Mid-term assessment : science and society activities, 2002-2006.
Date: 2007-10-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: EU programme, EU research policy, education policy, ethics, participation of women, project evaluation, public awareness campaign, scientific research, social role

K
I
-
N
A
-
2
2
9
5
4
-
E
N
-
C

At the crossroad where FP6 was about to reach its end of term and the preparations for FP7 were under way, 
the services of the DG RTD launched a mid-term evaluation to assess whether the activities implemented 
under the “Science and Society” part in FP6 met their objectives and to develop recommendations for FP7. 
The report was built on the review of selected S&S activities for the five thematic areas of the programme 
(science education, scientific advice and governance, ethics, women and science, science communication) 
and their integration with findings of other evaluations and a number of major conferences and forums. All 
the funded activities were found to be in line with the objectives of the Commission’s Science and Society 
Action Plan as defined in 2001. In particular, the report acknowledges that the programme established a very 
visible  European  dimension  for  S&S  themes  by  supporting  and  catalysing  cooperation  in  Europe  through 
activities on important issues of crucial value to the Lisbon agenda. It also highlights a significant unrealised 
potential to influence policy development and puts forward a set of recommendations to the Commission 
and the national authorities of the Member States.

T
R
O
P
E
R
L
A
N
I
F

EUR 22954

Untitled-5   1

9/18/07   3:55:00 PM

 
 
T
R
O
P
E
R
L
A
N
I
F

EUR 22954

MTA_Report-1.indd   1

7/27/07   2:58:40 PM

 
Interested in European research? 
RTD  info  is  our  quarterly  magazine  keeping  you  in  touch  with  main  developments  (results,  programmes,  events,  etc.).  
It is available in English, French and German. A free sample copy or free subscription can be obtained from:

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Research
Information and Communication Unit
B-1049 Brussels
Fax (32-2) 29-58220
E-mail: research@ec.europa.eu
Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/rtdinfo/index_en.html

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Research
Directorate L – Science, economy and society
B-1049  Brussels
Fax nr. +32-2-294 44 62

MTA_Report-1.indd   2

7/27/07   2:58:40 PM

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

MID-TERM ASSESSMENT
SCIENCE AND SOCIETY ACTIVITIES
2002-2006

Final report
22 March 2007

 Report to the European Commission 
Chaired by Pierre PAPON

2007

Directorate-General for Research

Science and Society 

EUR 22954

MTA_Report-1.indd   3

7/27/07   2:58:40 PM

Reviewers’ panel
Suzanne de Cheveigné (France)
Researcher, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Laboratoire Sociologie, Histoire, 
Anthropologie des Dynamiques Culturelles

Costas Constantinou, co-rapporteur  (Cyprus)
Associate Professor of Science Education, University of Cyprus; Member of the European Commission 
High Level Group on Human Resources for Science & Technology in Europe

Søren Holm (Denmark)
Director, Cardiff Centre for Ethics, Law and Society (CCELS); Chair in Bioethics, Cardiff Institute for 
Society, Health and Ethics (Cardiff Law School)

Anxo Cereijo Roibas (Spain)
Senior Lecturer at the University of Brighton; Contract Professor at the Faculty of Design of the 
Politecnico di Milano University

Jane Summerton (Sweden)
Professor VTI, Department of Technology and Social Change, Linköping University

Impact assessment panel

Massimiano Bucchi (Italy)
Associate Professor of Sociology of Science and Sociology of 
Communication; Head of the Science in Society project, University of Trento  

Susan Cozzens (United States of America)
Professor and Director of the Technology Policy and Assessment Center, School of Public Policy, Georgia 
Institute of Technology

Hana Havelkova, co-rapporteur  (Czech Republic)
Assistant Professor, Department of Gender Studies, Faculty of Humanities, 
Charles University, Prague; ENWISE expert 

Pierre Papon , chairman (France)
Professor emeritus, Ecole Supérieure de Physique et de Chimie Industrielles, Paris, honorary chairman of 
the Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques.

Steve Rayner (United Kingdom)
Director, James Martin Institute, University of Oxford; James Martin Professor of Science and 
Civilization, University of Oxford;
Director, UK Economic and Social Research Council, Science in Society Research Programme 

Judit Sandor (Hungary)
Professor, Faculty of Political Science, Legal Studies and Gender Studies, Central European University; 
Director, Centre for Ethics and Law in Biomedicine, Central European University 



MTA_Report-1.indd   4

7/27/07   2:58:40 PM

Mid-TerM AssessMenT of science And socieTy AcTiviTies 
2002–2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword by the chairperson ......................................................................................7
Executive summary ......................................................................................................9
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................14
2. Terms of Reference and Methodology ..................................................................21
2. 1 Terms of reference ............................................................................................21
2.2  Evaluation process ............................................................................................21
2.3  Evaluation criteria .............................................................................................23
3. Assessment of the achievements in individual thematic areas ...........................25
3.1 Science education ...............................................................................................2
a) Introduction to the theme .................................................................................2
b) Assessment.......................................................................................................28
c) Recommendations ............................................................................................29
3.2  Scientific Advice and Governance Activities ....................................................31
a) Introduction to the theme .................................................................................31
b) Assessment.......................................................................................................3
c) Recommendations ............................................................................................3
3.3 Ethics ..................................................................................................................3
a) Introduction to the theme .................................................................................3
b) Assessment.......................................................................................................37
c) Recommendations ............................................................................................39
3.4 Women and Science ...........................................................................................0
a) Introduction to the theme .................................................................................0
b) Assessment.......................................................................................................2
c) Recommendations ............................................................................................
3.5 Science Communication ....................................................................................6
a) Introduction ......................................................................................................6
b) Assessment.......................................................................................................7
c) Recommendations ............................................................................................0
3.6 A brief note on Scientific Culture .......................................................................1
4. Overall Assessment of the Science and Society Programme ..............................53
4.1 Achievements .....................................................................................................3
4.2 Impact in relationship with the objectives of the Action Plan ...........................7
4.3 Lessons from the implementation of the Programme ........................................8
5. Recommendations ..................................................................................................59
6. Conclusions .............................................................................................................64

Annexes
Statistical information on Science and Society programme

MTA_Report-1.indd   5



7/27/07   2:58:40 PM

6

MTA_Report-1.indd   6

7/27/07   2:58:40 PM

Foreword by the chairperson

The European Commission set up a panel with the mandate to undertake a Mid-Term Assessment 

exercise  of  Science  and  Society  activities  during  FP6. As  the  Chairperson  of  this  panel,  I  am 

pleased to preface this report of our analysis and deliberations on the various activities that were 

implemented through indirect actions under the Specific Programme “Structuring the European 

Research Area” in the context of FP6 as well as other associate activities. The main objective 

of our assessment was to evaluate whether the “Science and Society” programme activities are 

meeting  the  stated  goals  and  objectives  by  reviewing  several  representative  actions  across  the 

themes of the programme and analysing the potential impact of existing results on both European 

policies and on related activities supported by the European Commission and European States. 

In 2001, the Commission undertook for the first time an important initiative with the publication 

of its Science and Society Action Plan (SASAP) (1) for addressing issues which are at the core to a 

new relationship between research activities and the society. There are many reasons that justify 

activities at European level in this domain: The increasing dependence of economic development 

on  science  and  technology,  the  ever  more  elaborate  complexities  involved  in  developing  and 

implementing research policies in association with a diversified population of scientists as well 

as the complexities of justifying these policies to the public and engaging citizens in thoughtful 

participation  in  processes  of  identifying  social  priorities  and  constraints  are  some  of  these 

reasons. One of the challenges in our task was to assess the Science and Society programme, as 

an innovation in the Framework Programme. Our task was further complicated by the fact that 

our evaluation exercise is a “mid-term” assessment which means that the majority of the actions 

supported in FP6 have not yet reached their full term and the results are not yet fully formulated. 

We  performed  our  work  in  two  steps. At  the  first  stage,  a  panel  of  five  experts  has  reviewed 

and assessed a set of selected Science and Society activities, for the five thematic areas of the 

programme, and evaluated their potential impact on future policy development. The outcome of 

this part of the exercise was a series of review reports, one for each thematic area. The majority 

of the projects that were reviewed, in this first stage, were chosen by the Commission Services 

and we have assumed that this selection was representative of the activities of the programme 

which we had to assess. The panel did have access to all the available documents and project 

outcomes  at  request.  In  the  next  phase  a  second  panel  of  six  experts  (the  impact  assessment 

panel) has integrated the review reports of the first level with findings of other evaluation efforts 

performed  by  the  Commission  and,  additionally,  has  taken  into  consideration  other  activities, 

such  as  conferences  and  forums  organized  in  FP6.  This  second  panel  also  drafted  a  series  of 

recommendations for future Science and Society activities as well as further policy development 

in this area. In order to better co-ordinate our efforts and also safeguard a more comprehensive 

report, the two panels had two joint meetings.

1 European Commission, Science and Society Action Plan, Office for Official Publications of European 
Communities, Luxembourg, 2002

MTA_Report-1.indd   7

7

7/27/07   2:58:40 PM

I wish to acknowledge the very important and time demanding work performed by my colleagues 

of  both  panels;  their  insights  and  expertise  were  of  great  value  in  our  efforts  to  achieve  this 

collective and challenging task. This report and its conclusions are the entire responsibility of 

the “assessment panel” but thanks to the dialogue between the two panels we have been able, I 

think, to reach balanced conclusions. The rapporteurs, Costas Constantinou and Hana Havelkova, 

had the enormous task of integrating all contributions by bringing coherence to our analysis and 

views. I am very grateful to them. I also wish to thank the Commission and in particular Dimitri 

Corpakis, Dionysia Lagiou and Rafal Rowinski who have openly provided us all the documents 

and  information  that  were  necessary  to  perform  our  tasks;  their  competence  and  permanent 

availability were most valuable to our work

We hope that our report and our recommendations will be of value for the future development 

of this extremely valuable programme. We hope that in future the programme will continue to 

address challenging issues and that the various initiatives that take place at all levels of European 

society will help to raise the profile of science and technology and also broaden the constituency 

for thoughtful and informed scientific research targeted to meet the short and long term priorities 

of our societies in Europe.

8

MTA_Report-1.indd   8

7/27/07   2:58:40 PM

Executive summary

At  European  level,  “Science  and  Society”  is  a  new  initiative  that  was  undertaken  under  Sixth 

Framework Programme. Its main objectives were formulated in the Science and Society Action 

Plan,  which  led  to  a  broad  range  of  activities  numbering  about  150  projects,  conferences  and 

forums. The programme is organized into five thematic areas: (a) Science Education; (b) Scientific 

Advice and Governance; (c) Ethics; (d) Women and Science; (e) Science Communication.

The programme attracted a large number of participants: 916 partners from the EU25 were engaged 

in  projects  with  764  (73%  out  of  total  of  1045  participants)  from  the  EU15.  The  participants 

were predominantly from the public sector with higher education institutions (41%) and research 

institutes  (23%)  holding  the  largest  share;  participation  from  the  industrial  sector  (public  and 

private)  has  been  rather  modest  ranging  from  0.5%  to  6%  across  the  five  thematic  areas. The 

distribution of partners among countries has been rather even and those from new Member States 

have been rather fairly represented (with the exception of some areas such as governance) although 

the funding for their participation in the projects appears to be determined more commonly by the 

perceived cost of labour in these countries rather than the work involved.

The total funding for the Science and Society programme in FP6 was 71.5 M€. This was distributed 

among the five thematic areas of the programme: Science Education (including Scientific Culture 

and  Descartes  prizes):  24.3  M€  (34.1%);  Science  Communication:  5.3  M€  (7.4%);  Scientific 

Advice and Governance: 4.7 M€ (6.6%); Ethics: 24.9 M€ (34.9%); Women and Science: 12.1 M€ 

(17%). In terms of funding, Ethics, Education (but including substantial funding for the Descartes 

prize) and Women and Science have received a relative priority. The types of funding instruments 

used  were  fairly  evenly  distributed.  Coordinated  actions  represented  24%  of  the  funding  of 

activities, specific support actions 56% and specific targeted research 20%. For the vast majority 

of projects, the funding was at a relatively modest level (below 0.5M€). 

We have considered that the activities of the programme are in line with the main objectives, as 

defined by the Action Plan and all the activities have contributed to its implementation. According 

to our evaluation, the main achievements of the programme are the following: 

- The programme has established a forum and a context at European level for examinining Science 

and  Society  issues  in  a  manner  that  provides  reflective  activities  on  specific  issues  related  to 

scientific and technological research (such as Ethics, Governance and Science Communication). 

It  has  also  developed  a  thoughtful  scientific  approach  to  highlighting  and  addressing  barriers 

and future obstacles to the continuing contribution of science in society (such as the challenge 

of safeguarding a sufficient supply of competent future scientists and engineers and the need to 

enhance the involvement of women in science).

-  The  programme  has  made  important  contributions  in  enlarging  the  circle  of  communities 

involved in such kind of activities at national level (with the biggest impact made in new EU 

Member States) and has provided increased visibility for these activities both among scientists 

MTA_Report-1.indd   9

9

7/27/07   2:58:41 PM

and among the public.

- The projects have generally succeeded in creating networks of partners who have been able to 

achieve common goals, to exchange and share experiences and to demonstrate an European added 

value  by  contributing  to  the  emergence  of  communities  in  Europe  that  are  seeking  to  address 

issues related to the complex roles of science in society; this must be considered as being the main 

impact of the programme.

- Conferences and forums were able to launch debates in several areas (scientific culture, women 

and science in particular) at European level with a rather large participation from a diversity of 

actors. They have doubtless contributed to enhance the visibility in Europe of important issues 

in areas such as ethics, women and science and scientific communication and have also provided 

pilot examples of methodologies for how to achieve this in a broader spectrum of issues. 

The  Descartes  prizes  have  also  made  a  significant  contribution  in  highlighting  the  importance 

of  (a)  European  cooperation  to  achieve  excellence  in  research  and  (b)  science  communication 

activities.

- Several projects involved non-European partners (for example, African countries in the Ethics 

theme) which has provided a valuable international dimension to the programme and has laid the 

foundations for more intensive future collaboration efforts with potential for enormous impact. 

This dimension opens new opportunities for the development of European capacity to work with 

local structures in developing countries in order to enhance European influence and international 

presence. Activities  in  this  direction  have  the  added  advantage  of  providing  a  mechanism  for 

obtaining the feedback that is so valuable in enterprises such as the pharmaceutical industry, the 

medical system or the food innovation mechanisms.

-  The  Commission  services  have  acted  in  a  commendably  open  manner  in  implementing  the 

Science and Society programme. The Advisory Board, the Expert Groups and the various studies 

that were undertaken have provided valuable input in designing a policy and also modifying it 

along the way in the light of both new information and the response from the various actors.

Our  analysis  has  also  identified  a  certain  number  of  weaknesses  in  the  implementation  of  the 

programme:

- The scope of several projects, and possibly of the work programme, was too narrowly defined.  

This was particularly the case for the themes related to Scientific Advice and Governance, Scientific 

Culture, Ethics, and Women and Science). The worse situation was in the case of scientific culture 

which  was  addressed  in  the  work  programme  only  through  the  science  education  and  science 

communication themes, an approach which has led to a very narrow focus of the overall approach. 

Furthermore very few, if any, of the projects were able to address “transversal” issues (such as 

ethics and governance or gender issues in science education). 

- The participants were predominantly drawn from academics with actors from industry, public 

administration, the media, NGO’s and, in general, policy-makers playing a more minor role.

10

MTA_Report-1.indd   10

7/27/07   2:58:41 PM

- Many projects have considered the dissemination of their results and findings as a secondary 

activity: this is a serious handicap for the overall impact of the programme.

- The coordination with national activities in the Science and Society domain has not been achieved 

to any noticeable extent. The Open Method of Coordination (OMC) has not brought significant 

progress in this direction, partly because the CREST committee (2) has not played a proactive role 

in this perspective. There is also an issue with the problematic levels of commitment to relevant 

policy development in the home institutions by the various actors that take part in OMC activities. 

The Science and  Society  Programme Committee has also not taken sufficient initiative in this 

respect and the National and other Funding Agencies have, in the best of cases, taken only a very 

fragmentary approach to policy development and implementation on these issues.

We propose the following recommendations for a renewed “Science in Society” programme in 

the context of FP7:

- The perspectives of the programme could benefit from being broadened in two ways. First, it 

would be useful to correct for instances where the programme focused its objectives or activities 

too  narrowly  (Science  Communication  and  Scientific  Advice  and  Governance,  respectively). 

Second,  there  is  a  need  to  include  new  topics,  such  as  actions  addressing  “transversal”  issues 

and social science research activities that would strengthen the knowledge base that is deemed 

necessary for the actions.

2 CREST was a consultation body made up by MS themselves which was consulted whenever the EC 
came up with major proposals on science policy, including the SASAP. It reports both to the Commission 
and the Council.

MTA_Report-1.indd   11

11

7/27/07   2:58:41 PM

-  More  intensive  activity  needs  to  be  undertaken  in  the  area  of  Scientific  Culture  in  order  to 

(a)  develop  a  better  understanding  of  the  role  which  science  should  play  as  an  important  part 

of  human  culture;  (b)  envisage  new  channels  for  a  better  dialogue  between  scientists  and  the 

public, which should involve enhanced innovation in engaging a diversity of actors, including the 

public, in science-related debate; (c) promote innovative methods for the public accountability of 

science, including its ideas, its methods and the quality of its outcomes, and (d) demonstrate more 

effective approaches to better integrate Science into publicly visible creative culture.

- The diversity of partners involved in the various activities should be broadened so as to include 

academics, representatives of private companies, NGO’s and, whenever possible, policy-makers 

in the public sphere (administrations, parliaments, etc.), as well as the private sector (industry and 

services) and the media. There is also room for the direct and indirect involvement of the other 

DG research and other EC directorates in several Science in Society activities during FP7.

- A greater effort should be devoted to the improvement of the dissemination of the outcomes of the 

programme, including the results and findings of individual projects. There is room for improved 

support by the Commission Services in specifying more effective dissemination strategies. There 

is also a strong need for follow-up activities undertaken by the Commission, in cooperation with 

the partners, in order to organize targeted dissemination of the achievements of projects.

- There is a strong need for coordination with national and localized activities in the various areas 

of the programme. In this perspective, the role of the CREST committee should be reappraised 

and new mechanisms need to be found in order to safeguard increased commitment to relevant 

home policy development by the actors that are involved in the various co-ordination activities. 

Greater  effort  needs  to  be  devoted  in  engaging  national  funding  agencies  and  policy-making 

institutions in an effort to achieve planned complementarity and greater coherence with the future 

Science in Society programme. A renewed emphasis on developing participative methodologies 

and specific indicators would also be of benefit in this respect.

- There is a need to re-examine the criteria that are applied for the evaluation of proposals. Criteria 

should include among others (quality being of course the primary one): (a) a detailed plan for 

dissemination of results and findings with a description of specific means; (b) the European added 

value of a project and its contribution to the emergence of a community dealing with specific 

science and society issues. 

-  The  production  of  specific  indicators  would  also  be  useful  for  future  assessment  of  the 

sustainability and long-term impact of funded science and society activities.

