference is made to the detailed text of this
opinion, which sets out the reasons for the recommendations
and addresses — some very specific — further views and makes
appropriate recommendations.

2. General standpoints

that

Bearing in mind the fact

2.1
the Commission has
recently published two Communications (3) dealing with the
subject of ‘innovation’ in the full extent of the term (see also
point 4.12.1 below) and in the light also of the excellent Aho
Report (4), the present opinion will focus primarily on the twin
issues of research and development — which are regarded as
the absolutely necessary prerequisites for any sustainable capa-
city for innovation — and on the requisite training. In this way
excessively extensive overlaps with the abovementioned publica-
tions are also to be avoided.

Europe is the cradle of modern science and research (5).
2.2
Science and research, their methods and way of thinking, were
decisive in paving the way to our contemporary European
society, its values, its way of life and its standard of living; they
were a defining characteristic of the European cultural area (6).
The recipe for the resulting success was the free interaction of

(3) See footnote 1.
(4) See footnote 2.
(5) If the Greek/Egyptian cultural area is taken into consideration, along
with the cross-fertilisation with the Indian-Arabic cultural area that has
taken place from time to time, then it can be said to be the cradle of
science generally.

(6) A very comprehensive and detailed description of these processes can
be found in the Committee's own-initiative opinion on Science, society
and the citizen in Europe (OJ C 221, 7.8.2001).

inventive craftsmanship and entrepreneurship with scientific
methods and systems.

The key social developments that led to the modern state
2.3
with separation of powers, democracy, fundamental rights and
social welfare legislation went almost hand in hand with scien-
tific and technological progress.

2.4
As a consequence of these parallel processes, the living
conditions of people in the countries and regions involved have
changed and improved as never before in human history.

2.5
In the last 135 years, the average life expectancy of the
population (7) has more than doubled (8). In the last 50 years,
agricultural yield in terms of surface area has almost trebled. In
the successful industrialised countries, the talk is now of obesity
rather than malnutrition, of information overload rather than a
lack of information, and of an ageing population rather than
child mortality.

The capabilities and achievements of modern, mobile
2.6
industrial society that have come about
through research,
science and innovation touch every area of human development
and quality of life.

2.7
Although the immediate task of R and D is to seek out
new and more profound knowledge — i.e. to delve into the
unknown and to confirm what is suspected or already known
— and also to develop new skills, the results of these endea-
vours have made a major contribution — to a degree which
was in former times unimaginable — to promoting the well-
being of mankind. In this figurative sense, the purpose of R and
D is also to promote the well-being of mankind.

2.8
Another determining factor in the progress which has
been achieved was the development and intensive use of energy-
consuming industrial processes and machines. Energy freed
labour and
people from the burden of the heaviest physical
became the ‘food’ of modern economies.

This leads to a first important recommendation from the
2.9
Committee: the decisive impact of these achievements on our
current way of life, the conditions in which they came about,
and the scientific, technical and cultural achievements associated
with them, must be recognised by society and accorded the
significance they deserve. This understanding must be part of
general basic education. The far lower quality of life and also
the poverty that can still be witnessed in parts of the Third
World, and which were also present in today's industrialised
countries before all these achievements came about, need to be
remembered so that we are able to appreciate the standard of
living we now take for granted — and the conditions on which
it depends.

(7) In Germany.
(8) Not least thanks to a reduction in child mortality.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/19

Accordingly, the curricula and available teaching time
2.9.1
at all levels of education should be oriented towards gradually
introducing children and young people to a scientific and tech-
nical way of thinking and to the store of knowledge (9) that
exists, by using clear and interesting explanations and teaching
materials. They should also raise awareness of the significance
of science and technological development
to everyday life.
Gifted young men and women should be encouraged to choose
a scientific or technical university course. Just as importantly,
they should then be given the best possible scientific and tech-
nical education in colleges and universities and receive further
education through lifelong learning programmes. What has
been achieved to date forms the foundation for future progress.

2.10 Most of what has been said above does not just apply
to Europe, though the above mentioned achievements are —
sadly — not equally and sufficiently available to all people,
population groups and peoples worldwide.

In this context, an important characteristic of

the
2.10.1
modern knowledge society should be highlighted: contrary to
the practice in former times, when, for example, the manufac-
ture of silk was protected by the Chinese as a strict secret, the
knowledge that has been attained — our most valuable posses-
sion — is offered almost freely (10), for example to students
from all over the world at universities and technical institutes
(even in the form of grants) and also in text books, publications,
patent specifications, conferences of experts,
internet publica-
tions, specialist journals, etc.

2.10.2
Putting attained knowledge into the public domain in
this way contributes, on the one hand, to the global exchange of
knowledge that is necessary for scientific progress, but, on the
other, is also a unique and particularly effective form of develop-
ment aid that, since as long ago as the 19th century, has
enabled a country such as Japan, by its own efforts and starting
from a mediaeval way of life and social structure, to achieve a
similar standard of living to that of Europe.

2.10.3
However, there must be limits to the free availability
of acquired knowledge and skills where this is necessary to get a
return on the investment that has been put into research and
development from its subsequent economic benefits and thus, at
the same time, to provide the market with the advances needed
to strengthen the competitiveness of the relevant economy.

2.10.4
To deal with this, most industrialised countries have
developed a balanced legal system for time-limited protection of

(9) This is not so much a matter of learning and understanding so many
formulae, but rather of a basic understanding of technology and the
fundamental laws of nature, and also of the significance of quantitative
connections and the usefulness of mathematics.

