Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Green Paper on the European Research Area — New Perspectives COM(2007) 161 final
Date: 2007-10-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU research policy, cooperation policy, investment, research and development, research staff, scientific exchange

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/1

III

(Preparatory Acts)

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

439th PLENARY SESSION HELD ON 24 AND 25 OCTOBER 2007

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Green Paper on the European
Research Area — New Perspectives’

COM(2007) 161 final

(2008/C 44/01)

On 4 April 2007 the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the Green Paper on the
European Research Area — New Perspectives.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 October 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Wolf.

At its 439th plenary session, held on 24 and 25 October 2007 (meeting of 24 October), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 107 votes, with 2 abstentions.

1. Summary and recommendations

1.1
The Committee sees an urgent need to substantially step
up current measures to promote research and development
(R&D) in Europe, to improve the framework for R&D and to
ensure adequate funding.

As well as effective Community, national and business-backed
R&D programmes, we need a European internal market for
research and development in order to better harness and release
the potential — either available now or still to be cultivated —
within the European Union. This is what
is meant by the
European Research Area.

1.2
The Committee therefore welcomes the Commission's
intention to strengthen and expand the European Research
Area. The objectives defined and proposals made are broadly
correct and worthy of support, but they need to be supple-
mented and in some cases clarified or corrected.

The Committee endorses the objective of creating an
1.3
attractive European labour market for researchers which also
provides for and rewards mobility. The most important issues
here are contract conditions, attractive salaries, social security
cover that is portable across Europe, and family integrity. The
Member States in particular are very deficient in this respect.
The Committee therefore calls on them above all and on the
relevant social partners to correct these deficiencies and espe-
cially to also offer young researchers attractive career prospects

that can compete with alternative career opportunities for top-
flight academics. This will ensure that more young people will
again be prepared to invest energy and time in a very difficult,
demanding and selective course of study and thus help to avert
the looming shortage of qualified science and technology
experts in Europe.

the

The Committee

1.4
European Council's
supports
Barcelona objective. However, it has now been decided that the
Community will contribute only around 2 % (i.e.
just one
investment in research and development
fiftieth) of the total
aimed for under
the Barcelona objective. This means that
Member States carry by far the biggest political responsibility
for achieving the Barcelona objective, and industry by far the
biggest economic responsibility. The Committee's recommenda-
tions are therefore addressed in particular to the Council, the
Parliament and the Member States, urging them to take all the
leader in
necessary steps to again make Europe the global
research and development and to put in place the requisite
measures needed to achieve this goal.

1.5
The Committee reiterates its recommendation that the
European Community should raise its contribution to the total
in order to boost the
target R&D spending to at least 3 %,
multiplier effect of Community research funding on required
research investment by the Member States and industry. In addi-
tion, moneys from the Structural Funds are to be used for R&D

C 44/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.2.2008

infrastructure measures, and funding measures through the EIB
stepped up. This recommendation has become even more
compelling in view of the very serious and long-underrated
energy and climate issues to be faced.

supports

The Committee

the objective of

creating
1.6
world-class science and technology infrastructure, but this must
be backed up by long-term, reliable funding. The success and
purpose of this investment is contingent on the involvement of
the relevant institutes and university groups in the Member
States being involved, and on committed participation of
industry in technology projects. Such networking is the only
way to create a complete system and produce value added for
Europe.

1.7
The Committee supports the objective of strengthening
research institutions — and their umbrella organisations — as
the main initiators and backers of research and development.
These institutions must be able to plan for the longer term, and
have adequate facilities and decision-making powers. This
requires greater autonomy in the use of financial resources, a
sufficiently large share of basic funding, whole-project funding,
the possibility of carrying resources over to the following year,
the reduction of progress-hampering red tape for scientists
involved in research and teaching, incentives and the promotion
of high-quality work through extra research funding based on
competitive tendering.

innovation in strategically important

The Committee sees Joint Technology Initiatives and
1.8
instruments for creating
technology platforms as important
technological
research
areas. These require public-private sector partnerships and joint
research programmes, and small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) should also be involved as appropriate. The Knowledge
and Innovation Communities (KICs) of
the European Tech-
nology Institute (ETI) that are to be set up should draw on
experience gained with these. Experience with ERA-Net and
CORNET, as well as the EUREKA clusters, could also be valuable
here.