- The European Commission should more actively encourage an internationalization of its Science 

and Society activity. On the one hand, on issues such as Science Education or Scientific Advice 

there is room for productive exchange of expertise and experiential insight with Canada and the US 

who share similar concerns and have parallel extensive ongoing activities. Even more importantly, 

Europe has international interests and a mission that can only be realized through building new 

capacities  to  work  with  developing  countries  in Africa  and  the  Middle  East.  The  exceptional 

projects that have tried activities in science ethics demonstrate the enormous potential to work 

12

MTA_Report-1.indd   12

7/27/07   2:58:41 PM

with  and  influence  local  structures  (under  admittedly  many  difficulties  and  severe  constraints) 

but also to obtain experience with innovative applications in a diversified context. This, in turn, 

provides extremely valuable feedback to policy-making with respect to, for instance, the medical 

profession, the pharmaceutical industry, the food sector and water engineering. The Science and 

Society  programme  can  take  a  pioneering  role  within  the  FP7  in  developing  this  capacity  to 

build a European competitive edge in developing countries while at the same time exploring new 

ethical and policy–related issues.

The first “Science and Society” programme at European level has demonstrated that a reflective 

approach with a robust scientific knowledge base is important for both science and society. 

It provides the science enterprise with the thoughtful monitoring of the issues that may serve to 

constrain its anticipated impact but also with a proactive stance at broadening the constituency for 

science. It provides the society with methodologies for a thoughtful informative input to science 

policy  development  and  increased  opportunities  to  engage  with  authentic  debate  on  issues  of 

scientific  concern.  The  positive  achievements  of  the  first  “Science  and  Society”  programme 

during FP6 clearly demonstrate that a renewed “Science in Society” programme with a broader 

scope would continue to contribute an important European vision to the construction of a new 

relationship  between  science  and  society  with  the  collaboration  of  partners  beyond  European 

shores.

MTA_Report-1.indd   13

13

7/27/07   2:58:41 PM

1. Introduction

A new context for the relationship between Science and 

Society, the need for a dedicated programme 

Scientific explorations and technological innovations have deeply transformed our societies since 

the  beginning  of  the  20th century  by  bringing  us  a  new  vision  of  the  world  and  also  changes 

to  our  economic  systems  and  to  our  living  and  working  conditions.  Science  has  become  both 

pervasive and increasingly specialized, while at the same time the mechanisms for production of 

knowledge have themselves been transformed: scientific and technological research has become 

an  activity  distributed  among  a  large  diversity  of  public  and  private  institutions  which,  since 

the 1950s, have progressively acquired an elaborate European dimension. After several decades 

of an almost continuous progress on the various research fronts, one must observe, with Helga 

Nowotny  (president  of  EURAB)  that  “science  has  become  so  pervasive,  seemingly  so  central 

to the generation of wealth and well-being, that the production of knowledge has become, even 

more than in the past, a social activity, both highly distributed and radically reflexive. Science 

has  had  to  come  to  terms  with  the  consequences  of  its  own  success,  both  potentialities  and 

limitations”(3). Furthermore, science can no longer be considered as an autonomous space, since 

it  is  deeply  embedded  in  the  society  and  more  largely  in  the  world  of  politics.  Following  the 

recent  developments  in  fields  such  as  genetics  and  neurosciences,  and  the  innovation  of  new 

technologies (in the information sciences, for example), the ethical dimension of science, its cost 

as  well  as  its  impact  on  everyday  life  have  drawn  attention  from  both  the  public  opinion  and 

political institutions and have been the focus of debates, since the 1990’s, in Europe as well as in all 

developed regions of the world. The Eurobarometers which are designed to survey general issues 

regarding the relationship between science and society through public opinion polls, have been 

performed periodically by the European Commission since 1992; they have consistently revealed 

that broad sections of the public do care about scientific issues and have strong perceptions of their 

potential and existing impacts on life conditions. The public rejects the idea that technological 

progress  could  be  imposed  from  the  edges  of  society,  by  small  fringe  groups  of  actors,  and  it 

wishes  to  participate  in  having  its  say  on  the  potential  utilization  of  scientific  discoveries. At 

the same time, a large fraction of the public opinion is requesting access to reliable information 

about scientific understandings on a very broad range of issues related, for instance, to public 

health, energy resources, food and materials, as well as the risk of ecosystem disturbances and 

natural disasters. This is a clear illustration of the fact that the relationship between science and 

the society has progressively changed and that a new dialogue between the scientific community 

and the public is necessary as, at the same time, the Eurobarometers are revealing the existence 

in several countries of a gap between science and culture which has to be closed if science is to 

continue to receive support and suitably qualified personnel.

3 Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M., Rethinking science, Polity Press, ,Cambridge, 2001, p.1

1

MTA_Report-1.indd   14

7/27/07   2:58:41 PM

The European Commission and public authorities in several Member States have realized that a 

science policy for the 21st century in its European and national dimensions should rest on a new 

partnership  between  scientific  research  and  the  society.  In  January  2000,  the  EC  published  a 

memorandum, Towards a European Research Area (ERA) (). In March 2000, a strategic goal was 

formulated in Lisbon: the EU should become by 2010 the most competitive “knowledge-based 

economy” in the world that should be based on the production and dissemination of scientific 

knowledge and be able to promote sustainable economic growth with robust social cohesion. The 

creation of the ERA was considered as being the cornerstone for the Lisbon strategy. It is in this 

context  that,  in  November  2000,  the  Commission  published  a  working  paper  Science,  Society 

and the Citizen in Europe(),which set the basis for a debate on the relationship of science and 

technology with society and European citizens. Up to that stage the Science and Society concept 

had not been explored at European level. 

In December 2001, a Science and Society Action Plan was presented at the request of the European 

Research Council unfolding the Commission’s strategy for addressing the issues identified through 

the preceding debate.

The  Action  Plan  aimed  to  bring  together  all  efforts  at  European  level  in  order  to  improve 

communication and to strengthen relationships between science and society and make them more 

harmonious. Three key policy attributes came together in the Action Plan: the Lisbon Agenda; 

the  evolving  creation  of  the  ERA;  and  the  implementation  of  the  White  Paper  on  European 

Governance (6) and the debate on the future of Europe. The Plan specified 38 individual Actions 

grouped  into  three  priority  areas  or  “Strategic  Objectives”.  The  first  of  these  concerned  the 

promotion  of  scientific  education  and  culture  involving  a  total  of  21  of  the  specified Actions. 

The second was intended to bring matters of scientific policy closer to the citizens of Europe and 

involved 7 Actions. The third objective was intended to demonstrate responsible science being at 

the heart of policy-making in Europe. This involved 10 Actions. Each of these strategic objectives 

was in  turn sub-divided  into  three subsets representing particular themes or “Policy Goals” to 

which  the  specific Actions  were  assigned.  The  first  area  comprised  raising  public  awareness, 

enhancing  science  education  and  careers  and  improving  dialogue  with  European  citizens. The 

second  concerned  the  involvement  of  civil  society,  gender  equality  issues,  and  research  and 

foresight as related to society’s concerns. The third involved the ethical dimension of science, 

risk issues, and the use of expertise in shaping policy. 

It was recognised from the outset that the implementation of the Action Plan was a long-term aim, 

though  clearly  some  of  the Actions  specified  were  individual  events  that  could  be  undertaken 

on  a  short-term  basis.  It  was  also  recognized  that  the  type  of  objectives  envisaged  could  only 

be achieved by involving Member States and that the Open Method of Coordination would be a 

valuable mechanism to fully achieve this. The Commission’s role was to act as a catalyst for the 

many changes that needed to happen at all levels. 

 COM (2000) 6 (see at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/com2000-6-en.pdf)
 SEC (2000) 1973 (see at http://ec.europa.eu/research/area/pdf/science-society-en.pdf)
6 COM (2001) 428 Final (see at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_  0428en01.pdf)

MTA_Report-1.indd   15

1

7/27/07   2:58:41 PM

To  perform  this  role,  it  developed  the  Science  and  Society  theme  within  the  FP6  Specific 

Programme  “Structuring  the  ERA”,  which  was  launched  in  2002.  The  intention  was  to  make 

use of the mechanism of FP6 and the various instruments within that in order to implement the 

guidelines of the SASAP and produce a “catalytic effect”. The adoption of the SASAP coincided 

with  the  creation  of  a  “Science  and  Society”  Directorate  in  DG  Research,  which  was  given 

authority to manage the collaborative actions funded under the Science and Society programme 

in FP6. 

The FP6 Science and Society theme did not entirely mimic the Action Plan itself because it was seen 

as important to retain some flexibility as part of a “bottom-up” approach for the research community. 

To start with the principal axes to the research programme were as follows: “Bringing Research 

Closer  to  Society”;  “Responsible  Research  and  the Application  of  Science  and  Technology”; 

“Stepping up the Science/Society Dialogue” and “Women and Science”. In subsequent years, the 

main areas have been identified as: Scientific advice, governance and reference systems; Ethics 

in Science; Uncertainty, risk and the precautionary principle; Science and Technology Culture, 

Young People, Science Education and Careers; Prizes and Science Communication; Women and 

Science. The current organizational structure that guided this Mid-Term Assessment effort centres 

around  five  thematic  areas:  (a)  Science  Education;  (b)  Scientific Advice  and  Governance;  (c) 

Ethics; (d) Women and Science; (e) Science Communication. It is important to note that the action 

areas involved in the research programme have been selected with the help of an Advisory Group 

that  embraced  a  significant  breadth  of  interests. The  Group  was  also  effective  in  facilitating  a 

gradual evolution in priorities that reflected the feedback obtained from the level of response from 

the research community, through the quantity and quality of proposals.

It was realized, especially in the context of ERA, that significant results in connecting science 

with  society  would  be  forthcoming  only  if  Member  States  themselves  made  an  effort  jointly 

with the Commission though maintaining diversity, as a means to better respond to local needs, 

priorities and potentials. 

16

MTA_Report-1.indd   16

7/27/07   2:58:41 PM

In  this  connection  there  is  one  further  aspect  that  should  be  noted  –  namely  the  “Comité  de 

Recherche Scientifique et Technique” (CREST). 

There was regular discussion of the Action Plan in CREST where the Member States were fully 

involved.  CREST  developed  a  “Cluster  initiative”  after  the Action  Plan  was  published,  which 

was regarded as a further implementation and coordination mechanism. As a result of Member 

States  declaring  their  interests  in  the  Science  and  Society  agenda,  eight  Clusters  were  formed 

with particular themes led by certain EU Member and Associated States (7). As with the FP6 work 

programme, there was no absolute fit between the Cluster themes and the Action Plan. Indeed it 

was always intended that Cluster implementation by Member States would be flexible. 

Hence,  over  these  years,  the  realization  of  the  Science  and  Society Action  Plan  depended  on 

several institutions and mechanisms coming together: the Commission’s use of the FP6 Science 

and Society work programme; the involvement and initiatives of the Member States themselves 

(in the spirit of the Open Method of Coordination) and, as an attribute of that involvement, the 

activities of the CREST Clusters (8). 

One should stress that the EC clearly identified the needs for a Science and Society Action Plan 

and developed a funding programme, associate activities and an elaborate, participative policy-

making  structure  to  implement  its  objectives.  One  may  also  observe  that  in  2001  the  level  of 

national activities in relationship with Science and Society issues was uneven among the then 15 

EU Member States: there existed in several countries Science and Society activities initiated by 

a broad range of institutions but, with a few exceptions, most of them were fragmented and far 

from reaching a critical mass. A full report of existing initiatives was produced by the Evaluation 

Partnership in 2005. It is informative to mention a few clear-cut cases. Although progress has 

been made, there still exist stereotypes keeping women out of science and which deprive scientific 

research of their contribution to the production of knowledge in many public and private sectors 

of  activities;  despite  this  widespread  situation,  the  issue  of  “Women  and  Science”  was  almost 

non-existing at the level of the priorities formulated by Member States (even though gender as 

an issue had been integrated into FP5). The situation was somewhat different as far as science 

communication activities were concerned where activities could be identified at various levels for 

some time. A limited number of successful initiatives of various kinds had been undertaken to 

improve the communication channels between the scientific community and the public (Ciência 

Viva in Portugal, la Fête de la science in France and various science festival or weeks in several 

European countries, as well as several individual initiatives some of which received subsequent 

recognition by being awarded a Descartes prize award). 

7  Science Technology, Innovation and the Media (Belgium); Science Weeks (France); Science Education 
(Slovakia); Dialogue and Participation (Austria and the Netherlands); Women and Science (Germany and 
Slovenia); Research and Foresight (Greece); Ethics (Denmark and Slovenia), and Governance, Risks and 
Expertise (Switzerland). 
8 CREST cluster activities were evaluated by the CREST rapporteur Mariann Samuelson in the
Report on the implementation of the Science and Society Action Plan (2004), not published. 

MTA_Report-1.indd   17

17

7/27/07   2:58:41 PM

Clearly, there existed a will, in several countries, to engage the public in scientific culture activities 

and  those  initiatives  provided  examples  to  be  benchmarked,  and  eventually  reproduced  at  the 

European  level,  through  the  support  of  a  specific  programme.  There  existed  a  broad,  but  still 

vague,  consciousness  that  the  Lisbon  strategy  requires  the  involvement  of  a  great  number  of 

young  people  in  various  knowledge-based  activities,  and  particularly  in  scientific  research. At 

the same time, young people, for various reasons, seem to be less motivated for engaging with 

the long term studying required for science and more commonly perceive scientific careers as 

insufficiently attractive and disparate from popular youth culture. It is in this context, that the 

necessity  of  addressing  the  issue  of  science  education  on  a  broad  basis  emerged. The  science 

education  research  community  needed  to  be  encouraged  to  engage  more  in  activities  linking 

research with practice and thus contribute to closing the gap that exists between expertise and 

teaching practice in this area. 

Lately, in May 2004, the report Europe needs more scientists (9), prepared for the Commission by 

a panel chaired by Professor J. Mariano Gago (presently Minister for Science, Technology and 

Higher Education in the Portuguese government), has highlighted the importance of these issues 

and stressed that they have an impact on the possibilities of recruiting engineers and scientists 

who are needed to facilitate the knowledge-based economy. As far as science policy activities 

were concerned, science policy studies were rather well developed in several countries but few of 

them were dedicated to Science and Society issues on a sufficiently large scale. 

A notable exception were individual themes such as risk governance and the role of scientific 

expertise in the decision making process (in a context where a gap is existing between science 

and  the  world  of  politics)  were  emerging  and  as  various  national  experiences  demonstrate  (in 

Scandinavian countries for example), encouraging the participation of citizens (through consensus 

conferences,  juries,  etc.)  in  debates  on  the  potential  impact  of  new  technologies  can  be  both 

productive and revealing. Lastly one must observe that the potential impact of developments in 

biology and genetics on human life have raised new ethical issues in the 1990s which had to be 

examined more deeply (somewhat reminiscent of the ways in which, in a different context, the 

development of nuclear energy with its military and civilian dimension had also raised ethical 

issues in the 1970s), although the Fifth Framework Programme had already launched activities 

in this area.

It  should  be  stressed  that  almost  none  of  those  existing  activities  had  a  European  dimension, 

and  that  providing  a  platform  to  undertake  joint  activities  between  European  partners  in  this 

domain  could  be  considered  as  an  important  tool  for  a  thoughtful  approach  to  implement  the 

Lisbon agenda. The EC Action Plan had clearly identified the need to broaden such activities in 

the European and national context and for a more coordinated approach by using the FP policy 

instruments (co-ordinated actions, specific support actions, networking, accompanying measures, 

studies,  etc.)  and  by  providing  the  means  for  wider  dissemination  of  ideas  and  outcomes  of 

experiences through forums and conferences.

9 European Commission, Europe Needs More Scientists, Office for Official Publications of European 
Communities, Luxembourg, 2004

18

MTA_Report-1.indd   18

7/27/07   2:58:41 PM

 Furthermore, among the new EU Member States, that joined the Union in 2004 and 2007, very 

few had explicitly included Science and Society activities in their national science strategy so 

that their participation in the European programme could be considered as a crucial catalyst for 

initiating similar localized activities.

There  were  thus  several  compelling  policy  arguments  for  launching  a  “Science  and  Society” 

programme  for  the  first  time  in  the  context  of  the  Framework  Programme  during  FP6.  It  was 

considered  as  being  the  first  attempt  at  the  European  level  at  undertaking  common  activities 

between European partners to address issues at the heart of a new relationship between science 

and society for many years to come. This programme had several objectives. It was considered as 

a catalyst for promoting Science and Society activities with a European dimension with a large 

degree of “transversality” (involving multidisciplinary activities, various categories of actors and 

tools,  and  a  broad  range  of  experts). The  programme  was  in  priority  an  “Action  programme” 

(development  of  new  tools,  identifying  useful  and  successful  practices,  etc.)  to  implement  a 

fraction of the 38 actions of the Action Plan through activities which should be knowledge-based. 

It aimed at promoting actions which would allow a reappraisal of the role of scientific institutions 

and of their links with society at large, exchanging experiences on the contribution of science in 

the policy-making process and on new modes of science communication and education. Research 

activities, as such, were not a-priori considered as a priority among the objectives of the programme, 

although research issues were introduced in the later versions of the work programme. 

A specific action, the Descartes prize that was launched in the year 2000 with the specific objective 

of rewarding excellence in science achieved through European collaboration was incorporated into 

the programme. Lastly, it is important to note that the issue of scientific culture was not a specific 

objective of the work programme. Several actions of the SASAP aimed at disseminating scientific 

information  to  the  public  through  various  channels  (science  weeks,  exhibitions,  audiovisual 

documents, etc.) and at building bridges between science education and cultural activities, such 

as those of museums. 

Scientific culture was thus embedded into two thematic areas of the programme: science education 

and science communication. As a result the focus of the scientific culture activities was rather 

narrow by design. Partly because this was recognized as a shortcoming along the way, scientific 

culture was introduced more explicitly in the latest phase of the programme. 

In summary, five main areas have framed the activities of the Science and Society programme in 

recent years: (a) Science Education; (b) Scientific Advice and Governance; (c) Ethics; (d) Women 

and Science; (e) Science Communication. 

These  are the domains  of  activities which we have sought to assess  according to the terms of 

reference of our mission. 

The  programme  was  implemented  through  “coordination  actions”,  “specific  support  actions” 

and  “specific  targeted  research  projects”.  19  calls  were  involved  between  February  2002  and 

March 2006. The total budget for the calls amounted to 71.5 M€. To this budget we must add 

administrative expenses on communication (publications and conferences) at a level of 1.9 M€ on 

MTA_Report-1.indd   19

19

7/27/07   2:58:42 PM

average, per year, for Directorate C which was in charge of the Science and Society programme 

as well as Communication for the entire DG Research.

20

MTA_Report-1.indd   20

7/27/07   2:58:42 PM

2. Terms of Reference and Methodology

2.1 Terms of reference

The European Commission gave us the mission of performing a Mid-Term Assessment of the 

Science and Society programme, which was launched with the FP6. The activities that we had 

to evaluate were implemented by indirect actions under the Specific Programme “Structuring the 

ERA” and were organized into three axes that were subdivided into a total of five themes:

Bringing research closer to society

4.3.1 Scientific advice, governance and reference systems 

Responsible research and application of Science and Technology

.3.2 Ethics in Science

4.3.3 Uncertainty, risk, and the precautionary principle 

Stepping up the science/society dialogue and Women and Science 

4.3.4 Science and Technology culture, young people, science education and careers

4.3.5 Women and science

The principal objective of the Mid-Term Assessment exercise was to evaluate whether and to 

what extent the activities implemented by Directorate C of DG Research are on course to meet 

their objectives, by:

-  Reviewing  a  number  of  representative  actions  across  the  five  Science  and  Society  themes 

stipulated in the FP6 Specific Programme “Structuring the ERA”,

- Combining the outcome of this review with the finalised or intermediate findings of earlier or 

ongoing evaluations,  

- Analysing the indirect impact of the Science and Society actions on other policies and activities 

supported  by  the  European  Commission,  by  the  Member  States  or  possibly  by  international 

entities.