(10) See, however, point 2.10.3: In certain cases (i) with its use limited for a
time through patents or obtainable through licensing or (ii) treated by
businesses, with varying degrees of success, as commercial secrets for a
time.

intellectual property, culminating in patent law. The Committee
has issued several opinions (11) on this matter, and has repeat-
edly called for the introduction of an EU patent, but also for
greater awareness of the economic and cultural importance of
intellectual property. After all, the recognition and protection of
intellectual property is an incentive and just reward for the
inventors of new technologies and the creators of new works.

2.11 What does this mean for EU policy? First of all, this
raises the important and very specific question of what fraction
of gross domestic product (GDP) should be invested in research
and development as part of a balanced overall policy.

The answer to this can be found in Europe's position
2.11.1
in global competition — in other words, in the much-quoted
Lisbon strategy (12).

In Barcelona in March 2002 (13), the Council took
2.11.2
decisions (14) that pointed the way, stating the 3 % goal that by
now is well-known. This states that total R&D expenditure in
the EU should be increased such that it reaches around 3 % of
GDP by 2010. Two thirds of the requisite investment is to come
from the private sector (Point 47 of
the Council Decision).
Alongside a massive increase in the EU's own R&D investment,
the aim is also to create incentives for Member States and,
above all, for industry to invest more in R&D. The Committee
has emphatically supported this aim in numerous opinions (15),
but it sadly looks as though — except in a few Member States
— it will not be achieved. This is a disturbing state of affairs.

In addition,

the Stern Review (16),

2.11.3
entitled The
Economics of Climate Change and published at the end of October
2006, has established that reducing global warming caused by
greenhouse gases will cost around 1 % of GDP, which includes
further R&D activities that are necessary for this purpose.

2.11.4
But climate change and its relevance to the general
problem of energy use, energy consumption and sustainable
energy supply is not the only area to be addressed. Other impor-
tant topics for research include combating physical and mental
illnesses, making life easier for persons with disabilities, the
impact of demographic change — including research into
ageing, environmental protection, and generally securing the
life and our European system of values. The
essentials of

(11) See (OJ C 112, 30.4.2004),

(OJ C 112, 30.4.2004),

(OJ C 65,

17.3.2006) and OJ C 324, 31.12.2006

(12) http://consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/

00100-r1.en0.htm.

(13) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/

en/ec/71025.pdf.

(14) These, in particular the 3 % target, have regrettably only been partially

implemented thus far.
(15) (OJ C 95, 23.4.2003).
(16) http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_e-

conomics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm.

C 325/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Committee has made detailed recommendations on these
matters in previous opinions, e.g. the one on the 7th R&D
Framework Programme and its ‘specific programmes’.

2.12
It is no secret that the European Union faces the very
serious challenge of increasing global competition. A particular
challenge for the EU is to maintain European jobs, prosperity
and social and environmental standards. This is true not just
because of the economic power of the USA and Japan, but
more particularly because of the significant and increasingly
strong industrial and research performance of countries such as
China (which wants to overtake the United States as the most
technologically advanced country in the world by 2050 (17)),
India and Brazil, and in view of the significantly lower wages
and social and environmental standards in those countries.

2.13
It is precisely against this background of global compe-
tition and of the global race for increased investment in research
and development,
including global competition for the best
scientists and engineers, that the European Union must better
exploit and further strengthen its potential for research, techno-
logical development and innovation. Here we are talking
primarily about global competition, not that within Europe.

2.16 With reference to the USA in particular, this fact is not
only an indicator of
financial efficiency and of a superior
research system, but it also weakens Europe and strengthens the
USA. Moreover, the USA's R&D policy is, in comparison with
Europe, more open to and courageous with new ideas and
approaches, and generally more willing to take risks. Further-
more,
it is not only motivated by economic competitiveness,
but equally by a coherent national security strategy (20) and the
attendant high investment in R&D, which leads to cross-fertilisa-
tion.

2.17
Europe must now therefore reinvigorate its tradition as
the leading area for innovation and research, invest considerably
more in research and development, promote relevant skills
among its people, reward their efforts and remove any obsta-
cles.

2.18
The most important prerequisite for achieving this goal
is for society to fully understand this and all its implications, so
that politicians at all levels create the necessary conditions and
take decisions that are conducive to such progress. This is the
only way to ensure that (a) schools and universities are able to
fulfil their role in the context of global competition and (b)
adequate numbers of young people commit
themselves to
careers in science and technology. Only in this way will enough
confidence and optimism be generated in industry for the neces-
sary investments to be made.

2.14
Europe's competitive position can thus only be main-
tained if it continues in the future to maintain its lead (18) in
research, technological development and innovation, rooted in a
socio-cultural environment of democracy, the rule of law, free
enterprise, planning security, motivation and the recognition of
achievements. The European Research Area must be strength-
ened and expanded. Whilst this is now generally recognised in
political statements of intent, the reality in terms of action and
specific priority-setting (e.g. research budgets) and the relevant
regulatory frameworks (e.g. the structure of collectively agreed
wages and working conditions (19) and tax laws) shows up
significant and regrettable deficiencies, both at Community level
and in most of the Member States.

3. Financial matters and procedures

Source of

3.1
investment. Research and innovation —
together with effective, appropriate training for those able to
carry these out — are the preconditions for the future pros-
perity of society. Society must therefore provide the necessary
investment. In the EU, this investment comes from the EU, the
Member States, the private sector and — in small part — from
private foundations.

3.2 EU funding

Other countries that are faced with similar problems,
2.15
such as the USA and Japan, but also Switzerland, are not only
managing to put significantly more resources into research,
technological development and innovation, but are doing so
more efficiently. This is demonstrated inter alia by the attractive-
ness of the USA for European scientists and engineers, which
continues to lead to a brain drain: whilst two-way mobility is in
principle desirable,
there is a surplus of experts and talent
emigrating to the USA.