We  received  also  the  task  of  formulating  recommendations  for  the  future  evolution  of  the 

programme during FP7.

2.2 Evaluation process 

The work was organized on the basis of a two level structure involving two separate groups of 

experts chaired by the same Chairperson. 

In the first stage, a panel of five experts, the Project Reviewers Group, reviewed and assessed the 

MTA_Report-1.indd   21

21

7/27/07   2:58:42 PM

accumulated and potential impact of a selected set from the following activities:

•	 Projects supported under FP6 (Specific Support Actions, Coordination Actions, Specific 

Targeted Research Projects)

•	 Work accomplished by expert groups

•	 Dissemination and exploitation activities, websites, Workshops, Conferences, etc., which 

were funded under FP6 and were operational or finished as of February 2006

Review experts evaluated a sample of 27 projects of a total of around 100 indirect activities that 

have been supported with EU funding. The Commission Services provided a list of all funded FP6 

Science and Society activities with brief information on each one. 

Each sector of Directorate C suggested a set of 5-6 projects that were chosen on the basis that 

they  were  (i)  relatively  advanced  in  their  process  of  implementation,  (ii)  representative  of  the 

types of activities that had received funding, (iii) thought to demonstrate innovative approaches 

with a strong potential impact on future policy, (iv) prone to increased risk either due to the initial 

design or to obstacles that had emerged along the way. The reviewers also requested information 

on  additional  projects  that  they  thought  useful  to  examine.  The  inputs  to  the  evaluation  were 

the  project  proposals,  all  the  available  project  reports  and  the  project  fiches  of  these  sampled 

actions, as well as other background materials such as the Science and Society Action Plan, the 

work rogramme, the Directorate C mission statement and statistical information on the funded 

projects.

The Project Reviewers Group worked together to develop a set of review criteria. The reviewers 

then  organized  their  work  into  five  subgroups  of  three  experts  each.  Each  subgroup  reviewed 

activities in one of the following domains: Science Education and Scientific Culture, Scientific 

Advice and Governance, Ethics, Women and Science, Science Communication. Each of the three 

experts in a subgroup wrote an individual evaluation of each activity in the corresponding area. 

The  subgroup  as  a  whole,  co-coordinated  by  a  leading  expert  member,  used  these  individual 

activity review reports (three for each activity) and wrote one synthesis review report for each 

of the five domains. In total each, member of the Reviewers’ panel, reviewed the work of about 

15  activities  and  took  the  leading  role  in  writing  one  synthesis  review  report  for  a  particular 

domain. 

In each of the synthesis review reports, an effort was made to include brief background information 

on the domain, a description of the current policy context in that domain, a set of cross-cutting 

issues  that  emerged  through  the  review  of  individual  activities  and  a  set  of  domain-specific 

recommendations for the future.

The outcome of the first phase of the Assessment Exercise was communicated to the second panel 

of experts in a joint meeting, which marked the kickoff of the second part of the exercise. 

The second phase of the evaluation was performed by a separate group of 6 experts, the Impact 

Assessment  Group.  This  second  group  integrated  the  review  reports  from  the  first  phase  with 

findings from one other evaluation solicited by the European Commission and performed by The 

22

MTA_Report-1.indd   22

7/27/07   2:58:42 PM

Evaluation Partnership in June 2005. They also developed recommendations addressing the issues 

of  scale,  impact  and  specificity  of  activities  with  the  explicit  purpose  to  support  and  improve 

policy  development,  both  at  European  and  national  level,  in  terms  of  relevance,  effectiveness 

and  efficacy.  In  this  context  special  attention  was  given  to  identifying  new  orientations  that 

could provide potentially fruitful avenues for future action at the level of Member States and the 

European Commission.

The Impact Assessment Group used as input to their work, the synthesis review reports developed 

by the first panel, the FP6 work programme for Science and Society, as well as other documents 

provided by the Commission. The work of this second panel of experts was also organized on 

the basis of the same five domains, but was extended to also elaborate on the theme of Scientific 

Prizes. Each expert took primary responsibility to address one of the domains, but referred to the 

whole set of input materials. The individual evaluations were discussed by the whole panel in 

two rounds. The chair and the rapporteurs then undertook to provide the synthesis of the whole 

evaluation exercise and a presentation of its results and recommendations in a report. 

2.3 Evaluation criteria

Each of the two panels generated its own set of specific evaluation criteria that were designed to 

respond to the objective of their task as described above. The Project Reviewers Group used the 

following criteria:

- Relevance of the project outcomes and significance for the objectives of the Science and 

Society component of FP6.

- Methodological appropriateness of the project.

- Quality of the procedures of the project implementation.

- Has the project achieved what the consortium has promised to achieve?

- Does the project go beyond state of the art? Did the project participants expect to do so? 

Degree of innovation.

- Is there evidence of integration of activities through collaboration among the project 

participants? Do the project outcomes demonstrate European added value?

- Are the project outcomes disseminated to all relevant stakeholders? Is the project disseminated 

widely enough within the Commission?

- Is there evidence of impact on stakeholders outside the partnership? [Degree of impact; 

relevance of the impact; on what stakeholders?]

- Is there evidence of sustainability beyond the funding period?

- Examples of good practice that can be highlighted from this project. Potential future impact of 

the project on public policy, regulation or practice.

- Importance of the core project idea and the project rationale for future Science and Society 

MTA_Report-1.indd   23

23

7/27/07   2:58:42 PM

policy initiatives, actions or cross-thematic partnerships with other parts of FP.

Moreover, in relation to the S&S activity as a whole, other relevant issues were to be assessed:

- Does the internal organization of the Commission cover the whole spectrum of Science and 

Society objectives?

- Do the funded projects cover the whole spectrum of Science and Society objectives?

- Adequacy of procedures for project evaluation and monitoring.

- Coordination with other parts of the Commission and with Member States.

- Do the structured (funded) activities cover the objectives of the Action Plan?

- Commission activities for raising public awareness.

The Impact Assessment Group also formulated its own criteria, as follows:

- Consistency between activities and the three missions of Directorate C as listed in the terms of 

reference (with reference to the Science and Society Action Plan):

a) Bringing research closer to society, 

b) Responsible research and application of Science and Technology,

c) Stepping up the science/society dialogue and women and science.

- Issues of scale: assessment of the proportionality of budget and time frame to the objectives of 

activities,

-  Issues  of  specificity:  whether  the  focus  on  issues  and  the  choice  of  topics  is  appropriately 

specified,

-  Coverage  of  transversal  issues,  i.e.  dissemination,  innovative  approaches,  project  clustering, 

European added value, activities that combine the different themes,

- Assessment  of  the  policy  relevance  as  well  as  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the  Science  and 

Society activities of FP6, 

-  Potential  impact  on  “policy  environment”  (including  various  “circles”  of  policy-makers  at 

European and national level as well as other stakeholders),

- Time evolution of the activities and funding priorities as they are formulated in the latest versions 

of FP6 work programmes for S&S (recent calls for proposals, conferences, workshops, expert 

groups etc.).

It should be noted that both Expert Groups recognized the need for more reliable impact indicators 

of Science and Society activities. 

2

MTA_Report-1.indd   24

7/27/07   2:58:42 PM

3. Assessment of the achievements in individual thematic areas 

3.1 Science Education

a) Introduction to the theme

Background Information

Some of the problems that are well documented in science education are listed below:

•	 There  is  a  serious  quality  problem  in  the  learning  outcomes  of  science  education. 
International assessment studies such as PISA and TIMSS have repeatedly demonstrated 

that everywhere, without exceptions, there is a large gap between what is taught and what 

is learnt in school science. 

•	 There are also many reports that science teaching deviates sharply from existing know-
how on effective teaching and learning. The content delivery model often dominates the 

thinking  of  educational  administrators.  Transmissive  pedagogies  are  widespread  at  all 

levels  of  the  educational  ladder  becoming  more  dominant  as  a  child  grows  older. The 

important pre-requisite of active intellectual engagement by students for extended periods 

of time remains unrecognized or distantly removed from classroom practice.

•	 Most  educational  systems  implement  science  education  at  school  level  as  a  means  to 
prepare  future  professional  experts  in  the  natural  sciences  and  engineering.  There  is 

widespread  acknowledgement  that  the  knowledge  society  needs  flexible  educational 

systems  that,  above  all,  prepare  people  who  can  think  critically,  communicate,  work 

together productively and have a lifelong thirst for continuous learning.

•	 Despite (or because of?) the common emphasis, by school education, on developing early 
expertise in natural science we are failing to attract young people into research or science 

and technological careers in sufficient numbers to support sustainable development.

•	 Unusually large gap between research and practice. There is a diverse web of institutional 
cultures  and  administrative  structures  that  act  as  barriers  preventing  school-based 

innovation,  thereby  helping  to  maintain  the  immense  gap  that  exists  between  existing 

know-how and current teaching practice.

•	 Many  initiatives  to  reform  science  teaching  work  outside  educational  institutions  and 
seek to target teachers directly. As a result, in the best of cases, they constrain their impact 

to gifted science teachers who are committed to quality on a voluntary basis, failing to 

engage with the whole range of teachers of science and with the realities of classroom 

teaching practice.

•	

In many Member States there are no specified standards for science learning outcomes 

even though science and technology are recognized as a priority area. As a result, the level 

of innovation in evaluation and assessment of learning outcomes is not satisfactory.

MTA_Report-1.indd   25

2

7/27/07   2:58:42 PM

•	 There is an existing gap between formal science education in schools, informal science 
activities  in  museums,  centers,  parks  and  non-formal  science  learning  at  home  or  in 

recreation  areas.  As  a  result  of  the  lack  of  co-ordination  of  the  diversity  in  learning 

objectives,  priorities  and  methods,  the  impact  of  the  combination  on  learning  is 

minimal.

Around Europe, it is possible to identify ongoing activities that seek to address these issues: 

•	 There  is  existing  expertise  on  the  use  of  science  teaching  and  learning  as  a  means  to 
promote reasoning and critical thinking. This is particularly important given the need to 

strive for science learning by all from a young age.

•	 There are existing technologies and pedagogical know-how that can be used to promote 

the development of modeling and simulation skills from age 10.

•	 There  is  emerging  technological  innovation  in  the  area  of  design,  development  and 

validation of teaching/learning activity sequences.

•	 There is increasing awareness of the importance of promoting holistic approaches to science 
teaching  and  learning  especially  with  regard  to  integrating  conceptual  understanding, 

problem solving, an appreciation of the nature of science, procedural skills, reasoning and 

argumentation skills, self regulation and attitude development.

•	

Inquiry-based teaching and learning has been recognized as a productive framework of 

pedagogical methodology that can be used to promote educational reform and substantial 

improvements in the quality of the learning outcomes.

•	 There is intensive activity on developing new ICT and web-based tools for teaching and 
learning.  Science  is  probably  the  principal  knowledge  domain  for  testing  and  refining 

ideas and technologies related to eLearning.

Specific policy context

The Science and Society Action Plan made promoting science education and culture in Europe one 

of three main pillars of the new partnership. Assuring that citizens have the knowledge they need 

and attracting young people to science careers are both important goals in the Plan. It is important 

to note that this is happening at European level under a severe constraint: the Commission has 

no  mandate  in  education,  and  the  evaluation  of  the  SASAP  by  the  Evaluation  Partnership  (10) 

demonstrated  that  national  governments  are  the  dominant  actors  in  science  education,  before 

and since the SASAP. Nonetheless, the Science and Society programme can support the goal of 

making school science exciting and effective through communication and sharing across Member 

States. Indeed, to reach the Lisbon Agenda goals, Europe requires top-quality science education, 

a point also stressed in the report Europe Needs More Scientists. 

10 The Evaluation Parnership, The Evaluation of the Science and Society Action Plan, (DG RTD internal 
document)

26

MTA_Report-1.indd   26

7/27/07   2:58:42 PM

While other parts of the Commission assumed responsibility for some of the SASAP’s actions in 

science education, the Science and Society programme has taken the lead on Action 15, education 

research and development projects specific to science and technology, and has also provided some 

funding for teacher development and bringing research and education actors together. 

It is possible to identify three parallel policy strands in science education in Europe:

•	 DG Research has been promoting participative actions that promote wider involvement 
of institutions and professionals (mostly scientists and teachers) in efforts to improve the 

experience of children with authentic science and to infuse excitement about the scientific 

enterprise in society. A number of issues have emerged in this attempt: Bridging the gap 

between non-formal and formal education has emerged as a method that could promote 

the transfer of innovative science education activities from science and technology centers 

to schools; Encouraging scientists from research laboratories and universities to take a 

more  active  role  in  the  design  and  implementation  of  school  education  is  recognized 

as a tool to promote more authentic views of science; Encouraging diverse institutions 

(media companies, curriculum developers, local administration…) to take a more active 

role  in  non-formal  and  informal  science  education  is  promoted  as  a  mechanism  of 

mobilizing activity in this area. Actions for promoting the differentiated involvement of 

girls in science education and the attraction of disabled people and people from minority 

communities to science studies have been recognized as a priority area. 

Actions  that  are  designed  to  bridge  the  gap  between  science  education  research  and 

science teaching practice have been recognized as a priority area but require additional 

support in the coming years.

•	 DG Education and Culture has been working on the European Objectives for Education 
and Training. This is a longstanding activity that follows the methodology of open co-

ordination  of  administrative  systems  at  the  level  of  Member  States.  Three  ideas  have 

emerged  as  priority  issues  relating  to  the  objective  on  Increasing  Participation  in 

Mathematics, Science and Technology: Benchmark adopted on decreasing by 50% the 

existing gender gap in science studies by the year 2010; University – school partnerships 

have  been  identified  as  a  potentially  powerful  engine  for  promoting  reform  in  science 

education and improvement in the quality of the learning outcomes in this area; Identifying 

examples of successful practice and promoting exchange of ideas at European level has 

been recognized as a potentially productive mechanism for mobilizing systemic reform.

•	 At the level of Member States, there are a small number of initiatives that seek to promote 
inquiry  oriented  science  teaching,  broader  emphasis  on  laboratory  work  and  student 

involvement in science week and science competition activities. In some countries there 

are systemic initiatives to promote inquiry-oriented teaching and learning. These include 

classroom-based research as a mechanism for understanding the issues that contribute to 

effective science learning as well as contextualized approaches to science teaching and 

learning. 

MTA_Report-1.indd   27

27

7/27/07   2:58:42 PM

Objectives

The  objective  of  the  first  call  in  2003  was  to  “establish  a  pan-European  initiative  to  enhance 

science teaching in schools,” and “to raise the interest and motivation of boys and girls in science 

and technology.” The focus was on providing a mechanism for exchange of ideas and approaches. 

The later calls, developed in collaboration with the Science and Society Advisory Group, took 

into account the results of the first call as well as recommendations of the Gago Report. The 2004 

call focused on three areas: introducing inquiry-based science teaching methods into the primary 

school  curriculum;  lowering  barriers  for  students  from  disadvantaged  groups  to  enter  science 

careers; and reinforcing links between schools and industry to strengthen the transition to work. 

The 2005-6 call moved on to encourage actions to understand the strengths and weaknesses of 

teaching practices, including their gendered dimensions, and to understand the role of performance 

indicators and assessment in the education process. 

Activities

The calls resulted in 26 funded projects. The first round supported a cluster of projects to develop 

curricular  materials,  organize  teaching  festivals,  strengthen  ties  between  schools  and  informal 

education,  and  disseminate  inquiry-based  teaching  methods. The  second  round  funded  several 

projects for inquiry-based materials in various fields of science, and also research on differences 

among boys, girls, and migrants in their experiences in the science education classroom. The third 

round  of  funding  supported  projects  to  bring  teaching  practice  closer  to  pedagogical  research, 

to link schools to universities and to industry, and to develop materials to help attract girls into 

science and engineering careers. Two calls for tender resulted in special studies to identify and 

disseminate  best  practices,  one  on  incorporating  research  findings  into  teaching  practice  and 

the other on mentoring and science ambassador schemes. This theme also supported European 

Contests for Young Scientists in Budapest, Dublin, Moscow, and Stockholm. 

b) Assessment. 

1)  Are  the  activities  in  line  with  the  three  missions  of  Directorate  C  as  listed  in  the  terms  of 

reference? 

The programme activities were clearly in line with the missions of Directorate C, and the detailed 

alignment  between  programme  objectives  and  project  foci  has  strengthened  over  the  course 

of FP6, even though several of the areas in the calls for proposals did not attract proposals at 

sufficiently high quality levels for funding. 

The theme has responded to calls for a greater linkage between teaching and pedagogical research 

through its formulation of calls and through the calls for tender. 

2) Issues of scale: assessment of the proportionality of budget and time frame to the objectives of 

activities

While the projects are larger on average than those in other Science and Society themes; they are 

still small in scale compared to the educational enterprise they are intended to influence. If greater 

28

MTA_Report-1.indd   28

7/27/07   2:58:42 PM

resources were available, the projects could be less scattered among science subject areas and 

provide greater coverage. 

3)  Issues  of  specificity:  whether  the  focus  on  issues  and  the  choice  of  topics  is  appropriately 

specified

Given the programme’s very limited resources, the focus on two dimensions of action is appropriate: 

better  learning  outcomes  through  inquiry-based  teaching  methods  and  broader  recruitment  to 

science careers through reaching out to women and migrant groups.

4) Coverage of transversal issues, i.e. dissemination, innovative approaches

The  projects  intersect  well  with  gender  issues  and  contribute  to  the  science  communication 

objectives, involving a significant amount of collaboration with science museums, professional 

societies,  etc. There  is  a  need  for  more  intensive  activity  to  raise  issues  of  science  ethics  and 

science-related governance in educational contexts.

5) Assessment of the policy relevance as well as strengths and weaknesses of Science and Society 

activities of FP6

Dissemination  appears  to  be  an  across-cutting  weakness  among  the  projects,  with  too  much 

reliance on workshops and conferences.

6) Potential impact on “policy environment” (various “circles” of policy-makers and stakeholders 

and on policy-making)

Not enough engagement of decision makers from early stages of the projects can be found. The 

range of participants has not included many school authorities so far, and policy-makers have not 

been the primary audience for most projects. It is difficult to see how innovative activities can 

have a sustainable influence on the workings of educational settings without serious involvement 

from educational policy-making authorities.

7) Evolution of Science and Society activities in the latest versions of FP6 work programmes for 

Science and Society (recent calls for proposals, conferences, workshops, expert groups etc.).

However, there has been gradual movement in focus towards the institutional environments for 

science education. This is certainly a positive direction, and should increase the impact of the 

effort. 

c) Recommendations

1.  The  theme  should  focus  its  resources  on  a  few  kinds  of  actions  that  are  likely  to 

have  the  greatest  influence  on  its  desired  results,  that  is,  better  learning  outcomes 

and  more  effective  recruitment  to  science  and  engineering  careers.  Presentations 

of the programme’s goals and objectives should be clear about how its actions will 

contribute to the desired results, including indicators of the pathways to success.

2.  Future action in Science Education should continue on its path towards identifying 

MTA_Report-1.indd   29

29

7/27/07   2:58:43 PM

and disseminating best practices in teacher professional development and systemic 

educational reform. 

There is also a need to promote the development of structures for teacher professional 

development  (e.g.  a  European  credit  transfer  system  for  teacher  lifelong  learning 

would enhance the incentive structures and promote teacher mobility)

3.  The  theme  should  continue  to  support  research  on  the  culturally-specific issues  of 

gender  and  disadvantaged  status  in  European  science  education  and  thus  provide 

leadership for Member States in developing a base of empirical knowledge on these 

important issues. The need to understand the influence of performance indicators and 

assessment practices in the education process should also remain a priority.

4.  Science  Education  policy  should  continue  to  strengthen  its  encouragement  for  the 

connection  between  pedagogical  research  and  teaching  practice  by  announcing 

this evaluation criterion explicitly, enforcing a minimum standard for it and giving 

preference to proposals that go beyond the minimum, and by including pedagogical 

researchers on its evaluation panels. 

5.  The  theme  should  continue  to  strengthen  its  encouragement  for  engagement  with 

policy-makers  in  education  by  announcing  this  evaluation  criterion  explicitly, 

enforcing a minimum standard for it and giving preference to proposals with stronger 

policy engagement plans, and by including education policy-makers or their staff on 

its evaluation panels. 

6.  Science and Society should work to include students and young people in projects in 

all the thematic areas, including ethics and governance as well as Women and Science 

and science communication. 

7.  Systemic reform. There is a strong need to promote systemic initiatives that include 

development of teaching and learning modules, professional development and 

support measures for effective school science teaching in order to create examples 

of successful science education reform that are currently lacking.

8.  Promoting  reform  in  existing  science  teaching  practices  will  require  more  co-

ordination of the activities of DG Research, DG Education and Culture, University-

school partnerships, as well as national and local educational authorities. Extensive 

and substantial commitment to teacher professional development will be required to 

achieve relevant objectives in the long term. 

9.  Initiatives  should  promote  partnerships 

that 

include  existing 

institutional 

arrangements. The necessary (prerequisite) reform in administrative structures is not 

likely to be promoted with initiatives that target teachers as individuals. Bidirectional 

communication and productive partnerships with schools and Universities is a crucial 

aspect for many projects that aspire to have an impact on educational systems, student 

learning or attitudes.

30

MTA_Report-1.indd   30

7/27/07   2:58:43 PM

10.  Broadening  institutional  participation  in  science  education  should  remain  an  area 

of priority. More intensive efforts are needed to engage the employers and users of 

scientific skills in the science education system. Industry is often absent in existing 

projects and could usefully bring a productive perspective to any effort to re-examine 

curriculum priorities and educational innovation projects.

11.  There is a need to promote more activity at European level that aims to use classroom-

based  research  as  a  mechanism  for  understanding  the  issues  that  contribute  to 

effective science learning. Additionally, the development and dissemination of new 

teaching tools for science learning needs to be interpreted as an intensive research 

and development activity and not as an implicit outcome of teacher networking. Only 

in this case, can we support the development of new tools of high enough quality to 

have an impact on science education practice.

3.2 Scientific Advice and Governance Activities 

a) Introduction to the theme

Background information

There  are  widespread  practices  in  terms  of  the  procedures  that  Member  States  and  individual 

funding institutions follow in order to set science and technology research priorities. There is also 

great heterogeneity across Member States and across institutions in the procedures that are used 

and, less commonly, in the extent to which science advice is sought and taken into consideration 

in policy development. On the whole, both of these issues are recognized as important throughout 

Europe.  However,  insufficient  attention  has  been  given  to  developing  reflective  or  monitoring 

exercises to study either issue in most local settings and at European level. 

As science continues to become more complex and diversified in its methodologies, the issues 

of  maintaining  relevance  in  scientific  research  and  safeguarding  balanced  and  rigorous  expert 

scientific advice will become more prominent and corresponding decisions, as to how to achieve 

this, will become more elaborate on the part of policy- makers.

Specific policy context

The Science in Society Action Plan set out an ambitious agenda in relation to the role of science 

in governance and the challenges of the governance of science at the dawn of the 21st century. 

The Action Plan was prepared at a time when many leading scientists and policy-makers believed 

that there was a crisis of public confidence in science and technology (e.g. UK House of Lords 

Select Committee 2000). Subsequent social science and public opinion research suggests that at 

least some of this concern was overstated, at least in some countries. Principal components of the 

Action Plan addressing these issues include “Involving Civil Society”, “Risk Governance”, and 

“Use of Expertise”.

MTA_Report-1.indd   31

31

7/27/07   2:58:43 PM

Objectives

The  2003  work  programme  outlined  multiple  objectives:  “to  create  conditions  under  which 

policy decisions in multi-level governance are more effective in meeting society’s needs, more 

soundly based on science and, at the same time, through inclusive participation take account of 

the relationship between technological innovation and social change, as well as the aspirations 

and concerns of civil society. The focus will be on assessing the functioning of policy-making 

processes in Europe and major industrialised countries worldwide.”

The  2004  Call  for  Proposals  emphasised  “new  evidence-based  approaches”  and  “actions  for 

promoting  the  integration  of  scientific  information  and  advice  in  decision-making  processes, 

including  communicating  it  in  timely,  useful  and  understandable  terms  for  policy-makers, 

particularly democratically elected representatives.”

In the 2005 and 2006 work programmes, the issues of risk came at the forefront. Both programmes 

also called for proposals designed to “help policy-makers reconcile the constraints and conditions 

of  a  globalised  economic  and  technological  environment  with  risk  management  and  societal 

aspirations.”

These  important  and  well-formulated  objectives  are  key  to  the  evolution  of  both  national  and 

EU-wide  science advisory processes. However, they are ambitious goals and, in our view, the 

portfolio of governance projects actually funded under FP6 falls rather short of addressing them. 

Most of the project portfolio consists of projects addressing only one objective: that of expanding 

public participation. The pervasive networks of governmental advisory processes consisting of 

expert  committees,  academic  advisors,  professional  associations,  government  and  university 

scientists, and civil servants who actually inform key decisions from local to transnational levels 

of  European  government  have  largely  eluded  the  programme’s  attention.  The  portfolio  does 

not address key questions related to the democratic governance of technological change under 

conditions of globalisation. 

Furthermore, the portfolio of projects does not include research or experimentation addressing 

the  extensive  governmental  scientific  advisory  process  within  the  EC  and  its  Member  States. 

(Two possible exceptions to this situation are the Scientific Advice for Fisheries Management at 

Multiple Scales [SAFMAMS] and Scientific Information for Policy Support in Europe [SINAPSE] 

There is a need to build further on this experience).

The scope of projects funded under the heading of Scientific Advice and Governance activities 

seems to be narrower than the objectives set by the Action Plan and subsequent Work Plans. Indeed, 

the strong focus on public participation mechanisms in the FP6 Science in Society portfolio may 

actually have the unintended consequence of distracting attention from a serious and challenging 

examination  of  the  everyday  role  of  scientific  advice  in  the  EC  and  its  Member  States.  More 

widely, the difficulty to engage policy- makers in these activities echoes the experience of other 

strands of the Science and Society programme, which seems to indicate the possible relevance of 

systemic constraints to this effort.

32

MTA_Report-1.indd   32

7/27/07   2:58:43 PM

Activities

The sample of projects examined in this review suggests that there are grounds for concern about 

the  quality  and  effectiveness  of  the  work  that  has  been  funded  in  this  area.  Six  projects  were 

reviewed in depth out of a total of fifteen. Closer examination of specific first phase evaluation 

criteria give cause for concern. If the sampled projects are representative of the project portfolio, 

then  the  projects  overall  could  be  described  as  unadventurous,  of  uneven  quality,  and  having 

dubious impact.  

Three  reports  were  reviewed.  Governance  of  the  European  Research  area:  The  Role  of  Civil 

Society (11) largely frames science advisory issues in terms of the asymmetric expertise of civil 

society and scientific experts. 

The report entitled From Science and Society to Science in Society: Towards a Framework for 

Co-operative  Research  (12),  poses  a  suitably  broad  range  of  questions  including:  “What  is  the 

appropriate role for science in the governance of modern society? How should research itself be 

governed? What is the function of public engagement?” The report is careful to address several 

important  problematic  issues  including:  the  issue  of  representation  and  democracy;  scale;  and 

framing.  Ultimately,  however,  it  also  narrows  its  scope  to  the  role  of  public  engagement. The 

report, Mapping Science in Society Research in Europe (13), surveys largely academic research 

on five sub-fields of Science and Society (S&S) activity and provides national profiles of S&S 

research  in  the  Member  States.  However,  the  report  provides  rather  sparse  information  on  the 

specific  issues  and  approaches  included  under  these  broad  headings. As  a  whole,  the  reports 

provide useful summaries of current conventional thinking about public participation, but also 

fall short of a full consideration of significant issues for a programme on Scientific Advice and 

Governance activities.

11 Banthien, H., Jaspers, M., Renner, A., Governance of the European Research area: The Role of Civil 
Society, IFOK, Bensheim, 2003
12 DG RTD internal document
13 DG RTD internal document

MTA_Report-1.indd   33

33

7/27/07   2:58:43 PM

b) Assessment

1) Are Science and Society activities in line with the three missions of Directorate C?

 The projects and workshops are generally in line with the Directorate’s missions. However, both 

kinds of activities reflect a very narrow framing of the missions. The programme focuses on risk 

communication and public participation, while ignoring structural political and economic issues 

that underlie public concerns about both the governance of science and technology and the role of 

science and technology in governance. There is nothing in this part of the programme specifically 

addressing the role of women. There are also fewer links than would be expected with the Science 

Communication activities.

2) Issues of scale

It is impossible to say what the “right” amount would be to spend on these large issues. 

However  the  project  effort  in  particular  focuses  on  a  rather  narrowly  defined  subset  of  public 

participation and risk communication activities. A suite of 16 well designed projects could almost 

certainly  cover  a  more  extensive  range  of  issues  adequately,  although  not  exhaustively,  so  the 

scale of effort is not unrealistic.

3) Issues of specificity

They are too narrowly drawn to address adequately the full range of issues of scientific advice and 

governance specified in the programme’s objectives.

4) Coverage of transversal issues

We have seen very little evidence that the governance projects have addressed transversal issues 

in any organized way. The synthesis report of reviewers observes “It should be noted that gender 

questions  were  not  taken  on  by  the  projects  we  reviewed  although  they  should  clearly  have 

appeared.” The two workshops performed better in this respect, but still subjugated, for example, 

gender issues to the public engagement agenda.  

5) Assessment of the policy relevance 

The narrow focus of the activities on participation and risk communication limits the potential 

policy relevance of the portfolio of work. As the reviewers’ synthesis report notes, “The question 

of  public  participation  which  has  been  studied  in  three  of  these  projects  will  clearly  remain 

important in the future. Indeed, among questions that remain open for further consideration, one 

is the statute of citizen’s participation. Research focus in the future will have to move from public 

participation in debate to public participation in actual decision-making. It should more generally 

examine public policy-making processes. ”

6) Potential impact on “policy environment” 

As  performed  we  see  rather  little  potential  impact  to  date. According  to  the  synthesis  report, 

dissemination  across  the  board  “was  systematically  problematic”.  This  comment  has  to  be 

3

MTA_Report-1.indd   34

7/27/07   2:58:43 PM

interpreted keeping in mind that this is a “mid-term” assessment exercise and most of the projects 

reviewed had not reached a state of completion. The projects mostly explore public participation 

exercises. This should lead to examples of successful practice in this direction and will also inform 

policy-makers about crucial attributes and ideas to avoid. A greater diversity of projects would be 

necessary for substantial impact on the whole range of stated objectives. 

7) Evolution

There  is  no  compelling  evidence  on  which  we  can  form  a  judgement  on  the  evolution  of  the 

proposed  projects  beyond  this  paradigm.  There  seems  to  have  been  more  evolution  in  the 

workshops. However, the programme seems to have reproduced and entrenched existing ideas 

rather than innovated.

c) Recommendations

The theme of Scientific Advice and Governance should be augmented to address the full scope of 

issues outlined in the programme’s objectives as specified in the Action Plan, work programmes 

and calls for proposals. The Science and Society programme is an important and positive initiative 

undertaken by the European Commission and a follow-up is certainly necessary. There is clearly a 

lot that needs to be done, both in terms of achieving what can only be developed at this level and 

also in terms of seeking the economies of scale that effective and more involved co-ordination 

can afford. However, the response to the calls seems to clearly fall short of meeting some of the 

objectives. 

Hence, there seems to be room for pre-emptive engagement with the target audiences in order to 

promote more balanced participation that will have an increased possibility of meeting the very 

worthwhile objectives as stated.

3.3 Ethics

a) Introduction to the theme

Background Information

Ethics  in  science  is  an  area  of  widespread  public  concern  that  is  confounded  with  public 

perceptions of science and technology but also has enormous implications for scientific practice. 

The issues that are mostly under focus concern newly developed technologies or newly identified 

risks. Equally important issues that tend to receive less attention concern the application of old 

technologies in new areas, animal welfare in the context of the science enterprise and the marked 

heterogeneity in policy, procedures and constraints related to research with human subjects. 

Specific policy context

Ethics  is  a  special  domain  within  the  European  Union. As  a  principle,  ethics  is  not  a  part  of 

MTA_Report-1.indd   35

3

7/27/07   2:58:43 PM

the  body  of  European  law.  Even  though  common  European  standards  have  been  initiated  in 

many  ethics-related  areas,  such  as  fundamental  rights  and  equal  treatment,  ethical  pluralism 

is  recognized  across  the  Member  States.  From  this,  it  follows  that  it  is  the  mandate  of  the 

individual  Member  States  to  regulate  issues  related  to  ethics  in  science  and  technology. 

Still,  the  European  Union  makes  significant  efforts  in  the  following  domains  of  ethics:  

1) Promotion of fundamental rights, 

2) Ethical review of research protocols, 

3) Funding research on ethical, legal and social issues raised by science and technology, 

4) Promotion of pan-European and international dialogue on ethics. 

Taking into account these four activities, ethics has become an important domain where certain 

European  standards  have  already  evolved.  Moreover,  the  coexistence  of  ethical  pluralism  and 

common European standards make ethics a vivid and important strand within the Science and 

Society programme.

Objectives

The main objective within this theme is to encourage the development of harmonious relations 

between Science and Society as well as to foster critical thinking on ethical questions related to 

science and technology. 

The Science and Society Action Plan specifies in Actions 29–34 the main goals in the field of 

ethics: 

1.  An information and documentation observatory will be developed to help track and analyze 

the  development  of  ethical  issues  in  science  at  national  and  international  level  (Action 

29). 

2.  An open dialogue will be established between NGOs, industry, the scientific community, 

religious,  cultural  groups,  philosophical  schools  and  other  interested  groups,  stimulating 

an  exchange  of  views  and  ideas  on  a  range  of  critical  issues,  such  as  the  ethical  impact 

of new technologies on future generations, human dignity and integrity, ‘infoethics’ and 

sustainability.  A  variety  of  mechanisms  will  be  used  (focus  groups,  polling  exercises, 

debates, workshops or institutional forums etc.) (Action 30) 

3.  Model courses and training modules will be developed in order to raise the awareness of 

researchers in the field of ethics (Action 31). 

4.  Networks of ethical committees will be fostered at both national and local levels. The aim 

will be closer cooperation and a more effective exchange of experience and best practice 

(Action 32). 

5.  An  international  dialogue  on  ethical  principles  will  be  developed  through  a  series  of 

conferences and workshops. An important aim will be to build up a capacity for ethical 

review in developing countries (Action 33). 

6.  Networks of animal welfare committees will be fostered and training of young scientists 

36

MTA_Report-1.indd   36

7/27/07   2:58:43 PM

on  animal  welfare  issues  will  be  promoted  to  support  the  implementation  of  European 

legislation on the protection of animals in research (Action 34). 

Activities

The following documents and events served as the basis for assessment:

- The synthesis report on ethics from the Review Panel, 

- The 25 recommendations on ethical, legal and social implications of genetic testing (1); 

- The report on the Ethical, legal and social aspects of genetic testing: research, development and 

clinical application (1); 

- The report: Facing the Future Together: Conference of the Ethics Committees in Europe (16),

-  The  five  opinions  of  the  European  Group  on  Ethics  (EGE)  released  during  the  period  in 

question,

- Information on 32 projects that were funded within the Ethics unit in Directorate C, including 

information on EUREC-Network project aiming at the creation of a European network of networks 

and a platform of exchange for Research Ethics Committees (REC) as a forum of partners with 

added value in carrying out the work at a European level. 

- Information on various conferences and workshops funded by the Commission, such as Ethical 

and Social Implications of Biometric Identification Technology (Dec 2005); Bioethical Aspects 

of Human Health (Oct 2006); The European Network of Research Ethics Committees, launched 

in January 2005. 

b) Assessment

1) Are Science and Society activities in line with the three missions of Directorate C? 

All projects reviewed in the Ethics theme are concerned with topics that are central to the Ethics 

component of the Science and Society programme. All are well designed and well managed from a 

scientific point of view, and all are likely to achieve their stated scientific and networking aims. 

2) Issues of scale

The type of action and the budget requested varies significantly across projects and it is not always 

obvious  that  there  is  sufficient  reason  for  these  variations.  Only  one  of  the  projects  involves 

significant and costly empirical research, which correctly puts it in the STREP category. 

1 European Commission, 25 recommendations on ethical, legal and social implications of genetic testing, 
Office for Official Publications of European Communities, Luxembourg, 2004 
1  European Commission, Ethical, legal and social aspects of genetic testing: research, development and 
clinical application, Office for Official Publications of European Communities, Luxembourg, 2004       
16 European Commission Facing the Future Together. Conference of the Ethics Committees in Europe, 
Office for Official Publications of European Communities, Luxembourg, 2004

MTA_Report-1.indd   37

37

7/27/07   2:58:43 PM

The participation of the new Member States is still low and in general their budgetary share is 

significantly less than the share of the researchers coming from the EU15. 

3) Issues of specificity

The issue of ethics in science is often simplistically reduced to a comparison of various legislative 

and regulative models in Member States. The projects mainly focus on the most recent fields of 

technologies, such as genetics, reprogenetics and nanotechnology. While it seems reasonable to 

promote  scientific  research  in  new  and  rapidly  expanding  fields,  such  as  nanotechnology  and 

genomics, scientific novelty does not necessarily raise brand new ethical dimensions while a new 

application of an already routinely used technology may involve entirely new ethical questions. 

For  instance,  if  genetic  tests  are  used  for  insurance,  differentiated  access  to  sport  and  various 

commercial purposes, specific and new ethical issues emerge (such as data protection and access 

to genetic information, a clash between commercial law and bioethics, discrimination and adverse 

selection) that go well beyond those entailed in genetic testing itself. Some critical reflections 

on the exclusive focus on genetics can be seen in the 25 Recommendations on ethical, legal and 

social implications of genetic testing (2004). 

4) Coverage of transversal issues

Dissemination  is  an  area  where  improvements  can  be  made,  both  at  the  proposal  and  the 

implementation stage. 