(17) Bild der Wissenschaft 9/2006, p. 109.
(18) The Committee has already pointed out on several occasions (e.g. OJ C
65, 17.3.2006) that because of the global race for investment in
research and development, the 3 % target set in Barcelona is a moving
target; he who reaches it too late still comes last.

(19) In particular in respect of the earnings and contractual situations of

young scientists and engineers.

3.2.1
7th R&D Framework Programme. As far as the EU
is concerned, the main contribution (21) to funding for research
and development will come from the 7th R&D framework
programme. The budget for this, for the period 2007 to 2013,
will be of the order (22) of around EUR 50 billion (23), which
represents about 5.8 % of the total EU budget for the period.

(20) The US Department of Defense provides large-scale funding for

research projects in universities and research institutes.

(21) In addition, there are also funding programmes from various other
Commission services, such as the framework programme for competi-
tiveness and innovation (2007-2013) and the Intelligent Energy
Europe programme.

(22) COM(2006) 364 final; subject to a decision of the European Parlia-

ment and the Council that is still outstanding.

(23) plus around EUR 2 billion from the 7th Euratom R&D framework

programme.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/21

This amount thus constitutes about 0.06 % of the EU's
3.2.2
gross domestic product, i.e. only around 2 % of the Barcelona
target value (see appendix). The Committee takes the view that
this is insufficient to maximise the multiplier and integrating
effects that EU funding has on Member States' research funding
and much-needed industry investment, and thus bring about the
considerable increase that is needed in these areas.

the other background conditions so that

the
review of all
resources invested can have the best possible impact. In particu-
lar, views and objectives that have nothing to do with research
should be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. The greatest
possible planning security should be provided, and any require-
ments imposed by the state must be consistent.

The Committee very much regrets that its recommen-
3.2.3
dation (24) to increase the proportion of the total EU budget
available for the 7th R&D framework programme further has
not been followed.

The Committee therefore calls on the European Council and the
European Parliament to aim for significant progress on this, and
to increase EU funding for
the seventh R&D framework
programme to 3 % of the Barcelona target value, when they
review the EU budget in 2008.

European Investment Bank. The Committee also
3.2.4
points out
that European Investment Bank funding should
increasingly be used to promote research, development and
innovation (25), in particular where this serves to build up the
necessary infrastructure and to transfer knowledge for use in
industry.

3.2.5
European Structural Fund. The same applies, indeed
more so, to the use of the European Structural Fund. In the new
Member States in particular, there is significant ground to be
made up in building the necessary research infrastructure and
connecting this with the establishment of modern high-tech
businesses.

3.3 Funding from Member States and business; supporting measures

taken by the European Community

3.3.1 More investment from business. Given the structu-
rally modest share of Community funding, it is of the utmost
importance that both the Member States and European busi-
ness (26)
invest adequately — i.e. much more heavily than
hitherto — in research, development and related training so as
to unleash and strengthen Europe's potential for research, devel-
opment and innovation, make use of the European Research
Area, and at least come close to reaching the Barcelona Goals.
In the case of the majority of Member States an enormous
amount of catching-up is required in this respect and action
needs to be taken as a matter of the utmost urgency.

Supporting measures to be taken by the European
3.3.3
Community. The European Community, too, can and must
provide strong support by means of its policies, in particular
through appropriate regulations or directives, an optimal envir-
onment and intelligent use of the multiplier effect of its funding
from the 7th R&D framework programme.

3.3.4
Community law on state aid. Community law on
state aid interprets EC Treaty Articles 87 and 88 to determine
the type and scope of and administrative procedures for state
aid (27) from Member States that is permissible for R&D. The
way in which this law on state aid is framed (28) is thus another
important lever with which to influence research funding by
Member States, but also to make best use of funding from the
EU's 7th R&D Framework Programme. EU law on state aid must
therefore be framed in such a way as to encourage and enable
in the most efficient and least
Member States to support,
bureaucratic way possible, the research and development plans
of universities, research organisations and industry, and the
synergies between them, to a greater extent and more effectively
than in the past.

associated with high administrative

Priority to global competitiveness. In particular, it is
3.3.5
important
to avoid a situation where restrictions on state
funding for research and development that are too narrowly
drafted,
and
concerned only with the competitive situation within Europe
impair the European Union's global competitiveness. On the
contrary: precisely because of the very small relative contribu-
tion of EU funding (29), the Member States must be able to
support the networking of universities, research institutes and
industry that is necessary within the European Research Area
generously and without being obstructed by red tape.

costs,

3.3.6
SMEs and start-ups. It is also important to further
strengthen the potential of SMEs, and especially of start-up
companies,
to provide
stronger incentives for industry to invest
in this area. The
Committee also refers to its recommendations (30) on the EU
Multiannual programme for enterprise and entrepreneurship, and in

innovation and, more generally,

for

3.3.2
and suitable background conditions.
Alongside increased financial efforts, there also needs to be a

Reliable

(24) (OJ C 65, 17.3.2006).
(25) The EESC's Consultative Commission on Industrial Change (CCMI) is

in the process of preparing an opinion on this matter.

(26) A recent study by the European Commission showed that, in 2005,
European businesses increased their R&D investment by 5.3 %. This is
to be welcomed.

(27) See also (OJ C 80, 30.3.2004) and (OJ C 65, 17.3.2006).
(28) On 22 November 2006 the European Commission published a press
release on this matter (IP/06/1600) on its website, together with a
document (which lacked both a date and a reference number) on a
‘Community Framework for State Aid for Research and Development
and Innovation’. The EESC has not yet been able to take a stand on this
document or to examine it in the light of the abovementioned recom-
mendations.
(29) See point 3.2.2.
(30) (OJ C 234, 22.9.2005).