The projects generally achieve good dissemination to the academic audience, but dissemination 

to stakeholders, policy-makers, the public and the relevant parts of the Commission (especially 

outside DG Research) is very variable. Dissemination of the EGE Opinions needs to be intensified 

and improved so that it can become more targeted to reach the appropriate audiences. Commonly 

in Ethics research, the most crucial population to reach is not the Ethics researchers but rather the 

science researchers and science practitioners working in the corresponding field. This needs to be 

taken into account in designing future activities.

5) Assessment of the policy relevance 

There is a tension between the scientific and social dimension of the Science and Society activities 

and as a consequence, projects show a kind of separation between these scientific fields despite 

the stated call for the multi-disciplinarily. In terms of the need for ethical thinking to influence 

science policy development, one can identify a strong need for wider participation from social 

science  researchers  and  yet  the  projects  and  other  activities,  for  some  reason  fall  short  of  this 

critical need. 

In  terms  of  the  policy  implications  and  potential  impact  of  the  funded  activities  in  this  area, 

there is also a need for more involvement of policy-makers and institutions that go beyond the 

commitment to participate but undertake a commitment to explore policy shifts in their practices. 

More initiatives need to be undertaken by the Commission to relay activities of funded projects 

and contribute to policy-making, such as international conferences with stakeholders in the fields 

of  interest  where  partners  in  funded  projects  have  a  role  to  play  too  and  can  promote  further 

38

MTA_Report-1.indd   38

7/27/07   2:58:43 PM

capacity building.

6) Potential impact on “policy environment”

The main target group in many of the funded activities is still the academia which leads to a risk 

that there is a lot of expertise being developed that remains within closed circles. Nevertheless, 

policy-makers, legislators should benefit from the Ethics projects and there is the need to raise 

issues related to the existing gap between research and practice in Science Ethics. Reference to the 

projects is insufficient. Conferences and workshops organized by the Commission seem to have 

more significant impact; however in these events the recent findings of EU projects have not yet 

been integrated. Some projects (for instance comparison of the emerging ethical issues and legal 

differences impacting on European clinical trials, including a training workshop for researchers in 

the new Member States) seem to have a wide and multi-layered policy impact. 

7) Evolution.

Various activities demonstrate the good progress made in achieving the goals formulated in the 

Action Plan, except for Action 34. Capacity building is focused mainly on RECs.

c) Recommendations

1.  There is a strong need to foster cross-disciplinary dialogue in this field. Integrating ethical 

issues in a substantial manner in other strands of Science and Society as well as, more 

widely,  the  Framework  Programme  needs  to  become  a  priority.  For  instance,  there  is 

much usefulness in raising ethical issues in educational contexts.

2.  Genetics, nanotechnology and, more generally, the latest technologies tend to dominate 

almost exclusively the ethical landscape of the Science and Society activities. There is 

a need to realign this emphasis so that it covers all areas of ethical novelty rather than 

concentrate on ethical issues in novel science disciplines.

3.  There is little reflexivity demonstrated by the projects and other activities about the role 

of  the  private  sector  and  commercialization.  For  instance,  ethical  implications  of  the 

commercial  use  of  new  technologies  remain  largely  unexplored  and  could  usefully  be 

identified in future priorities.

4.  Most  of  the  projects  and  activities  in  Science  and  Society  tried  to  work  against  the 

existing gender-based inequalities. However, only very few gender-specific aspects were 

singled out. There is recognition that specific ethical issues are raised by the impact of 

technology on “vulnerable groups”. There are, however no concrete measures taken to 

involve  members  of  these  groups  in  current  research  on  these  particular  issues.  Such 

involvement needs to be substantial and also compensate for the difficulties that no doubt 

will be encountered.

5.  The  Commission  might  want  to  develop  and  disseminate  a  guidance  document  on 

highlighting good practice and providing hints for how to achieve appropriate dissemination 

MTA_Report-1.indd   39

39

7/27/07   2:58:44 PM

within the Commission (beyond DG Research) or in the European Parliament or take other 

initiatives to help project coordinators reach relevant decision-makers at the European 

level. The Commission should also review its internal dissemination procedures. 

6.  There is a need for more initiatives to be undertaken by the Commission to relay activities 

of  funded  projects  and  contribute  to  policy-making,  such  as  international  conferences 

with stakeholders in the fields of interest where partners in funded projects have a role to 

play too and can promote further capacity building.

7.  There is a need for mapping existing practice in science-related ethics and also develop 

indicators to monitor its development in the future. 

3.4 Women and Science

a) Introduction to the theme

Background information 

The issue of women’s participation in science was essentially raised by the European Commission 

and has been promoted actively for nearly ten years. In 1998, DG Research set up an expert group 

on Women and Science (the term is used broadly here, including the social sciences, engineering, 

and technology and computing) and charged the members with the task of preparing a report on 

Women  and  Science  policy  in  the  European  Union.  One  major  difficulty  recognized  from  the 

outset was the lack of systematically collected and published statistics. Even when statistics were 

collected,  presented  and  arranged  systematically,  there  were  problems  of  interpretation  in  the 

absence of other data. These difficulties in establishing a clear picture at Member State level were 

further compounded by problems of making comparisons across Member States. Nevertheless, the 

ETAN report Promoting excellence through mainstreaming gender equality (17) underlined some 

immediate striking facts. Women science professionals tend to work in the public sector, especially 

in universities, much more commonly than in the private sector. Throughout the EU, despite the 

increased participation of women in higher education, and despite the increase in women taking 

science subjects and moving into doctoral and postdoctoral studies, there remain remarkably few 

women in top jobs in science in any of the Member States. Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that 

different systems and cultures operate in the respective Member States, with very few exceptions, 

the overall percentage of women in top science positions was extraordinarily similar. Crucially, 

there were remarkably few women on important scientific committees and in key policy-shaping 

arenas.

The  situation  has  been  slowly  changing  since  then:  data  are  being  collected  (see  She  Figures 

2003 and She Figures 2006) and benchmarking activities have been promoted among Member 
 European Commission, Promoting excellence through mainstreaming gender equality, Office for 
17 
Official Publications of European Communities, Luxembourg, 2000

0

MTA_Report-1.indd   40

7/27/07   2:58:44 PM

States (Helsinki Group on Women and Science). Mainstreaming the gender issues in national and 

European policies is a long-term strategy for the Commission. 

This strategy focuses on transforming systems, structures and cultures, on integrating equality 

into policies, programmes and projects. It is an EC policy also in RTD, and has been signed by 

all Member States. The Science and Society Action Plan included advice on how best to achieve 

this.

Specific policy context

Both the ETAN report (2000) and the conference Women and Science: Making Change Happen 

(2000)  exposed  a  most  complex  agenda  to  be  addressed  by  the  Commission  and  articulated  a 

wide  range  of  recommendations  in  terms  of  policy  points  and  of  specific  research  on  gender 

and  science  to  make  political  actions  possible.  Data  so  far  available  showed  dramatic  gender 

imbalances,  strong  vertical  (along  hierarchies)  and  horizontal  (across  disciplines)  segregation, 

pay gap etc. Thus from the beginning, epistemological questions such as “gender in the substance 

of  science”  were  addressed  besides  foci  on  both  direct  and  indirect  mechanisms  of  exclusion 

and discrimination, on quality and fairness in scientific professions, on processes of peer review, 

balance in decision making bodies, etc. Another line of activities has been networking, starting 

with the Declaration of Networks Active in Europe (1999), and structures such as the Helsinki 

Group on Women and Science with national representatives. The Unit    “Women and Science” 

in  Directorate  “Science  and  Society”  was  founded  in  2001.  Despite  its  rather  recent  opening, 

within a short period gender experts on European and national level were mobilized to produce 

a comprehensive base of knowledge, and basic networks and structures were established by the 

EC. Secondly, the agenda has naturally grown to a very broad range, with two main foci: on the 

participation of women in science and technological development and on the integration of the 

gender dimension throughout European research. 

Objectives

The  two  main  priorities  in  this  theme  relate  to  raising  awareness  about  women’s  participation 

in science and technology and developing structures for support and monitoring. In the Action 

Plan, four main objectives were articulated: establishing a European platform of women scientists 

(Action  24);  monitoring  progress  towards  gender  equality  in  science  (Action  25);  mobilising 

women scientists in the private sector (Action 26); promoting gender equality in science in the 

wider Europe (Action 27). These roof concepts stand for whole sets of concrete strategies, such 

as exchange, models and mentors, awareness raising, elaboration of appropriate indicators and 

examination of the situation of women scientists in new Member States.  In the work programmes, 

as early as in 2003, attention was paid to more specific issues such as stimulation of the policy 

debate in-depth work focusing on minimizing gender bias in the measurement and evaluation of 

scientific excellence; there is a need for longitudinal studies of scientific careers, and for fostering 

the role of sociology, philosophy and history of women’s participation in science in the analysis 

MTA_Report-1.indd   41

1

7/27/07   2:58:44 PM

of the scientific system from a gender perspective. Gender Watch System should be enhanced 

throughout  the  ERA.  The  key  issues  in  this  domain  include  women  in  science  governance, 

mainstreaming strategies, public debates, gender and excellence.

Activities

Within FP6, 33 projects were funded under “Women and Science” programme, many dealing with 

the position of women in individual research areas including industrial research, others intending 

to meet the objectives mentioned above: databases, networks, public debates, training, the system 

of knowledge production.  Simultaneously, a number of other activities have been pursued by the 

Unit “Women and Science”. Besides several conferences and seminars, there are many reports 

and other publications illustrating the rapid progress of gathering information on the theme. 

The following are a few examples: Vademecum Gender Mainstreaming in the Sixth Framework 

Programme  –  Reference  Guide  for  Scientific  Officers/Project  Officers  (2003);  Women  in 

Industrial Research. Good Practices in Companies Across Europe (2003); statistical publication 

She Figures (2003 and 2006); report Waste of Talents: Turning Private Struggles into a Public 

Issue; report Women and Science in the Enwise Countries (new Member States - 2004). Among 

the achievements, an interesting follow up of the Women In Research (WIR) conference funded 

by the Commission should be noted: the “Position paper” - a public commitment by the Chief 

Executive Officers (CEO) of 7 private companies, to increase the number of women in science 

and  technology  in  the  private  sector  (2003).  The  number  of  companies  involved  has  recently 

increased to 1.

b) Assessment

1) Are Science and Society activities in line with the three missions of Directorate C? 

Most  of  the  projects  in  this  area  are  concerned  with  raising  awareness  on  issues  of  women’s 

participation  in  science  (i.e.  through  conferences,  reports)  as  well  as  establishing  concrete 

structures (i.e. databases, centres, platforms) that can provide the basis for long term strategies 

and measures to increase women’s participation. The primary target audience are women scientists 

themselves, and the important part of the dialogue aimed at, is the discourse among them. Yet in 

order to address the gender dimension of the whole system of science, additionally the general 

public,  researcher  communities  and  private  sector  have  been  included  to  a  lesser  extent.  The 

efforts of the Commission, and the objectives of individual projects show strong adherence to the 

main missions, but their fulfilment is only at the beginning. Nevertheless, in all the four actions 

(24-27) considerable progress has been achieved.

2) Issues of scale

The projects vary considerably in terms of budget. The number of projects is considerable and the 

overall budget for the projects and activities within this theme was relatively high. At the same 

time, the agenda is and must be very broad to effectively “make change happen” - effectiveness 

2

MTA_Report-1.indd   42

7/27/07   2:58:44 PM

and depth of the activities would increase with even more generous funding. In order to ensure 

sustainability of crucial activities it is important to aim for the long term and design for timeframes 

that reflect that.

3) Issues of specificity

As  a  whole,  the  activities  in  this  area  have  been  successful  in  achieving  their  promised  goals 

and can be expected to significantly advance the Science and Society agenda of promoting the 

participation of women scientists in the wider ERA and strengthening the links between women 

scientists, policy-makers and the broader scientific community. The projects reflect professional 

organization and management, strong commitment, and systematic, effective approaches toward 

achieving  their  goals.    Generally  speaking,  the  projects  also  appear  to  succeed  in  reaching 

important groups of stakeholders such as policy-makers, industrial leaders, parts of the relevant 

scientific communities and the EC. There are some questions, however, concerning whether the 

projects succeed in their ambitions of actually reaching and linking individual women scientists 

in all parts of Europe (including e.g. women in regions in which there are no existing networks or 

databases, women in parts of central and eastern Europe, women in social sciences). Specifically, 

more attention needs to be paid to: 1) targeting and strengthening particularly vulnerable groups, 

e.g. women in post-communist countries and women in areas without easy internet access and; 2) 

developing strategies that respond to the cultural, professional/work and scientific heterogeneity 

of women scientists and their respective needs. There is also a clear need to strengthen the social 

science component in the work in two ways. First, it is important that efforts to reach the broad 

category of “women scientists” explicitly include social scientists as well as natural scientists and 

engineers. 

Second, with the current emphasis of the reviewed projects to emphasize indicators of women’s 

participation in science, qualitative social science approaches that explore and problematize issues 

relating to the discriminatory factors, processes, professional power structures and politics that 

influence women’s participation could prove particularly useful.

4) Coverage of transversal issues 

Dissemination  efforts  in  the  Commission  activities  were  intense  with  this  theme;  production 

of information materials has been quite ample. The means used were mostly traditional, but of 

good quality: useful publications, leaflets, web pages are available; a few conferences have been 

organized. Art or multimedia means have been used only rarely so far, though they could have 

particular effect in addressing the broader public or students. The media in general have not been 

sufficiently involved, but this has been reflected upon by the Unit and belongs to future priorities. 

The European added value has been present in this case from the beginning; moreover, it has been 

proven that the activities by the Commission played a catalytic role towards encouraging national 

activities.  Long  term  sustainability  structures  have  so  far  appeared  only  at  the  European  level 

(such as the platform PLATWOMSCI). 

In several of the funded projects it was unclear what the specific strategies were that the projects 

used  to  broadly  and  effectively  disseminate  the  results  of  their  work  to  key  stakeholders  in 

MTA_Report-1.indd   43

3

7/27/07   2:58:44 PM

academia, industry and policy as well as to the general public. Since effective dissemination does 

also a prerequisite for being able to increase public awareness in the long term, both exist and 

future projects should be encouraged to strengthen their efforts in this area. The projects should be 

urged to consider dissemination as a core activity by developing in-depth strategies that include 

goals as to what groups will be reached, by what means, and how the concrete experiences will 

be  reflexively  integrated  in  a  process  of  on-going  improvements  of  the  efforts  made. Another 

critical point  with  regard  to  dissemination  within  the  projects  on  women’s  databases  concerns 

the  urgency  of  further  developing  and  linking  good  quality  databases  where  both  genders  are 

equally represented. Projects that aim at integrating information from women scientists’ databases 

into mainstream databases that are used by industries, academia and national and transnational 

institutions should be a future priority. 

There are also some issues of concern with regard to the long term sustainability of the projects. 

Often,  projects  lack  concrete  means  to  reflexively  follow  up,  evaluate  and  strengthen  the 

effectiveness of their actions. For example, some projects that centred on conferences as awareness-

enhancing events could have been strengthened by follow-up measures that contributed to more 

sustained activities and/or long term capacity building in their respective areas of concern. The 

lack of such measures has limited both the short-term impact of the activities and their long term 

sustainability.

5) Assessment of the policy relevance

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  activities  promoted  are  highly  relevant  to  the  Science  and  Society 

policy  to  promote  gender  equality  in  science.  The  intensive  effort  to  gather  information  and 

make it widely available is having an impact on national policy development in this area. More 

coordinated efforts are needed on the part of Member States to examine the causal issues that 

operate at local level and to explore ways to alleviate them. There has been also too much emphasis 

on statistical indicators. There is a strong need now is to move towards qualitative social science 

approaches that can explore issues relating to the discriminatory factors, processes, professional 

power structures and politics that influence women’s participation.

6) Potential impact on “policy environment”

Although the activities were partly successful in reaching important groups of stakeholders such 

as policy-makers, industrial leaders, parts of the relevant scientific communities and the EC, the 

real impact in terms of making policy-makers act more actively, to realize promises and make 

sure that policies be implemented, is doubtful. At the national level, the potential impact seems to 

be too fragmented and thus not sufficiently reaching the whole system of Science Education, and 

gender mainstreaming often remaining only in rhetoric. 

7) Evolution

When the programme started, a considerable body of experience from around the globe had to 

be made available and the complexity of the theme had to be grasped. At European level, basic 

steps were necessary to address the problems systematically. Thus not all of the topics, though 

identified, could be equally addressed at the same time: the Action Plan rightly identified the first 



MTA_Report-1.indd   44

7/27/07   2:58:44 PM

steps as preconditions for the deepening activities and the necessary subsequent research. The 

whole  process  has  been  well  reflected  upon  and  new  topics  have  been  gradually  added  to  the 

portfolio. There is a strong need to continue this activity evolution in this area and also to promote 

greater activity at the level of the Member States.

c) Recommendations 

1.  Focus  should  be  shifted  from  the  issues  of  Women  and  Science  in  general  towards 

specification  of  more  concrete  problems  of  individual  groups  of  women.  Strategies 

should be fostered that respond to the cultural, professional and scientific heterogeneity 

of women scientists and their respective needs as scientists. More attention needs to be 

paid to targeting and strengthening particularly vulnerable groups, e.g. women in post-

communist countries and women in areas without easy internet access.

2.  Future activities should be urged to take dissemination more seriously and include it as 

a  core  activity  by  developing  in-depth  strategies  that  include  goals  as  to  what  groups 

will be reached, by what means, and how the concrete experiences will be reflexively 

integrated in a process of on-going improvements of efforts made.

3.  Impact and dissemination would be stronger if the databases of women scientists could be 

integrated into mainstream databases that are used by industries, academia and national 

and transnational institutions, where both genders are equally represented.

4.  Impact strategies should be broadened and deepened. A renewed dialogue with public and 

achieving greater involvement by the media are necessary. In this connection, innovative 

means of addressing and informing the public, such as multimedia, art etc. should be used 

more. Impact strategies should not be limited to dissemination only, but in connection 

with stakeholders, implementation should continue to be monitored closely.

5.  The  orientation  of  the  projects  which  are  providing  knowledge-based  arguments  for 

whatever policies should focus more on qualitative research findings, or should trigger a 

necessary research in order to: a) make it possible to document in a closer and concrete 

way the hidden discriminatory practices and mechanisms in individual disciplines, time 

and place in individual countries - quantitative data often do not suffice as convincing 

arguments of discrimination; b) put greater emphasis on the gender dimension of the very 

nature of science. In this context, the concept of practicality should be re-defined within 

the  Unit,  and  approaches  of  social  sciences  and  humanities  should  be  exploited  much 

more as a base for action.

6.  It  is  desirable  to  clarify  and  reconsider  the  conceptual  framework  of  the  activities  as 

related to the relationship between the concepts “women” and “gender” – towards gender 

as  the  central  concept  enabling  to  grasp  the  theme  in  a  most  complex  way.  In  other 

words, there is a need to raise the question of whether and how the “Women and Science” 

programme  as  a  whole  should  successively  develop  from  its  current  focused  work  on 

MTA_Report-1.indd   45



7/27/07   2:58:44 PM

women’s  participation  in  science  to  explore  even  more  substantive  and  crucial  issues 

related  to  gender  (with  “gender”  here  defined  in  the  social  sense,  encompassing  work 

on e.g. difference, power and intersectionalities between gender/ethnicity/disability). As 

emphasized above, a prerequisite to strengthen the role of women in science is to gain a 

strong understanding of the gendered processes, mechanisms and values that shape and 

inform scientific practice, as well as societal structures more generally, in non-neutral, 

gendered ways. The crucial question is: will the “Women and Science” programme want 

to move toward a stronger, more explicit “Science, technology and gender” orientation 

and if so, what might a move such as this entail and what work should be initiated to 

move in this direction? We urge the EC to consider this issue.

3.5 Science Communication

a) Introduction

Background Information

As scientific research has become more specialized and diverse, its communication has become 

less accessible both to the public, to policy-makers and to other scientists who are not directly 

involved in the specific discipline. At the same time, the increasing need for science-supported 

decision making, greater relevance for scientific research to social priorities and the enhanced 

awareness for more transparency and greater public accountability for science, all reinforce the 

need for more intensive efforts to improve the effectiveness and scope of science communication. 

It  has  become  clear  that  scientists  need  to  take  more  responsibility  to  disseminate  the  main 

outcomes and ideas from their research more effectively. It has also become clear that this will 

not be enough: there is a also a need to develop mechanisms for the public and the interested 

professional to engage more with scientific awareness activities and at the same time there is a 

need  to  promote  professional  training  and  practice  in  science  communication  as  a  specialized 

discipline.

Specific context

Activities in the area of communication developed within Science and Society in FP6 could build 

on relatively few experiences developed at the EU level within FP5 (Raising public awareness). 

Other experiences were available mostly at the national level, but with a relatively low degree 

of  funding  or  EU  networking.  The  Science  and  Society Action  Plan  focused  on  the  problem 

that  science  communication  activities  were  fragmented  all  over  Europe:  a  number  of  science 

weeks  and festivals of  good quality in many cities and regions had only local impact with no 

systematic partnerships between them and no clear structure to exchange best practices; science 

events  professionals  lacked  a  forum  for  setting  up  partnerships  and  interactive  exhibitions  or 

information products on science, hardly circulated in Europe due to the transport and translation 

costs involved. The main objective of the Science Communication programme was formulated in 

terms of bringing the general public closer to scientists and science through direct relationships 

6

MTA_Report-1.indd   46

7/27/07   2:58:44 PM

with a long-term goal (to change the science and scientists image, to encourage scientific careers) 

and a favourite target (young people). The Science and Society programme supported a number 

of pilot activities at the European level, e.g. European audiovisual co-productions on science for 

the general public. The outcome of these pilot activities is now a basis for reinforced or reoriented 

activities in the FP7 work programme.

Objectives

Relevant general objectives in the Science and Society Action Plan included “promoting scientific 

culture in Europe”, making people “more familiar with science and technology”, “give science and 

technology a higher profile in the media in Europe”. The specific focus of the work programmes 

included: “setting up working groups and networks to exchange experiences between the scientific 

and  media  communities,  and  with  science  communicators”,  “impact  analyses  of  activities  for 

raising public awareness of science at the European, national and regional levels” (2003); “actions 

to promote an interchange of scientific information products for the general public (e.g. travelling 

or permanent exhibitions, documentaries) between European countries” (2004); “support to TV 

and radio productions on research and science” aimed at “members of the public unfamiliar with 

research  and  scientific  issues,  including  young  people”  (2005);  “measures  for  improving  the 

exchange of experiences and resources among organisers of national science weeks to enhance 

their European dimension and added value”.

Activities

22 projects were funded in this area. Other relevant activities in this area include conferences like 

the European Science and Society Forum (2005) and some initiatives within the CREST clusters. 

Descartes prizes for research and science communication - established respectively in 2000 and 

2004 to reward outstanding scientific achievements through trans-national collaborative research 

and exemplary action in science communication - were also considered in this area. 

b) Assessment

1) Are Science and Society activities in line with the three missions of Directorate C?

Activities conducted within the Communication thematic area appear generally in line with the 

specific mission of raising the profile of European research and science. However they still fall 

short of the wider contextual need to develop a bidirectional communication between science and 

society and also to diversify the channels for more effective science communication. 

2) Issues of scale

The budget size appears in general appropriate to the ambitions of activities carried out in this 

area. 

In  terms  of  the  relation  of  activities’  time  frame  with  regard  to  the  objectives  of  activities, 

significant concern has been expressed by the Review Panel about the high uncertainty about the 

sustainability of projects in the area of communication after the end of the EC funding period. 

MTA_Report-1.indd   47

7

7/27/07   2:58:44 PM

While event-based initiatives are by their nature circumscribed in terms of time, some of those 

organized  in  this  thematic  area  would  have  lent  themselves  to  the  planning  of  preparatory/ex 

post facto activities that would have extended both their time frame beyond the specific event 

and  helped  emphasize  their  connection  with  other  activities,  as  well  as  with  the Action  Plan 

general aims. A positive example, in this light, seems to be represented by the Science in Society 

Forum, where the final event was prepared through activities in six Member States, thereby also 

broadening and deepening the participation of several relevant actors.

3) Issues of specificity

While many of the activities appear reasonably well focused in terms of the topics specified, an 

issue nevertheless exists in terms of overlapping of some initiatives’ aims and methods. A certain 

degree of overlapping and lack of integration is to be seen also between some of the activities 

promoted within the CREST cluster initiatives and other specific projects, networking initiatives 

and expert groups. 

There is a need to broaden the activities beyond events for promoting awareness in order to cover 

the development of structures for accountability on the part of scientists and also capacities for 

more professional expertise in science writing and communication.

4) Coverage of transversal issues 

Coverage of transversal issues, coordination and integration of activities performed in this thematic 

area with those carried out in other thematic areas emerges as a crucial issue in view also of the 

thorough coverage and implementation of the three missions of the  Science and Society Action 

Plan. Difficulties in terms of integration emerge at several levels. 

At a more specific level, it seems that opportunities could have been better exploited, for instance, 

to incorporate results of funded projects into other initiatives/materials (e.g. conference materials, 

booklets) in this and other areas of Science and Society. Vice versa, some projects and initiatives 

strictly  linked  to  communication  themes,  also  in  neighbouring  thematic  areas  of  Science  and 

Society seem largely to ignore the existence of other materials/clusters/guidelines with inevitable 

effects of duplications - and sometimes even contradiction. 

At  a  more  general  level,  a  rather  sophisticated  way  of  addressing  Science  and  Society  issues 

by some initiatives and expert groups does not always reflect on the practical level, with some 

communication initiatives and materials still apparently grounded within the limits of a deficit, 

paternalistic model of science communication. Thus, on the one hand, fairly advanced forms of 

citizen engagement in science and technology decisions and issues of co-production in research 

(between experts and patient associations, for instance) are explored and tested; on the other hand, 

several projects funded  in  this  area appear largely to adopt a top-down, pedagogical approach 

in which the audiences are meant to passively appreciate and acknowledge the achievements of 

researchers. This could not represent a major problem per se, since it is reasonable that different 

themes/areas (and even different national/cultural contexts) may require modular approaches to the 

expert/non expert relationship as well as a broad range of models and tools; however, it would be 

important to have at least an overarching rationale or conceptual framework to avoid the potential 

8

MTA_Report-1.indd   48

7/27/07   2:58:44 PM

impression of plain contradictions between initiatives. As was already noted by the Review Panel, 

implementation of the Plan would have benefited from a more intensive integration among areas 

and priorities that may also better reflect the concrete needs of relevant actors and stakeholders 

– for instance, addressing science communication issues in connection with gender issues.

Finally,  a  question  of  integration/coordination  should  be  raised  with  respect  to  the  activities/

initiatives  of  other  directorates,  particularly  with  regard  to  themes  like  the  life  sciences  or 

nanotechnologies in which the communication dimension appears extremely relevant.

5) Assessment of the policy relevance

Activities in the area of communication seem, in principle, to be able to achieve significant policy 

relevance, in particular with regard to the European added value. However, many of the efforts 

done so far – particularly with regard to funded projects as evaluated by the first group – seem 

to be aimed primarily at communicating to the general public and raising the profile of European 

science. While this is certainly a key target, the issue of making researchers more aware of the 

need to be accountable in the face of non experts appears not less relevant. 

6) Potential impact on “policy environment”

From  the  statistics  on  requested  contributions  and  countries’  participation  to  the    Science  and 

Society programme calls, this area of the programme seems to have achieved a significant impact 

in  terms  of  eliciting  a  broad  involvement  of  actors  and  institutions  across  Europe,  stimulating 

networking and fruitful exchange. However, it is not always possible to assess the actual impact 

of the specific activities conducted with regard to their relevant audiences/levels - which brings to 

the light what could probably be regarded as some of the most crucial and problematic points of 

many activities/initiatives in this area.

•	

In  the  first  place,  unsystematic  attention  has  been  paid  to  the  aspects  related  to  the 

dissemination of results and products - something which had been boldly remarked by 

the Review Panel also with regard to most of the funded projects. This includes an issue 

of identification and reaching of relevant audiences: policy-makers (including EU level 

policy-makers, but without neglecting national and local policy- making, stakeholders, 

NGOs, citizens…) 

•	 While communication activities within FP6 were aimed primarily at action rather than 
research, their potential might have been enhanced by a stronger emphasis on dialogue 

between  theory  and  practice  of  communication,  which  appears  increasingly  crucial  in 

this  field. The  importance  and  feasibility  of  such  dialogue  is  highlighted  by  examples 

– although not strictly within FP6 – like the magazine RTD Info, which seem to have 

brilliantly fostered interaction among different audiences (e.g. scientists, policy-makers, 

media actors).

•	 The Descartes Prizes’ award ceremony is conceived as an event highlighting for the public 
the achievements of the laureates and the impact of their work on the European society. Both 

Descartes prizes have reached their objectives (they both contribute to “Europeanising” 

MTA_Report-1.indd   49

9

7/27/07   2:58:45 PM

research) but the impact of the award ceremony is probably insufficient. 

•	 Finally – and at least partially accounting for the above mentioned weaknesses – there 
is a lack of elaboration of consistent and shared indicators at the European level, against 

which the impact and effectiveness of science communication activities can be thoroughly 

assessed. Such indicators should go beyond a mere quantitative dimension. This problem 

reflects  both  on  the  level  of  specific  communication  projects  as  evaluated  by  the  first 

panel and on the level of background activities.

7) Evolution 

An evolution on the way communication issues have been dealt with is evident in many activities - 

particularly those which have been carried out across several years and multiple stages. Promising 

new directions and levels of action are also being recently explored – e.g. stimulating science 

communication at the local level of municipalities within the EU context. Still, it can be argued 

that  further  efforts  could  be  made  to  take  stock  of  the  many  important  results/achievements/

materials  of  the  activities  and  to  feed  them  back  into  relevant  policy  documents  like  calls  for 

proposals.

c) Recommendations

1.  First  and  foremost,  the  need  appears  urgent  to  elaborate  and  validate  a  set  of  robust 

indicators  for  assessing  the  impact  and  effectiveness  of  communication  (and  more  in 

general, science in society) activities/initiatives at the EU level. Such indicators should 

not  only be  validated in their relevance and consistency by scholars and practitioners, 

but should reflect as far as possible the multiple points of view of relevant actors and 

stakeholders, including minorities and vulnerable groups.

2.  The  importance  of  the  dissemination  issue  should  be  emphasized.  This  does  not  only 

mean  extending  the  target  audiences  in  terms  of  number,  but  also  devoting  efforts  to 

identify relevant audiences and circles – particularly in the area of policy- making – for 

each specific initiative. 

3.  An issue of dissemination exists also in relationship to the two Descartes prizes, which 

represent an interesting and useful initiative and they have both to be maintained with the 

label Descartes.  Increasing the financial amount of the research prize would be desirable 

in order to allow the winning teams to develop their cooperation. 

0

MTA_Report-1.indd   50

7/27/07   2:58:45 PM

The award ceremony should be reappraised with a double objective: explaining what has 

been achieved by the laureates and organizing debates on present and future scientific 

challenges and on Science and Society issues. It should have a better visibility in order to 

reach, through the media, the public as well as policy- makers.

4.  Beyond  providing  practical  tools,  boxes  of  “communication  tricks”  and  funding 

opportunities to researchers and their institutions to communicate with the wider public, 

further efforts should perhaps be devoted to stimulating a broader awareness – among 

researchers  and  their  institutions,  their  funding  partners  etc.  –  of  their  increasing 

responsibility  to  be  not  only  proactive  in  publicly  promoting  their  research,  but  also 

transparent and accountable in the face of citizens’ concerns (as outlined in documents 

like the EU Charter for Researchers). 

5.  Continuous  attention  should  also  be  paid  to  the  importance  of  integration  at  several 

levels: 

- among different categories of actors active within the thematic area of science 

communication (scientists/media, scholars/practitioners, public/private/NGOs);

- across thematic areas (between communication and governance, ethics, women 

and science);

- across actions/initiatives of other directorates (e.g. communication issues with 

regard to life sciences, nanotechnologies..). 

This could, among other things, reduce the risk of duplication of similar activities and 

reciprocally reinforce the impact and added value of interrelated initiatives.

6.  Finally,  more  thorough  integration  and  cross  fertilization  should  also  be  continuously 

sought  and  monitored  in  terms  of  the  relationship  between  the  level  of  conceptual 

innovation and critical reflection on science communication that results from expert groups 

or workshops and the models of science communication that are incorporated in other 

activities/initiatives/ products/materials. Increased Attention should also be paid to a better 

coordination between national activities in order, in particular, to facilitate the exchange 

of views on interesting and innovative experiences in the area of science communication 

activities and also encourage jointly organized initiatives in cooperation with the EC. In 

this perspective, the role of the CREST committee should be reappraised.

3.6 A brief note on Scientific Culture

Background information

The extent to which a society celebrates the achievements of intellectual creativity and is also 

aware of the powerful potential of making use of scientific expertise and know-how in making 

choices and formulating decisions, is an issue of scientific culture. The scant measurements of the 

public understanding of science, and the widespread room for improvement that exists, in both the 

MTA_Report-1.indd   51

1

7/27/07   2:58:45 PM

public transparency for science and the accountability of scientists, lead to a situation where there 

is a need for belligerence in safeguarding scientific culture within European society. 

In  the  knowledge  society,  science  is  accorded  a  special  intellectual  prominence,  a  privileged 

position. The  basic  premise  for  this  is  that science is  the  only  available means  for  developing 

reliable knowledge. Are there limits to the application of this presumption? These are certainly 

issues which might be addressed in the frame of a programme. Restricting the capacity to reflect 

in this area contributes to two shortcomings: it contributes to the popular lack of understanding of 

the role of science and technology in society; it also makes science pervasive and ubiquitous with 

the possibility that we do not sufficiently explore the limits of science thus exposing ourselves to 

(i) risk and (ii) waste in resources. 

Additionally,  there  exist  conflicting  views  about  the  development  and  nature  of  scientific 

knowledge (for example those developed by post-modernist lines of thought) and its relationship 

with its social and economic context. These are also issues to be addressed.  

Recommendations

There is a need for more intensive and coherently formulated activity to both study and promote 

scientific culture. 

Philosophical,  historical  and  cross-disciplinary  aspects  of  scientific  development,  including  its 

relationship with arts, could usefully be promoted within such activities. Transversal projects with 

Science Communication could also lead to more innovative approaches for celebrating science 

as part of human cultural creativity and hence afford it the place it deserves in the popular public 

sphere.

2

MTA_Report-1.indd   52

7/27/07   2:58:45 PM

4. Overall Assessment of the Science and Society Programme

4.1 Achievements

A  markedly  broad  range  of  activities  have  been  performed:  150  projects  involving  various 

partners,  as  well  as  conferences  and  debates. A  number  of  figures  provide  an  overall  picture 

of  the  importance  of  partnership  (teams  from  various  national  institutions)  engaged  into  the 

programme.

The programme attracted a large number of participants: 916 partners from the EU25 were engaged 

in projects with 764 (73% out of total of 1045 participants) from the EU15. Additional partners 

came from associated countries such as Switzerland and Norway as well as third countries such 

as Canada and the USA. The participants were predominantly from the public sector with higher 

education institutions (41%) and research institutes (23%) holding the largest share; participation 

from the industrial sector (public and private) has been rather modest ranging from 0.5% to 6% 

across the five thematic areas. The distribution of partners among EU countries has been rather 

even with the larger shares of participation from 4 large countries: France, Germany, Italy and 

UK  had  45%  of  the  participating  partners,  a  figure  which  is  nevertheless  far  lower  than  their 

share  (65%)  in  the  R&D  funding  in  Europe.  Participants  from  new  Member  States  have  been 

rather fairly represented (with the exception of the areas of Scientific Advice and Governance and 

Ethics) although the funding for their participation in the projects appears to be determined more 

commonly by the perceived cost of labour in these countries rather than the work involved. 

The total funding for the Science and Society programme in FP6 was 71.5 M€. This was distributed 

among the five thematic areas of the programme: Science Education (including Scientific Culture 

and  Descartes  prizes):  24.3  M€  (34.1%);  Science  Communication:  5.3  M€  (7.4%);  Scientific 

Advice and Governance: 4.7 M€ (6.6%); Ethics: 24.9 M€ (34.9%); Women and Science: 12.1 M€ 

(17%). In terms of funding, Ethics, Education (but including substantial funding for the Descartes 

prize) and Women and Science have received a relative priority. The types of funding instruments 

used  were  fairly  evenly  distributed.  Coordinated  actions  represented  24%  of  the  funding  of 

activities, specific support actions 56% and specific targeted research 20%. For the vast majority 

of  projects,  the  funding  was  at  a  relatively  modest  level  (below  0.5M€). Although  one  might 

fear that a rather large scattering of the distribution of funding among many projects would be 

detrimental to the quality and focus of activities on meeting well identified objectives, we have 

considered that, in this case, launching 150 projects with many partners has worked positively in 

catalysing the involvement of new actors in a diverse range of important activities.

The achievements of the programme are real and numerous and in line with the mission and main 

priorities defined by the Action Plan. We have considered that all the activities have contributed to 

its implementation. The actions that have been performed have in most cases produced significant 

results  (although  for  several  of  them  it  is  still  too  early  to  provide  a  clear  assessment  of  final 

outcomes  and  achievements).  Based  on  our  analysis,  the  main  positive  achievements  of  the 

MTA_Report-1.indd   53

3

7/27/07   2:58:45 PM

programme are the following: 

-  All projects have generally succeeded in creating networks of partners who have been able to 

achieve common goals, to exchange and share experiences and to demonstrate an European 

added value by contributing to the emergence of communities in Europe that are seeking to 

address issues related to the complex roles of science in society; furthermore the programme 

has triggered activities in countries where they were not yet apparent and it has thus partly 

achieved  its  objective  of  catalyzing  the  involvement  of  academic  communities  from  new 

Member States in Science and Society activities.

-  Conferences  and  forums  were  able  to  launch  debates  in  several  areas  (scientific  culture, 

women and science in particular) at European level with a rather large participation from a 

diversity of actors. They have doubtless contributed to enhance the visibility in Europe of 

important issues in areas such as ethics, women and science and scientific communication 

and have also provided pilot examples of methodologies for how to achieve this in a broader 

spectrum of issues. 

The Descartes prizes have also made a significant contribution in highlighting the importance 

of (a) European cooperation to achieve excellence in research and (b) science communication 

activities.