C 325/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

particular for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and to the
support for the knowledge-based economy that is especially
important in this context. The fact that 98 % of all firms in the
EU are SMEs makes it particularly clear how important it is to
strengthen the capacity for innovation of this category of enter-
prise.

it

the particular characteristics of research and development. In
should be established whether business-based
particular,
approaches
that have been optimised for manufacturing
industry can be transferred wholesale to organisations whose
product is knowledge, where they may lead to distortions in
terms of cost, presentation and evaluation.

The example of

Inspiration should be
3.3.7
drawn from global competitors' funding policy in this area, in
particular that of the USA.

the USA.

rules. Another

3.4 Member States' budget
significant
finance-related question is whether individual Member States'
budget rules are conducive to the aim of the effective use of
resources. If not, the Community should work towards making
the relevant Member States' budget rules more helpful to the
requirements of research and development than has hitherto
been the case.

it

flexible

timetables

funding-release

investment
state

is important
timetables

in general,
funding-release

3.4.1 More
and
budget rules. For large development projects, and for research
to
and development
prevent arbitrarily set
(as
happens with government accounting) leading to decisions that
are inappropriate to the project. Since when charting new tech-
nological territory it is not always possible to predict, with suffi-
cient accuracy, the total cost, let alone the funding requirements
for a particular calendar year, project funding may lapse due to
state funding release timetables being linked to the calendar
year. This leads to inappropriate optimisation procedures and
inefficiency. Better solutions, such as permitting the transfer of
part of the allocated funds to the next calendar or budget year,
should therefore be found and incorporated into Member States'
budget rules.

3.5 Member States' tax and liability laws. Similarly, the
Community should work to encourage Member States to frame
their tax and liability laws so that they do more to provide
incentives for industry to increase investment in research and
development and to keep the financial risks of introducing inno-
vative technologies or products manageable.

3.6
Sufficient core funding by Member States. In addi-
tion, the Member States should ensure that their research insti-
tutes have sufficient core funding to be able to take advantage
of co-financing from the seventh R&D framework programme.

3.7
the
Accounting, costing and evaluation. Similarly,
accounting, costing and expense evaluation procedures of recipi-
ents of state funding, in this case the various research institutes,
should be assessed as to whether they are really appropriate to

3.8
Political and social priorities. In general terms, politi-
cians — and the media as opinion formers — should raise
awareness that sufficient and effective research and development
are the necessary foundation for future prosperity, i.e. also for
jobs, social services and competitiveness, and they should act
accordingly. This applies to the necessary budget decisions in
favour of the required investment, as well as to the basic condi-
tions in respect of training, employment law, working condi-
tions, tax law, collective bargaining law, etc. It also applies to the
basic attitude of society as a whole to scientific and technolo-
gical progress, which carries with it significant opportunities,
but also — despite all the precautions which are taken — an
unavoidable element of residual risk. Excessive risk-aversion
leads to stagnation, and eventually even to a loss of knowledge
skills and to retrogression.

4. Structural aspects and basic conditions

in which creativity and inventiveness,

General standpoints. (31).A matter of overriding impor-
4.1
tance is therefore the economic, political, social and cultural
environment
together
initiatives, can develop to an optimal
with entrepreneurial
degree (32) and which makes it possible to secure the services of
the best scientists and engineers for the European Research Area
and also to retain them in this area. Such an environment also
includes, in particular, the requisite measures for maintaining or
establishing optimal operating conditions for good science and
research.

Testing of new ideas and concepts. Science and
4.2
research endeavour to come up with the best and the newest
ideas, procedures and results. This also includes the independent
reproduction (or refutation) — i.e.
‘certification’ — of new
knowledge, in addition to the dissemination and more in-depth
and broader study of such knowledge, whereby the primary aim
must be to venture gradually into new territory. It is therefore
essential to facilitate and foster pluralistic (33) and inter-disci-
plinary approaches to research, assessment procedures and
research structures in order to stimulate and exploit the evolu-
tionary process (34) so as to achieve the best ideas, findings and
forms of organisation in the respective cases.

(31) Based in part on (OJ C 95, 23.4.2003).
(32) See also point 3.4.
(33) However, see also the point on ‘Cooperation projects’ below.
(34) See also OJ C 221, 7.8.2001), Science, society and the citizen, Point 4.7:
‘Research is a step into the unknown and the approaches adopted by
the individual or by the group vary and complement each other
according to need, talent and temperament. Researchers are managers,
engineers, collectors, hair-splitters or artists. Research is groping in the
mist, hunches, surveying an unknown landscape, collecting and
collating data, finding new signs, tracing underlying connections and
patterns, recognising new correlations, developing mathematical
models, developing the necessary concepts and symbols, developing
and building new equipment, searching for simple solutions and
harmony. But it is also confirming, making sure, expanding, general-
ising and reproducing.’