-  The programme has established a very visible European dimension for Science and Society 

issues in a manner that provides reflective activities on specific issues related to scientific and 

technological research (such as Ethics, Governance and Science Communication), as well as 

a thoughtful scientific approach to highlighting and addressing barriers and future obstacles 

to the continuing contribution of science in society (such as the challenge of safeguarding a 

sufficient supply of competent future scientists and engineers and the need to enhance the 

involvement of women in science). Some of these issues continue to be of crucial value to the 

Lisbon agenda (Science Education and Scientific Advice and Governance, in particular). The 

programme has also served to highlight important themes such as science and natural risks, 

which deserve to be addressed more consistently in the future.

-  The  programme  has  made  important  contributions  in  enlarging  the  circle  of  communities 

involved in  such kind of activities at national level (with the biggest impact made in new 

EU  Member  States)  and  has  provided  increased  visibility  for  these  activities  both  among 

scientists and among the public.

- 

In several projects, new partnerships were engaged at the European level (local administrations, 

science museums) to address issues related to culture and education, thus enlarging the circle 

of partners to non-academic communities.

-  Several projects involved non-European partners (for example, African countries in the Ethics 

theme) which has provided a valuable international dimension to the programme and has laid 

the foundations for more intensive future collaboration efforts with potential for enormous 

impact.



MTA_Report-1.indd   54

7/27/07   2:58:45 PM

-  The  programme  has  mobilized  a  rather  impressive  number  of  experts  at  various  levels 

(advisory board, evaluation panel, etc.) In this context, the Commission services have acted 

in a commendably open manner in implementing the Science and Society Action Plan and 

contributed through its communication service to highlight several important issues, which 

it  addressed.  The  Advisory  Board,  the  Expert  Groups  and  the  various  studies  that  were 

undertaken have provided valuable input in designing a policy and also modifying it along 

the way in the light of both new information and the response from the various actors.

Our  assessment  has  also  identified  a  certain  number  of  weaknesses  in  the  implementation  of 

the  programme,  which,  are  mostly  apparent  across  all  of  the  five  thematic  areas  that  we  have 

assessed:

-  The scope of several projects, and possibly of the work programme, was too narrowly defined.  

This was particularly the case for the themes related to Scientific Advice and Governance, 

Scientific  Culture,  Ethics,  and  Women  and  Science).  Furthermore  very  few,  if  any,  of  the 

projects were able to address “transversal “issues (such as ethics and governance or gender 

issues in science education). 

-  Scientific  culture  issues  were  addressed  in  the  work  programme  only  through  the  science 

education  and  science  communication  strands  (with  the  exception  of  one  project  which 

innovated  in  its  approach  as  it  involves  city  administrations  in  charge  of  scientific  culture 

activities);  this  focusing  may  have  been  an  obstacle  to  an  enlargement  to  activities  at  the 

border between science and other dimensions of culture (such as the Arts, for example).

- 

In  some  areas,  few  innovative  tools  or  actions  were  launched  by  participants  to  projects: 

the  approaches  for  communication  and  scientific  culture  remain  largely  “classical”,  for 

example.

-  The participants were predominantly drawn from academics with actors from industry, public 

administration, the media, NGO’s and, in general, policy-makers playing a more minor role.

-  Many projects have considered the dissemination of their results and findings as a secondary 

activity: this is a serious handicap for the overall impact of the programme.

-  The  absence  of  committed  policy-makers  among  the  partners  and  of  active  dissemination 

practices has probably weakened the impact of the programme.

-  The  perennial  character  of  the  activities  of  partners  engaged  in  projects  is  not  guaranteed 

as there does not exist, in  general, an action plan for important follow-up activities or for 

sustainability  measures.  Impact  on  policy  development  is  severely  constrained  because  of 

this  factor:  there  is  a  strong  need  for  new  mechanisms  to  broaden,  where  appropriate,  the 

commitment of participating institutions beyond the facilitation of activities in order to take 

on board the responsibility to make policy changes.

-  For  the  most  part,  other  Directorates  of  the  Directorate  General  for  Research  and  other 

Directorates  General  of  the  Commission  appear  to  have  remained  distant  observers  to  the 

MTA_Report-1.indd   55



7/27/07   2:58:45 PM

Science  and  Society  programme.  The  notable  exception  is  DG  Fisheries,  which  had  an 

activity with serious involvement in the programme. This could be deemed as a pilot effort 

from which lessons can be drawn as to how to involve other directorates more meaningfully. 

Their support will also influence the long term sustainability of this important programme.

-  The  coordination  with  national  activities  in  the  Science  and  Society  domain  has  not  been 

achieved  to  any  noticeable  extent.  The  Open  Method  of  Coordination  has  not  brought 

significant progress in this direction, partly because the CREST committee has not played 

a  proactive  role  in  this  perspective.  The  Science  and  Society  Programme  Committee  has 

not  taken  sufficient  initiative  in  this  respect  and  the  National  and  other  Funding Agencies 

have,  in  the  best  of  cases,  taken  only  a  very  fragmentary  approach  to  policy  development 

and implementation on these issues. There is little evidence of synergies between activities at 

national, regional and European levels.

-  The Cluster implementation by Member States was patchy. In practice, some clusters were 

more active than others and most efforts did not survive the test of time. However those that 

did (such as the Helsinki Group that evolved from the Women and Science Cluster) appeared 

to  do  so  because  they  were  filling  a  void  in  existing  communities  and,  made  important 

contributions to the evolving priorities of the Science and Society programme itself. 

-  There is a discrepancy that can be recognized between EC funded activities and those that 

are  organized  with  the  approach  of  the  Open  Method  of  Coordination  (OMC).  In  the  first 

case, the institutions that participate are those that have identified internally the incentive of 

gaining from the support of external funding for activities that fall within the sphere of the 

institutional mission. In the second case, participation is more commonly through institutional 

structures that have taken on the responsibility of representing Member States to the European 

Community. As a result, the general perception from participants in EC funded activities is 

that  they  act  as  lone  operators  (independently  of  the  policy-making  structures  inside  their 

institutions)  implementing  externally  funded  projects  for  the  purpose  of  realizing  specific 

activities.  In  the  second  case,  the  perception  from  participants  in  OMC  initiatives  is  that 

they are engaged in exercises with no funding for activities. Their contribution is perceived 

to be on top of already heavy schedules, often in a line that is disparate with their every day 

work. The end result is that in both situations (EC funded and OMC-type activities) the link 

with policy-making is simply not there: in the first case of EC funded activities, participating 

institutions  commit  to  them  as  extraneous  activities  that  are  not  linked  to  their  current  or 

future policy evolution; in the second case because it is a hit and miss exercise on the part of 

the Commission to work with colleagues from the Member States that are at the right level in 

the hierarchy, in roughly the right area to influence policy-making on the issue at hand. Hitting 

the right level in the hierarchy so that access to both expertise and policy-making power is 

less  of  a  hit  and  miss  process  becomes  further  complicated  due  to  the  widespread  lack  of 

understanding in the rationale behind EC policies and activities, among many institutions at 

the level of the Members States. 

6

MTA_Report-1.indd   56

7/27/07   2:58:45 PM

Resolving this problem needs a multi-faceted approach: where there are aspirations in the 

Science  and  Society  programme  to  influence  policy  development,  this  needs  to  become 

more  explicit  and  there  is  a  need  to  link  external  funding  to  institutional  commitment  for 

policy development, not just activity implementation. There is an additional need to highlight 

examples of successful practice and/or fund benchmarking exercises on policy influences of 

EC activities. Lastly, there is a need to transfer expertise from EC to national institutions in 

participative policy-making procedures.

-  There  is  a  need  for  the  European  Commission  to  internationalize  its  Science  and  Society 

activity. Building new capacities to work with developing countries in Africa and the Middle 

East can be a very productive activity in fields such as Science Ethics. There is enormous 

potential to work with and influence local structures (under admittedly many difficulties and 

severe constraints), as demonstrated by the seed activities that have already been undertaken, 

but  also  to  obtain  experience  with  innovative  applications  in  a  diversified  context  which 

then  provides  extremely  valuable  feedback  to  policy-making  with  respect  to,  for  instance, 

the medical profession, the pharmaceutical industry, the food sector and water engineering. 

There is also a clear opportunity to enhance this capacity to build a European competitive 

edge in developing countries while at the same time exploring new ethical and policy–related 

issues.

4.2 Impact in relationship with the objectives of the Action Plan

The  Science  and  Society  programme  was  defined  and  launched  as  a  means  for  the  European 

Commission to realize its contribution in implementing the objectives of the Science and Society 

Action Plan and to catalyze associate activities by other actors. All the funded activities have been 

in line with the objectives of the SASAP as defined in 2001 and subsequently refined to achieve 

complementarity between calls and greater effectiveness along the way. The programme’s capacity 

for promoting the European dimension of Science and Society issues is beyond any doubt and it 

has contributed significantly in raising the profile of these issues (in science and in society) and 

also in enlarging the circle of communities involved in this type of activities at national level, 

with the greatest change appearing in the new EU Member States. The actions have also served 

to enhance the visibility of science in society, an achievement that has also been pointed out by 

the evaluation of the Science and Society Action Plan performed by  The Evaluation Partnership 

in 2005. Because this was a “mid-term” assessment exercise, we lacked information on the final 

results for the majority of the projects which we reviewed since most of these were not yet fully 

completed. Despite this, it is possible to identify some trends and inadequacies: the policy impact 

of  the  programme  is  probably  insufficient  since:  the  circle  of  actors  involved  was  too  narrow 

(participants  pertained  in  their  great  majority  to  the  academic  community);  the  dissemination 

of results was often restricted with a general lack of specific actions devoted to communication 

of  outcomes;  the  response  of  policy-making  institutions  at  national  level  appears  to  be  rather 

disappointing. These three factors are a serious handicap, and efforts need to be undertaken to 

MTA_Report-1.indd   57

7

7/27/07   2:58:45 PM

remedy them in a new programme under FP7. Furthermore there did not exist any “feedback” 

mechanism  which  would  have  allowed  the  introduction  of  various  findings  and  innovative 

experiences in the policy-making mechanism both at European and national levels (a project on 

scientific expertise in fisheries management is probably a possible exception as is SINAPSE, an 

expert database which can evolve into a very useful tool). This might probably constitute another 

kind of obstacle to broadening the impact of the programme.

4.3 Lessons from the implementation of the Programme

There are a few specific lessons, which can be drawn from the strengths and weaknesses of the 

programme. 

The  programme  was  defined  as  the  EC’s  contribution  towards  implementing  the  Science  and 

Society Action  Plan  and  research  activities,  as  such,  were  not  a  priority  among  the  objectives 

of  the  programme,  although  research  issues  were  integrated  into  the  work  programme  in  its 

latest version. Meanwhile, it appeared to us that the knowledge base for the activities in some 

areas  was  probably  insufficient.  Research  activities  can  also  serve  to  provide  reflective  and 

monitoring mechanisms in all end-oriented actions and this was perhaps not appreciated as an 

important issue. For example, it is necessary to persist with the need to understand better how 

the assessment culture impacts on science teaching and learning, how various minority groups 

engage with science education, how new innovative tools can be used in science education and 

culture; it is also important to launch studies on institutions and their contribution to the Science 

and Society dialogue (political institutions, national research institutes and universities), on the 

role of new media (internet for example), and to undertake historical analyses on the impact of 

specific disciplines on scientific culture as well as philosophical studies on the interplay between 

science and cultural creativity. Broadening the scope of a future programme to research activities 

in order to include research, as well as foresight activities, will be both important and useful.   

A greater effort needs to be devoted to the improvement of the dissemination of the outcomes of the 

programme, including the results and findings of individual projects. There is room for improved 

support by the Commission Services in specifying more effective dissemination strategies. There 

is also a strong need for follow-up activities undertaken by the Commission, in cooperation with 

the partners, in order to organize targeted dissemination of the achievements of projects.

There is a strong need for coordination with national and localized activities in the various areas 

of the programme. In this perspective, the role of the CREST committee should be reappraised. 

Greater  effort  needs  to  be  devoted  in  engaging  national  funding  agencies  and  policy-making 

institutions in an effort to achieve planned complementarity and greater coherence. A renewed 

emphasis  on  developing  participative  methodologies  and  specific  indicators  would  also  be 

of  benefit  in  this  respect.  Our  panel  has  missed  specific  indicators  to  assess  the  results  of  the 

programme activities. This is also a serious handicap, which should be corrected in the future, 

although we are conscious that the production of well defined indicators is a difficult task.

8

MTA_Report-1.indd   58

7/27/07   2:58:45 PM

5. Recommendations

Taking into account our main conclusions concerning the overall achievements of the Science 

and Society activities performed during FP6, with their strengths and weaknesses, we would like 

to propose the following recommendations for a renewed “Science in Society” programme in the 

context of FP7:

The perspectives of the programme could benefit from being broadened in two ways. First, 

to correct for instances where the programme focused its objectives too narrowly (Science 

Communication  and  Scientific Advice  and  Governance,  respectively).  Second,  there  is  a 

need to include new topics, such as actions addressing “transversal” issues and to reinforce 

the contribution of research activities (particularly in the social sciences) to the programme 

in order to strengthen the knowledge base that is deemed necessary for the actions.

For example: (a) issues of ethics and gender could be usefully addressed in different thematic 

areas (governance being one of them, science education another one); (b) understanding how 

young people develop a participatory role in various kinds of media (such as the internet) is 

important for launching innovative actions in the domains of scientific culture and science 

education; (c) how broadly are scientific expertise and advice being defined? What is their 

role in the policy-making process? - What innovative methodologies can be used to integrate 

scientific  expertise,  social  priorities  and  public  thinking  in  science  and  technology  policy 

development? (d) Foresight activities could also be included in the programme in relation 

with the future of the European Research Area (for example studies about the impact of a new 

dialogue between the scientific community and the public on the future evolution of scientific 

institutions).

More intensive activity needs to be undertaken in the area of Scientific Culture in order to 

(a) develop a better understanding of the role which science should play as an important 

part of human culture; (b) envisage new channels for a better dialogue between scientists 

and the public, which should involve enhanced innovation in engaging a diversity of actors, 

including the public, in science-related debate; (c) promote innovative methods for the public 

accountability of science, including its ideas, its methods and the quality of its outcomes, and 

(d) demonstrate more effective approaches to better integrate Science into publicly visible 

Creative Culture.

There is probably a growing gap between science and other dimensions of culture (philosophy, 

arts,  literature,  etc.)  and  launching  activities  at  the  border  between  science  and  those 

dimensions  might  contribute  towards  better  understanding  and  perhaps  closing  this  gap. 

There is a clear need for more consistent examinations of scientific issues from philosophical 

and,  historical  perspectives  as  well  as  explorations  of  the  parallel  development  of  ideas 

MTA_Report-1.indd   59

9

7/27/07   2:58:46 PM

in the Arts and Sciences (through projects, forums, cultural events, etc.) in their European 

dimension.. In the same perspective, identifying and sharing experiences in the reappraisal of 

the role of science museums in Europe would be valuable. Exploring the possibility for joint 

projects with UNESCO and foundations would also provide useful platforms. The RDT Info 

magazine of the Commission could constitute one channel for disseminating information on 

scientific culture issues in their broad dimension. 

The  diversity  of  partners  involved  in  the  various  activities  should  be  broadened  so  as  to 

include  academics,  representatives  of  private  companies,  NGO’s  and,  whenever  possible, 

policy-makers in the public sphere (administrations, parliaments, etc.), as well as the private 

sector (industry, services and foundations) and the media. 

The impact of the programme will increase in so far as various partners at different levels of 

the policy-making process will be involved at least at some stage of the activities.

It is important to extend partnerships beyond academic circles in order to enhance the visibility 

and strengthen the impact of the programme. Incentives should be explored for extending the 

activities of the programme to industrial partners as several issues have a strong “industrial 

dimension” (in the areas of health and ethics, Women and Science and science education, for 

example).

A greater effort should be devoted to the improvement of the dissemination of the outcomes 

of the programme, including the results and findings of individual projects. There is room 

for improved support by the Commission Services in specifying more effective dissemination 

strategies. There is also a strong need for follow-up activities undertaken by the Commission, 

in  cooperation  with  the  partners,  in  order  to  organize  targeted  dissemination  of  the 

achievements of projects.

New initiatives in the various areas of the programme, renewed efforts at benchmarking of 

experiences  existing  at  national  levels,  innovations  in  science  communication,  education 

and culture, etc. should be more widely publicized. Cooperation with the media is probably 

important in this perspective; involvement of science museums and the award ceremonies for 

the Descartes prizes might constitute additional useful tools. In many cases, the programme 

could  benefit  from  follow-up  activities  to  many  of  the  projects  and  the  Commission  could 

usefully undertake initiative and also devote financial means to catalyse this process, at least 

in its first stage.

There is also room for improvement in the extent to which the Commission co-ordinates 

its relevant activities in different Directorates. The issues of Science Communication and 

Scientific Advice and Governance need to concern most Directorates within DG Research. 

There is also a clear need for creating a feedback mechanism that will use the outcomes of 

60

MTA_Report-1.indd   60

7/27/07   2:58:46 PM

the programme specifically to enrich the various advice and decision-making processes at 

different levels of the science policy development enterprise, including the various EU levels 

and the institutions involved at the level of Member States.

Many, if not all, thematic areas are of direct concern for a broad range of EC activities (in 

research, education, various public policies including norms, regulations and intellectual or 

industrial property rights). Channels should be found to introduce results from the programme 

into as many of these activities as possible. The “embedding” of several Science and Society 

issues, in other parts of the FP, should also be further promoted, whenever possible. 

There is a strong need for coordination with national and localized activities in the various 

areas  of  the  programme.  In  this  perspective,  the  role  of  the  CREST  committee  should 

be  reappraised  and  new  mechanisms  need  to  be  found  in  order  to  safeguard  increased 

commitment to relevant home policy development by the actors that are involved in the various 

co-ordination  activities.  Greater  effort  needs  to  be  devoted  in  engaging  national  funding 

agencies  and  policy-making  institutions  in  an  effort  to  achieve  planned  complementarity 

and greater coherence. A renewed emphasis on developing participative methodologies and 

specific indicators would also be of benefit in this respect.

All the issues of the programme are embedded in national activities (Science Education policy, 

access to scientific expertise for the government, ethics, etc.) and sharing experience in these 

domains as well as finding common ground for at least some reform will be important. 

For example, there is room for developing common understandings of the reasons behind the 

lack of attractiveness of scientific education in most Member States, as well as identifying 

new ethical issues. In this perspective the CREST could play a more proactive role.

The effort to link Science and Society activities with policy development through synergies 

at European and national level will need to overcome some barriers. The biggest of these 

is a general lack of EC activities as opportunities for valuable policy development in these 

areas. Where there are aspirations in the Science and Society programme to influence policy 

development, this needs to become more explicit and there is a need to link external funding 

to institutional commitment for policy development, not just activity implementation. There 

is an additional need to highlight examples of successful practice and/or fund benchmarking 

exercises on policy influences of EC activities. Lastly, there is a need to transfer expertise 

from EC to national institutions in participative policy-making procedures.

EC funded activities are perceived in many institutions as externally funded fringe projects 

with  no  commitment  for  linkage  to  internal  policy  development  activities,  which  would 

require much stronger, management-level, institutional commitment, in any case. There is not 

yet in Europe an efficient mechanism to identify and launch initiatives in multi level policy 

development, as is clearly needed in relationship with Science and Society. Broadening the 

MTA_Report-1.indd   61

61

7/27/07   2:58:46 PM

ERANET mechanism might possibly lead to an avenue for resolving this gap.