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/23

Evaluation criteria and room for manoeuvre. So,
4.3
evaluation criteria must promote innovation, thereby accepting
the risks of failure since there can be no a priori guarantee of
success. We should avoid overly rigid ‘top-down’ regulations or
bodies of rules designed to standardise forms of organisation,
research programmes and working methods; such provisions
may impede evolution towards new ideas and innovation. Inno-
vation requires sufficient entrepreneurial freedom so that the
new idea does not wither under the burden of too many restric-
tive regulations. Scientific freedom — inter alia the freedom
from restrictive (35) or indeed ideological requirements — is a
fundamental prerequisite for creative research and new discov-
eries, without prejudice to a) the limits placed by legislative
answers to ethical problems and b) the proper use of allocated
funds.

experienced scientists and engineers. However,

Simplification (37) and reduction of administrative
4.4
procedures: Avoiding the creation of overlapping or
parallel bodies (38). Research and development inevitably also
require work in the following fields: planning, enterprise, admin-
istration and evaluation, which has to be carried out by recog-
the
nised,
required administrative procedures have become so numerous
and burdensome that significant resources are taken away from
actual research activities. In particular, we have witnessed infla-
tionary growth in the volume of application, appraisal, moni-
toring and auditing processes which have to be carried out; this
has resulted in unproductive activity which diverts energy away
from real research work (39). Furthermore, a lack of investment
in training, research and development cannot be replaced by
stepping up the number of evaluation procedures.

Bottom-up. Every research policy should therefore be
4.3.1
based on the following principle: a ‘bottom-up’ approach should
be adopted wherever possible, whilst a ‘top-down’ approach
should be pursued wherever it is essential and there should be
the maximum possible level of decentralisation whilst centralisa-
tion should be pursued only insofar as it is necessary. Ultimately
this is a matter of achieving a balance between, on the one
hand, individual capacity to generate new ideas and individual
creativity, and, on the other, the necessary planning, harmonisa-
tion and steering when carrying out the bundling of resources
necessary to carry out larger projects that require division of
labour.

reiterate

The EESC would therefore

its pressing
4.4.1
request (40) that both the Commission and the Member States
make an in-depth examination of this subject and seek to bring
about more efficient and better coordinated procedures (in par-
ticular also involving and between the bodies concerned in the
Member States). The EESC recommends, in particular, that steps
be taken to reduce the excessive number of separately-acting,
vertical (and also horizontal/parallel) authorising, guidance and
monitoring bodies (and processes).

It

etc.,

companies,

research organisations,

Cooperation projects.

4.3.2
is precisely those R&D
projects or high-tech projects which are particularly demanding
and promising that are,
in the final analysis, the very ones
which often require even international cooperation between the
various
including
funding by a variety of contributors. Especially in cases where
the internal organisational structures, evaluation systems, staff
policies and budgetary rules (36), etc. of the bodies in question
show clear divergences, this may impede the desired success of
such cooperation. What is important here is that all relevant
stakeholders should be prepared to take each other's needs into
account and, for the purposes of the specific project, to agree
common rules that may deviate from their usual customs, to
refrain from making specific demands for preferential treatment
and to reach workable agreements.

4.3.3 Open method of coordination. Thus, whilst
the
point entitled Testing of new ideas and concepts advocates plurality
and sets out the disadvantages of excessive uniformity for evolu-
tionary progress, it is necessary to have within the cooperating
institutions a minimum of uniformity of applicable rules and
benchmarks for cooperation projects and for cooperation within
Europe generally. In this context, the instrument of open coordi-
nation should be used carefully, in order to achieve the neces-
sary balance between these conflicting standpoints.

(35) See also (OJ C 65, 17.3.2006), point 4.13.2 on the Charter and foot-

note.

(36) See also the point under the heading ‘More flexible flow of funding

and more flexible budgetary law’.

and

excellence

Promoting

competition.

4.5
The
Committee welcomes the efforts made by the Commission, the
Member States and research organisations to promote, in par-
ticular, excellence in respect of achievements or proposed
programmes. These efforts are generally in line with the goal of
bringing about top achievements in R&D and also tie in with
the efforts either to keep the most successful researchers in
Europe or to bring them to Europe. This is of course, going to
entail a further
increase in administrative procedures. This
makes it all the more of a priority requirement to bring about
massive reductions in the overall volume of these procedures
and to rationalise and simplify them. The slogan ‘Less is more’ is
particularly applicable in this case.

4.6
Blurring of the borderlines between research cate-
gories. There is no sharp distinction between the categories of
basic research, applied research and development; it is rather the
case that they are linked by fruitful networking and feedback.
Insofar as a distinction between these categories should continue
to be made in bodies of rules, the organisations concerned must
be given sufficient discretionary powers
and room for
manoeuvre in decision-making with regard to the determination
of the respective shares. The fact does however, remain that, the
findings of basic research are hardly predictable or capable of
being planned in advance; a properly targeted,
thoroughly
planned approach can only come into play in cases where the
goal can be defined and the route to be followed is sufficiently
clear.

(37) See also, e.g. point 1.2 (OJ C 309, 16.12.2006).
(38) Cf. CESE 1674/2004.
(39) The Association of German Universities has just published a concise
comparative study on this subject: Forschung und Lehre 9/06, p. 516
(www.forschung-und-lehre.de).
(40) Point 5.1.8 (OJ C 110 of 30.4.2004).

C 325/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

innovatory products, processes

4.7 Moving from enhancing our knowledge of nature to
the creation of
and
services. Special efforts need to be devoted to the goal of
speeding up the translation of new findings in the field of basic
research and also of applied R&D into the creation of new
products, processes or services. Although this is one of the
central problems,
there are, unfortunately, no all-embracing
patent remedies for resolving it. A number of principles can,
however, be defined and several measures can be recommended.

The Committee thus welcomes most particularly the
4.7.5
planning (47) currently under way with a view to establishing a
European Institute of Technology (EIT); the goal of the EIT is
to expand the capacity for innovation of both the EU and its
Member States by linking top-level activities in the field of
training, research and innovation. The EIT is to carry out its
work primarily through Knowledge and Innovation Commu-
nities (KICs) based on partnership. The Committee recommends
here, too, that in particular ‘bottom-up’ initiatives and processes
should be proposed, promoted and given priority.