An  effort  should  be  undertaken  both  by  the  Commission  and  National  Contact  Points 

(particularly in the new Member States) in order to make the information on the objectives 

and  ongoing  activities  of  the  programme  more  widely  accessible  and  to  promote  the 

participation of a broader diversity of partners in the programme.

Dissemination of the information regarding the programme’s activities is probably insufficient 

in several new Member States; this is a handicap both for their involvement in Science and 

Society activities and for the integration of corresponding issues in their national research 

strategy. The Commission might also play a more proactive role in involving new participants 

who could bring broader and more diverse approaches to the activities. Many of the issues 

addressed by the programme have a broad international dimension beyond the EU. Efforts to 

co-ordinate more closely and to exchange expertise with corresponding activities in the US 

and Canada would add value to the programme. More broadly, the Commission should more 

actively encourage an internationalization of its Science and Society activities. On the one 

hand, on issues such as Science Education or Scientific Advice there is room for productive 

exchange of expertise and experiential insight with Canada and the US who share similar 

concerns and have parallel extensive ongoing activities. Even more importantly, Europe has 

international interests and a mission that can only be realized through building new capacities 

to work with developing countries in Africa and the Middle East. The exceptional projects 

that have tried activities in Science Ethics demonstrate the enormous potential to work with 

and  influence  local  structures  (under  admittedly  many  difficulties  and  severe  constraints) 

but  also  to  obtain  experience  with  innovative  applications  in  a  diversified  context  which 

then  provides  extremely  valuable  feedback  to  policy-making  with  respect  to,  for  instance, 

the medical professions, the pharmaceutical industry and the food sector. The Science and 

Society programme can take a pioneering role within the FP7 in developing this capacity to 

build a European competitive edge in developing countries while at the same time exploring 

new ethical and policy-related issues.

There is a need to re-examine the criteria that are applied for the evaluation of proposals. 

Criteria should include among others (quality being of course the primary one): (a) a detailed 

plan for dissemination of results and findings with a description of specific means; (b) the 

European added value of a project and its contribution to the emergence of a community 

dealing with specific Science and Society issues.

Evaluation should take into account the potential capacity of any project to have an impact 

on  practice  related  to  the  corresponding  Science  and  Society  issue.  The  mechanisms  for 

dissemination of the results are critical from this perspective. 

A specific action to produce a limited number of specific, substantial and robust indicators 

should be undertaken as they would be useful tools (among others) to assess the results of 

62

MTA_Report-1.indd   62

7/27/07   2:58:46 PM

the programme, as well as the sustainability and long-term impact of funded activities.

The lack of a sufficient range of valid indicators is probably a handicap in any effort to assess 

the  impact  of  many  of  the  activities  of  such  a  programme.  Such  efforts  should  be  defined 

in  cooperation  with  Eurostat  and  national  agencies  that  share  the  same  needs.  Gradual 

development  work  in  this  direction  will  make  future  assessments  more  informative 

but will also facilitate a feedback effect in raising awareness among policy makers of 

the importance of these activities as well as the somewhat problematic background 

in terms of attitudes and public accountability in the context of which the program is 

operating.

MTA_Report-1.indd   63

63

7/27/07   2:58:46 PM

6. Conclusions

The launching of a “Science and Society” programme was an important initiative undertaken by 

the Commission for implementing its Science and Society Action Plan during the FP6, and thus 

for addressing issues which are central to the new relationships between research activities and 

society. This programme, by its very existence, amounts to an innovation in so far as it has the 

main objective of engaging various communities in EU Member States in common activities in 

this area for the first time in a Framework Programme. The most important achievement of the 

programme was its capacity for giving a real European dimension to ongoing Science and Society 

activities in several countries but, also, for providing a new impetus under which to unify a range 

of emerging issues about the complex role of science in society, in several EU countries.

The relationships between Science and Society have continued to evolve since the EU Member 

States had decided, in the year 2000, to create a European Research Area as the main cornerstone 

of the Lisbon strategy. Scientific and technological developments in biology and medicine, with 

their potential impact on human health as well as the evolution of health systems in Europe in the 

face of an aging population, are bringing to the forefront new ethical questions; Climate change 

with its potential impact on living conditions and ecosystem dynamics on Earth is raising new 

questions for which scientific advice and expertise need to continue to play a critical role; The 

evolution of urban environments and the various issues related to employment are creating new 

challenges for science, and enhance the need to embed a more informative societal dimension 

and also strengthen the social science methodologies in the coming years. Furthermore, in the 

perspective  of  the  emergence  of  a  knowledge-based  economy,  the  future  of  Europe  depends, 

much more than in the past, on its capacity of mobilizing scientific talent and of encouraging a 

strong and intensive scientific culture. Recent reports on science education and scientific careers 

(such as the Gago report Europe needs more scientists, in 200, and the OECD report Evolving 

Student  Interest  in  Science  and  Technology  Studies  in  2006  18)  have  stressed  the  necessity  of 

understanding the reasons behind this phenomenon and finding new means for encouraging the 

young generation to engage more with scientific education and careers. In the absence of an active 

science  education  policy,  Europe  might  face  a  shortage  of  scientists  and  engineers  in  the  near 

future.

Strengthening the basis of a knowledge-based society in Europe requires creating new dynamics 

and a new relationship between science, research activities and society. Hence there is a need for a 

reappraisal of the institutional links between research and society in order to enlarge the dialogue 

between  the  scientific  communities,  representatives  of  society  and  more  largely  the  public,  to 

better integrate science into cultural creativity and to make science more visible as an integral 

activity of human culture, thereby facilitating a broadening of the constituency for science and 

technology.

18 OECD Policy Report, Evolving Student Interest in Science and Technology Studies, March 2006 (see 
at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/30/36645825.pdf )

6

MTA_Report-1.indd   64

7/27/07   2:58:46 PM

The  scope  of  Science  and  Society  issues  has  been  formulated  since  the  publication  of  the 

Commission’s Action Plan, which set up guidelines and objectives for a specific EU programme 

dedicated to these issues. The positive achievements of the first “Science and Society” programme 

clearly demonstrate that a renewed “Science in Society “ programme during FP 7 with a broader 

scope could and should contribute towards bringing a necessary European vision to the construction 

of  a  new  relationship  between  science  and  society  with  the  collaboration  of  partners  beyond 

European shores (19).

19 See also: EURAB Report, Science and Society: an Agenda for a responsive and responsible European 
Science in FP7, September 2005 (available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/eurab/index_en.html)

MTA_Report-1.indd   65

6

7/27/07   2:58:46 PM

66

MTA_Report-1.indd   66

7/27/07   2:58:46 PM

Annexes

Statistical information on Science and Society programme

MTA_Report-1.indd   67

67

7/27/07   2:58:46 PM

68

MTA_Report-1.indd   68

7/27/07   2:58:46 PM

Annex 1

Participation in the FP6 S&S programme by number of participants per country

Strategy and 
Policy,
Scientific
Culture

Science
Education

Governance
and Scientific 
Advice

Ethics

Women and 
Science

Science
Communication

Total

2
1
1

2

2
2

1

1

14
8
25
01
7
8
10
13
01

19
1
6
6
8

Member States
1
6
9
10
3

17
12
3
1
7

5

2

6
20
48
10
13
2
30
53
5
1
31

52
4
11

9
2
23
3
6
9
7
6
4

6

4

6

16
33
19
5
9
3
32
17
12
1
20
1
6
4
9

48
70
125
38
40
22
98
103
34
3
84
2
46
15
36

12
80,00%

145
72,50%

76
79,17%

259
74,00%

85
62,96%

187
75,10%

764
73,11%

2
4
8
4
1
1
2
7
3
3

3
1
1
1

New Member States
1
7
1
7
5
1
1
4
2
2

1

5
4
4
5
3

7
3
3

1
6
8
7
2
3
4
5
7
2

4
22
24
23
14
9
7
23
16
10

0,00%

53
17,50%

7
7,29%

31
8,86%

34
25,19%

45
18,07%

152
14,55%

Candidate countries

1

7
1

2

4
1

2

3

0,00%

9
4,50%

7
7,29%

5
1,43%

Associated Countries

4
4

1

3

1
1

01
2

6

1

3

4
1

8
5,93%

3

3
2
2
2

11
2
20
5

9
3,61%

38
3,64%

2
1

2

22
7
1
11

1
6,67%

9
4,50%

5
5,21%

18
5,14%

3
2,22%

5
2,01%

41
3,92%

Country name

Austria
Belgium
Germany
kramneD
Spain
dnalniF
France
United Kingdom
eceerG
dnalerI
Italy
gruobmexuL
sdnalrehteN
Portugal
nedewS

SUBTOTAL
(number of 
participants)
Percentage

surpyC
Czech Republic
ainotsE
Hungary
ainauhtiL
aivtaL
atlaM
dnaloP
ainevolS
cilbupeRkavolS

SUBTOTAL
(number of 
)stnapicitrap
Percentage

airagluB
Croatia
ainamoR
Turkey

SUBTOTAL
(number of 
)stnapicitrap
Percentage

dnalreztiwS
learsI
dnalecI
Norway

SUBTOTAL
(number of 
participants)
Percentage

MTA_Report-1.indd   69

69

7/27/07   2:58:47 PM

Strategy and 
Policy,
Scientific
Culture

Science
Education

Governance
and Scientific 
Advice

Country name

Ethics

Women and 
Science

Science
Communication

Third Countries

Albania
anitnegrA
Bosnia - 
anivogezreH
nineB
lizarB
adanaC
elihC
anihC
nobaG
aidnI
napaJ
nonabeL
Moldova
ilaM
ocixeM
senippilihP
natsikaP
aissuR
setatSdetinU
Uruguay
Yugoslavia
acirfAhtuoS

1

1

1

1
1

Percentage

2
13,33%

TOTAL (number
of participants)

15
-100%

2
1,00%

200
-100%

1
1,04%

96
-100%

2

1
1
4
1
8
2
1
2
1

1
2
3
1

4
1

1
1

1
1

1

1

1

1

2
37
10,57%

350
-100%

5
3,70%

135
-100%

3
1,20%

249
-100%

Total

1
2

1
1
1
5
2
9
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
6
1
2
2
50
4,78%

1045
-100%

Percentage
share per 
theme

1,44%

19,14%

9,19%

33,49%

12,92%

23,83%

100,00%

Summary table

Strategy and 
Policy,
Scientific
Culture

Science
Education

Governance
and Scientific 
Advice

Country type

Member States

12

145

76

Ethics

259

Women and 
Science

Science
Communication

85

187

Total

764

80,00%

72,50%

79,17%

74,00%

62,96%

75,10%

73,11%

35

7

0,00%

17,50%

7,29%

31

8,86%

34

45

152

25,19%

18,07%

14,55%

Percentage

New Member 
States

Percentage

Candidate
countries

Percentage

Associated
countries

Percentage

Third countries

9

7

5

8

0,00%

4,50%

7,29%

1,43%

5,93%

1

6,67%

2

9

5

4,50%

5,21%

2

1

18

5,14%

37

3

2,22%

5

9

3,61%

5

2,01%

3

1,20%

38

3,64%

41

3,92%

50

4,78%

Percentage

13,33%

1,00%

1,04%

10,57%

3,70%

Total number of 
participants

Total
percentage

70

MTA_Report-1.indd   70

15

200

96

350

135

249

1045

100,00%

100,00%

100,00%

100,00%

100,00%

100,00%

100,00%

7/27/07   2:58:47 PM

%
0
0
0
0
1

,

%
0
0
0
0
1

,

%
0
0
0
0
1

,

%
0
0
0
0
1

,

%
0
0
0
0
1

,

%
0
0
0
0
1

,

%
0
0
0
0
1

,

8
2

1
3
4

8
3
2

8
4
3

2
6

5
1

9
3

3
3
1

4
7

2

5
3

4
2

5
4
0
1

9
4
2

5
3
1

2

5
7
1

3
0
1

0
7

0
5
3

4
2

1

0
3

1
4

6
9

5
9

8

9
2

8
6

0
0
2

1

2

2
1

5
1

E
H

D
N

I

S
E
R

H
T
O

e
c
n
e
i
c
S

l

a
t
o
T

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
n
u
m
m
o
C

e
c
n
e
i
c
S
d
n
a
n
e
m
o
W

s
c
i
h
t
E

)
s
r
e
n
t
r
a
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n
(
n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n

i

f
o
e
p
y
t
y
t
i
v
i
t
c
a
e
h
t
y
b
e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p
S
&
S
6
P
F
e
h
t
n

i

n
o
i
t
a
p
i
c
i
t
r
a
P

d
n
a
e
c
n
a
n
r
e
v
o
G

e
c
i
v
d
A
c
fi
i
t
n
e
i
c
S

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E
e
c
n
e
i
c
S

,

y
g
e
t
a
r
t
S
d
n
a
y
c
i
l

o
P

e
r
u
t
l
u
C
c
fi
i
t
n
e
i
c
S

e
p
y
t
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

%
4
2

,

1
4

%
8
6

,

2

%
8
7

,

2
2

%
0
3

,

3
3

%
0
9

,

4
2

%
2
0

,

6

%
6
6

,

5
1

%
1
4

,

3
5

%
1
8

,

4
5

%
8
4

,

1

%
3
9

,

5
2

%
8
7

,

7
1

%
0
0

,

0
5

%
7
5

,

0

%
3
4

,

9
2

%
0
0

,

0
2

%
0
0

,

5
2

%
4
0

,

1

%
5
2

,

1
3

%
1
7

,

2
4

%
0
5

,

7
4

%
0
0

,

4

%
0
5

,

4
1

%
0
0

,

4
3

%
7
6

,

6

%
0
0

,

0

%
3
3

,

3
1

%
0
0

,

0
8

D
N

I

S
E
R

H
T
O

E
H

e
c
n
e
i
c
S

l

a
t
o
T

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
n
u
m
m
o
C

e
c
n
e
i
c
S
d
n
a
n
e
m
o
W

s
c
i
h
t
E

)
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
p

(
n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n

i

f
o
e
p
y
t
y
t
i
v
i
t
c
a
e
h
t
y
b
e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p
S
&
S
6
P
F
e
h
t
n

i

n
o
i
t
a
p
i
c
i
t
r
a
P

d
n
a
e
c
n
a
n
r
e
v
o
G

e
c
i
v
d
A
c
fi
i
t
n
e
i
c
S

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E
e
c
n
e
i
c
S

,

y
g
e
t
a
r
t
S
d
n
a
y
c
i
l

o
P

e
r
u
t
l
u
C
c
fi
i
t
n
e
i
c
S

e
p
y
t
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

2
x
e
n
n
A

MTA_Report-1.indd   71

,
r
i
a
p
e
r

,
l

o
r
t
n
o
c

,

n
g
i
s
e
d

,

e
r
a
w

t
f
o
s

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
d
n

i

s
a
h
c
u
s
–
s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
d
n

i

d
n
a
g
n
i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
m
h
t
o
b

,

c
i
l

b
u
p
d
n
a
e
t
a
v
i
r
p
s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
d
n

i

:
)
y
r
t
s
u
d
n
I
(

D
N
I
? 

s
e
i
t
i
v
i
t
c
a
h
c
r
a
e
s
e
r

i

t
u
o
g
n
y
r
r
a
c
r
o
f
d
e
h
s
i
l

b
a
t
s
e
y
l
n
a
m

i

r
o
y
l
n
o
s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o

:
)
h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R
(
S
E
R
?

s
e
i
r
o
g
e
t
a
c
e
v
o
b
a
e
h
t

f
o
e
n
o
n

i

g
n
i
t
t
fi
t
o
n
s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

:
)
r
e
h
t
O

(

H
T
O
?

e
c
n
a
n
e
t
n
a
m

i

71

7/27/07   2:58:47 PM

s
e
g
e

l
l

o
c

,
s
e
i
t
i
s
r
e
v
n
u

i

.

g

.

e

,

i

i

g
n
n
a
r
t
/
n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
e
r
e
h
g
h
r
o
f
d
e
h
s
i
l

i

b
a
t
s
e
y
l
n
a
m

i

r
o
y
l
n
o
s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o

:
)
n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E
r
e
h
g
H

i

(
E
H
? 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
l

a
t
o
T

i

n
o
i
t
a
c
n
u
m
m
o
C

e
c
n
e
c
S

i

e
c
n
e
c
S

i

d
n
a

n
e
m
o
W

i

s
c
h
t
E

d
n
a
e
c
n
a
n
r
e
v
o
G

i

e
c
v
d
A
c
i
f
i
t

i

n
e
c
S

e
c
n
e
c
S

i

n
o

i
t

a
c
u
d
E

e
z
i
r

P
s
e

t
r
a
c
s
e
D

e
r
u
t
l
u
C
c
i
f
i
t
n
e
c
S

i

,
y
c

i
l

o
P
d
n
a

y
g
e
t
a
r
t

S

e
m
e
h
t

i

r
e
p
g
n
d
n
u
F
y
t
e
i
c
o
S
d
n
a
e
c
n
e
i
c
S
6
P
F

3

x
e
n
n
A

7
4
4
.
8
2
5
.
1
7

€

5
0
2
.
5
2
3
.
5

€

1
5
6
.
5
3
1
.
2
1

€

9
0
6
.
6
7
9
.
4
2
€

.

2
8
2
6
1
7
4
€

.

.

1
0
7
2
8
0
8
1
€

.

.

0
0
0
0
0
1
6

.

%
0
0
1

%
4
.
7

%
7
1

%
9
.
4
3

%
6
6

.

%
3
5
2

.

%
5
8

.

€

0
0
0
.
2
9
1

€

%
3
.
0

e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

t
n
u
o
m
A

72

MTA_Report-1.indd   72

7/27/07   2:58:47 PM

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MTA_Report-1.indd   73

73

7/27/07   2:58:47 PM

MTA_Report-1.indd   74

7/27/07   2:58:48 PM

SALES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS

Publications for sale produced by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities are available from our sales 
agents throughout the world.

How do I set about obtaining a publication?

Once you have obtained the list of sales agents, contact the sales agent of your choice and place your order. 

How do I obtain the list of sales agents?

•  Go to the Publications Office website http://publications.europa.eu/
•  Or apply for a paper copy by fax (352) 2929 42758

MTA_Report-1.indd   75

7/27/07   2:58:48 PM

K
I
-
N
A
-
2
2
9
5
4
-
E
N
-
C

At the crossroad where FP6 was about to reach its end of term and the preparations for FP7 were under way, 
the services of the DG RTD launched a mid-term evaluation to assess whether the activities implemented 
under the “Science and Society” part in FP6 met their objectives and to develop recommendations for FP7. 
The report was built on the review of selected S&S activities for the five thematic areas of the programme 
(science education, scientific advice and governance, ethics, women and science, science communication) 
and their integration with findings of other evaluations and a number of major conferences and forums. All 
the funded activities were found to be in line with the objectives of the Commission’s Science and Society 
Action Plan as defined in 2001. In particular, the report acknowledges that the programme established a very 
visible  European  dimension  for  S&S  themes  by  supporting  and  catalysing  cooperation  in  Europe  through 
activities on important issues of crucial value to the Lisbon agenda. It also highlights a significant unrealised 
potential to influence policy development and puts forward a set of recommendations to the Commission 
and the national authorities of the Member States.

MTA_Report-1.indd   76

7/27/07   2:58:48 PM