4.7.1
The most important measure is no doubt to improve
staff mobility between academia and industry (see point 5.5 et
seq. below) and also generally to promote mutual understanding
and reciprocal interchange between these two ‘cultures’ (41).

4.7.2 With these aims in view, private industry does,
however, have a duty to develop the requisite entrepreneurial
culture, to concern itself to a greater degree with the findings of
R&D and to become more courageous as regards the introduc-
tion of innovatory products (see also point 4.9). Businesses need
to gear their personnel polices towards acquiring or building up
at least the requisite amount of scientific and technical compe-
tence to enable them to make sound judgments and to be ready
to adapt. They must also seek to bring about a climate which
promotes innovation with a view to fostering and exploiting the
creative potential of their workforces.
‘Know-how can only be
transmitted if it is available, recognised and understood’ (42).

4.7.3
A contribution to this could also be made by informa-
tion systems publicly accessible on the Internet, which
would make it possible for potentially interested parties to
follow the path back from a general index to the results of Euro-
pean research as well as the original publications and their
authors and to find the necessary contacts. This is partly done
already by Cordis (43). Such information systems should if
possible also be accessible to disabled people (44) and take
account of the ageing society.

4.7.6
From an overall standpoint, the Member States should
also introduce stronger support measures in this context. Such
measures should cover both the abovementioned ‘start-ups’ and
also cooperation (48) between research bodies and already estab-
lished companies.

of

Such

basic

research.

Importance

for the highly important

4.8
support
programmes must, however, by no means be introduced at the
expense of basic research. The EESC therefore reiterates its
in the
support
seventh Framework Programme and for the European Research
Council set up in this connection. A single new idea can unleash
an avalanche of innovation, cascading into many different areas
of technology (49). The importance of basic research and the
promotion of this research is also recognised and supported by
industry (50).

‘Ideas Programme’

This is in line with the recommendation expressed on
4.8.1
that, when
numerous occasions by the EESC to the effect
comprising basic
considering the
research, applied research and development (product- and
process-development), due weight must be given to all three of
the essential pillars,
for basic
research.

including adequate support

Innovation Triangle,

the establishment of

4.7.4
At least as important, however, is the question of the
requisite cooperation between research institutes and companies
working in related fields. Such cooperation may be promoted by
direct physical proximity (45);
‘clusters’
results in both inevitable and deliberately sought-after meetings
and partnerships. The establishment of clusters should be
further promoted by introducing appropriate programmes. But
all efforts at municipal and regional level to promote knowledge
transfer and establish connections should be recognised and
initiatives (46)
promoted. As an example the ‘Science Cities’
should be mentioned here.

(41) Not to be confused with the ‘Two cultures’ referred to by C.P. Snow:

Science and Humanities.

(42) Quotation from the EESC opinion on the European Research Area, (OJ

C 204, 18.7.2000).
(43) http://cordis.europa.eu
(44) See also the ERDF rules on this subject.
(45) This is similarly also the case with regard to inter-disciplinary research

topics.

(46) www.sciencecities.eu

(47) The EESC will draw up a separate opinion on this matter.
(48) There are, however, also a number of fundamentally contrasting
interests which were already mentioned in point 7 of OJ C 309,
16.12.2006, as epitomised by the following examples:
— Basic research, and indeed any longer-term research and devel-
opment, thrives on early publication of findings so that other
research groups have the chance to conduct control studies. It is
also necessary to harness
the synergies generated through
immediate interaction within the scientific community, in par-
ticular where a large number of laboratories are cooperating in
a joint research and development programme.

— Government must generally also insist on publication of findings
from research it has funded in order to ensure a level playing
field.

— On the other hand it is generally in a company's interests — in
view of the competition situation — that the findings from its
product development remain confidential at least until a new
product is ready for the market.

(49) See also OJ C 309, 16.12.2006, points 1.7 and 8.
(50) cf. The Economic Returns to Basic Research and the Benefits of Univer-
sity-Industry Relationships. A literature review and update of findings.
Report for the UK Office of Science and Technology* by SPRU —
Science and Technology Policy Research. Alister Scott, Grové Steyn,
Aldo Geuna*, Stefano Brusoni, Ed Steinmueller, 2002.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/25

The innovative product. Even if all these recommenda-
4.9
tions are acted upon, it is the responsibility of private industry
to realise, exploit or produce and market innovative products,
innovative processes and innovative services based on the
discoveries and capacities brought about by R&D. This process
requires considerable prior investment and adequate time and
also involves considerable risks for the market economy and
SMEs in particular. Here, too, the EU and the Member States
can, however, provide a decisive level of assistance by pursuing
generally
administrative
barriers, providing economic — and, in particular, tax — incen-
tives and an adequate amount of risk capital, introducing clever,
effective and unbureaucratic support programmes and, in par-
ticular, by constantly endeavouring to create a social climate
which is technology- and innovation-friendly.

consistent policies, by

removing

4.9.1
A contribution to placing innovative products (tech-
niques, services) on the market could also be made by public
procurement, which in this way would provide the opportunity
to stimulate modernisation of public installations (51).

4.10
Intellectual property and Community patent. One
weakness of the EU is the fact that there is no Community
patent. This shortcoming leads to much higher costs and other
barriers for those wishing to safeguard their intellectual prop-
erty. This situation thus gives rise to two serious drawbacks: on
the one hand, higher costs associated with the patent process
and patent protection and, on the other hand, even the loss of
possible patent protection as a result of delays and discourage-
ment.

4.10.1
The language problem. One of the obstacles which
stands in the way of reaching agreement in the EU on the intro-
duction of a Community patent is the language problem. The
Committee therefore recommends that the language question be
solved according to the long established practice of the interna-
tional science community. This should however by no means be
used or understood as an effort to hinder or limit European
multilingualism, which is a valuable indicator of the cultural
breadth
the
Committee (52).

supported

therefore

Europe

and

by

of

Period of grace prior to publication which does
4.10.2
not infringe novelty status. The EESC also draws attention
once again to its desire to see the authorisation of a period of
grace prior to publication which does not
infringe novelty
status (53), with a view to resolving the conflict between the

(51) It is however well known that innovative leaps always involve risks of
delay, higher costs or indeed failure; this can lead to public criticism,
and can ultimately be measured only by long-term success. [(Examples:
Airbus 380, German toll system or UMTS licences) (Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System)].

(52) On a new framework strategy for multilingualism (OJ C 324,

30.12.2006).

(53) This implies that, within a given period of grace, the publication of
new research findings by the inventor concerned cannot be deemed to
infringe novelty status in any subsequent patent application by the
inventor. See also (OJ C 95, 23.4.2003), point 5.2 and points 2.5.1
and 2.5.2 (OJ C 110, 30.4.2004).

necessity on the part of research workers to publish their find-
ings without delay and the qualification that it should only be
possible to patent new, hitherto unknown inventions.

Particular situation of

4.11
the new Member States.
Whilst, on the one hand, the new Member States generally
possess the competitive advantage of having lower wage levels
— the corollary of which, of course, is that most of their citi-
zens have to contend with the disadvantage of a lower standard
of living — these Member States do, on the other hand, suffer
from the shortcoming that the infrastructure required for R&D
remains less developed in their countries.

4.11.1
The EESC has therefore recommended on numerous
occasions (54) that a much larger part of the resources of the
EU's Structural Funds be used for the development of scientific
infrastructure. The use of funding from the European Invest-
ment Bank for this purpose could also be highly beneficial.

The new Member States, too, for their part, should,
4.11.2
however, do their utmost to make good the abovementioned
shortcoming as soon as possible and then gradually to achieve
the 3 % objective. Overall, providing strong support to the new
Member States to help them develop their research systems and
to foster the next generation of scientists must be a priority
objective of the EU.

to the

commercial

entrepreneurial,

Innovation (55) in the general sense. Whilst the obser-
4.12
vations and recommendations set out up to now have consid-
ered ‘innovation’ mainly in terms of a consequence of scientific
and technical activity and initiatives, attention is drawn here
and social
expressly
aspects (56) and the scope for innovatory ideas and processes.
These latter aspects and possibilities undoubtedly complement
the abovementioned scientific and technical aspects and are
equally important in terms of prosperity, competitiveness and
the Lisbon Strategy. As employed in this exploratory opinion,
these aspects and possibilities relate primarily to economic and
social policy issues, which are to be dealt with separately in a
future opinion on the Lisbon Strategy (see also the following
chapter).

context

In this

the Committee welcomes

4.12.1
the
Commission Communications (57) (see also point 1.2) of 13
September 2006 ‘Putting knowledge into practice: A broad-
based innovation strategy for the EU’ and of 12 October 2006
on an innovation-friendly Europe, the main thrust of which it

(54) For example in (OJ C 65, 17.3.2006).
(55) According to the Commission's Proposal for the establishment of the
European Institute of Technology: ‘Innovation means the process and
the outcomes of this process through which new ideas respond to soci-
etal or economic demand and generate new products, services or busi-
ness models that are successfully introduced in an existing market or
that are able to create new markets.’ In the present exploratory
opinion, the term ‘innovation’ refers primarily to scientific and tech-
nical processes or products.

(56) See footnote 55 above. A more concise definition which has been
coined in English is as follows ‘Innovation is the successful exploitation
of new ideas’.

(57) COM(2006) 502 final and COM(2006) 589 final as well as footnotes

1 and 2.

C 325/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

fully supports and some points of which it develops in this
opinion. (The first of the Communications refers to the Aho
Report (58)), which is
support. The
Committee also refers to its own proposals (59) for an innovative
employment policy.

likewise deserving of

5. The human factor — Human capital — Scientists and

engineers (60)

Personal aspects — motivation.

In this context the
5.1
EESC would draw attention to its opinion dealing specifically
with this issue (61) and would reaffirm and underline the
comments set out in this opinion. As it had already done on
earlier occasions, the EESC pointed out in the abovementioned
opinion that human capital was the most delicate and most
valuable research, development and innovation resource. The
most important task is therefore to motivate talented young
people to embark upon a scientific or technical education and
to provide them with the best possible such education.

5.2
Universities and institutes of technology. The exis-
tence of the requisite training bodies is therefore a key prerequi-
site for meeting requirements as regards good scientists and
engineers. It is therefore essential to establish and maintain —
working in liaison with research and teaching bodies (62) — an
adequate number of properly equipped, top-quality attractive
universities and, above all, institutes of technology, possessing
excellent teaching staff. These universities and institutes of tech-
nology must be able to stand up to competition with the best
universities in the USA or other non-European states. They
must consequently also be sufficiently attractive to draw the
best students from non-European countries. In this context, too,
the EIT could play a helpful role.

5.3 Mobility. In view of the fact that, following a successful
university education, mobility, both within Europe and involving
countries outside Europe,
is now already regarded almost as
part of the necessary further training for scientists and engi-
neers, two further demands consequently need to be made,
namely:

5.3.1 Mobility must be rewarded rather than being pena-
lised. Regrettably there are still a large number — and even
some quite new (63) — wage, tax, insurance and pension provi-
sions which bring about exactly the opposite effect. There is a
need for a systematic and targeted review/correction of all the
aspects/barriers concerned. Furthermore, account needs to be
taken of the fact that, in view of the need to maintain family
cohesion, the measures in question will have to be applicable to
families as a whole.

(58) Esko Aho/EUR 22005. http://europa.eu.int/invest-in-research/.
(59) E.g. ‘Flexicurity: the case of Denmark’ (OJ C 195, 18.8.2006).
(60) Both men and women.
(61) Opinion on Researchers in the European Research Area: one profes-

sion, multiple careers — (OJ C 110, 30.4.2004).

(62) With this aim in view, the achievement of even better networking
between universities and non-university research bodies could be
helpful, particularly in order to include in such networking the equip-
ment and infrastructure of such research bodies.

(63) For example in the case of Germany.

5.3.2 Mobility must not lead to a one-way brain drain. The
prospects of achieving success based on the equipment provided
and the working environment, together with levels of income
and career opportunities for research workers and engineers
must thus be geared to those which are on offer in the non-
European countries which provide particular competition to the
EU Member States.

Careers. By virtue of

the investment carried out by
5.4
society, on the one hand, and individual researchers, on the
other hand, with a view to acquiring the desired broadly-based
and not readily accessible fundamental knowledge and high-
grade special knowledge, society — as represented by politicians
— assumes responsibility for making optimal use of this invest-
ment. This responsibility must be reflected in a concern to
ensure that trained research workers are provided with suitable
career paths, with attractive options for branching out into
other fields, without running the risk of being professionally
sidelined. If qualified scientists and engineers are unemployed or
underemployed, this represents a wastage of economic invest-
ment and serves as a deterrent for the next generation of top-
level scientists and engineers, with the result that they opt for
non-scientific and non-technological careers or emigrate to
countries outside Europe.

5.4.1
Doctoral students. In view of the necessary duration
of a complete course of scientific and technical study, followed
by a doctoral thesis and bearing in mind that dissertations in
scientific and technological fields require students to be able to
work independently and demonstrate total professional commit-
ment, such commitment should be properly recognised and
rewarded (as regards engineers, this is also sometimes the case).
It is harmful, for a variety of reasons, to condemn particularly
the most talented young scientists to financial dependency for
too long a period during their doctoral studies by providing
them with inadequate payments (64). Engineers and scientists
who have completed a full course of academic study are not to
be regarded as apprentices or trainees.

As regards the subsequent career path, it is important
5.4.2
to develop attractive ‘Tenure-track’ models and alternative
options for branching out into other professional activities. The
observations made at the end of the preceding chapter also
apply — even more forcefully — in this context.

5.4.3
Providing people with the right opportunities.
Progress and ongoing innovation also depend on motivating all
the parties concerned and introducing new social models and
the right management methods. We have to provide people,
including all employees in firms and research institutes, with the
best possible opportunities — in the light of
their talents,
capabilities and levels of creativity — to develop their gifts and
display initiative and we also need to bring about a social
climate which promotes their creativity. These are all very
important matters of social policy and social research, family
policy, business management teaching and management culture
the importance, with a view to
in general.
promoting creativity and productivity, of having a good ‘work-
life balance’ has also now been recognised (65).

In this context

(64) See also (OJ C 110, 30.4.2004).
(65) See Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, edition number 257 of 4

November 2005, Section C1.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/27

Interchange between academia and industry. The best
5.5
channel for transferring knowledge and exchanging experience
is via the respective scientists themselves. Efforts have therefore
been made over a long period of
time to organise more
exchanges of personnel between universities and research
bodies, on the one hand, and industry, on the other hand.
the difficulties and obstacles which have to be
Despite
contended with,
is absolutely necessary to step up these
efforts.

it

Regrettably, little success has indeed been achieved (66)
5.5.1
so far in overcoming a variety of barriers, such as collective
bargaining law, the appeals culture, career criteria, etc. In
view of the fact that the problems which exist are essentially
well known, fresh attempts should be made to bring an influ-
ence to bear on the procedures or to modify them and to
remove barriers in respect of salary levels. It is, however, not
only a matter of salary levels and very different
levels of
income; a further factor is the differences as regards enterprise
culture as between industry and the academic world. Even
though some of these differences are likely to be of an intrinsic
nature, it is nonetheless important to endeavour to bring about
much more interchange and cooperation between the personnel

Brussels, 13 December 2006

(66) See,

for example,

the publication entitled Forschung und Lehre
(published by the Association of German Universities; www.
forschung-und-lehre.de) 4/06 p. 208 Forschung und Lehre 7/06; p. 402.

involved. The EESC recommends that new ideas be put forward
for achieving positive results in this key issue.

5.5.2
In addition to stressing the financial, tax law and liabi-
lity law aspects, special emphasis should therefore be placed on
promoting reciprocal mobility between academia and industry.
The EESC would accordingly reiterate its recommendation that a
system of grants or support be introduced with a view to
providing incentives for limited (e.g. lasting one to three years)
reciprocal mobility between industry and scientific bodies
(with guarantees being provided that participants can subse-
quently return to their previous careers) along the lines of the
arrangements governing academic sabbaticals. Such mobility
could lead not only to promoting better acquaintance on a
personal
the conditions
under which the respective parties work and bring about a
transfer of knowledge but could, of course, also pave the way
for longer-term exchanges. Whilst the Committee recognises
that return arrangements under such schemes could also be
and
problematical
industry (67), the benefits of such a system of grants should be
of a sufficient order as to make it possible to overcome these
problems. This scheme could indeed also open up additional
career prospects.

level and a better understanding of

from both academia

for participants

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(67) See, for example, the article on careers and prospects (‘Beruf und
Chance’) in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, edition number 251,
of 28 October 2006, Section C1.