The Committee endorses

the goal of opening the
1.9
European Research Area to the world. But the crucial criterion
here is its attractiveness: this task can only be considered to
have been accomplished when the current lamentable ‘brain
drain’ has been halted, not just in quantitative but also in quali-
tative terms,
in respect of the world's highest performing
and most successful researchers. But in order to achieve this, all
the key factors must be right:
job position, facilities, working
conditions, political situation, career development prospects and
autonomy, personal income and social recognition.

i.e.

The Committee favours the open coordination method,
1.10
whereby Member States' strategic goals and policies are evalu-
ated and their experience compared in order to ensure coher-
ence and optimise European research policy. In contrast, any

detailed top-down coordination of European research in a bid to
secure general standardisation and penetrating research organisa-
tions and companies must be rejected. The Commission should
its aim is to introduce
therefore avoid the impression that
central management of European research. It is a question of
achieving a proper balance between the Community framework,
Member State autonomy, and institutional and individual initia-
tives and planning ability. Only a plurality of methods,
approaches and choice of issues can in each case ensure the best
outcomes, procedures and innovations.

1.11
The Committee repeats its admonitions to cut red tape.
The Committee therefore recommends that Reducing red tape be
included as a further major policy aim in the Commission's
future agenda. This means developing ways,
in collaboration
with the Member States and research bodies, to simplify overre-
gulation and the deluge of European, national, regional and
reporting requirements, application procedures,
institutional
and
authorisation arrangements,
reviews,
reduce them to what
is strictly necessary. The competitive
promotion of excellence will initially increase the amount of red
tape that will be required of researchers. This makes it all the
more important to find an acceptable solution through reduc-
individuals making
tion and simplification overall. Fear of
mistakes should not lead to overregulation and obstructions for
everyone.

evaluations,

etc.

is essential
funding
1.12
The Committee believes it
bodies, especially the Commission,
involve staff with proven
scientific expertise, who are familiar with the particular features
and ‘community’ of the scientific area in question — and main-
tain their knowledge over the long term (making regular job
rotation counterproductive).

that

the

that

recommends

The Committee

1.13
European
Research Area should be complemented by a European Knowledge
Area designed to create a European knowledge-based society.
This will require a solid and broad education for all citizens, and
additional high-level specialised training for scientists and engi-
neers. Hence there is also the reference to appropriate ‘knowl-
edge management’. Research and development build on existing
knowledge to create new knowledge.

1.14
The Committee recommends that clear and comprehen-
sible rules be developed to manage the wide range of Com-
munity instruments for promoting and coordinating R&D. This
includes a summary list (and instructions for use) of all instru-
ments and measures available to the Commission for promoting
should also show
and coordinating R&D objectives. This
whether, among the growing plethora of
the
instruments,
purpose of each is adequately defined and the instruments prop-
erly separated, and whether they can be easily understood and
applied both by potential users and by Commission staff or
whether they need to be reorganised.

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/3

1.15 Many of the issues addressed in the Green Paper must
be considered individually. For these and other relevant aspects,
the reader is referred to the full text of this opinion.

2. Commission communication

The background to this Commission communication is
2.1
the earlier debate about and adoption of the Seventh Framework
Programme for Research and Technological Development —
which has now come into effect — the research areas selected
for it (so-called specific programmes), the instruments available
and the participation rules. In its communication, the Commis-
sion is therefore no longer concerned with the content of
research, but solely with the strategic objectives of the European
Research Area.

Following a brief account of

2.2
the background to the
Green Paper, the Commission summarises the tasks and objec-
tives of the European Research Area, which are discussed, exam-
ined and adjusted to take account of new developments in the
light of the current situation. The communication takes as its
premise the importance of European research and development
for the Lisbon strategy, as well as the question of R&D competi-
tiveness at a global level.

2.3

The following specific tasks and objectives are identified:

— an adequate flow of competent researchers with high
levels of mobility between institutions, disciplines, sectors
and countries;

— world-class

research

integrated,
networked and accessible to research teams from across
Europe and the world, notably thanks to new generations of
electronic communication infrastructures;

infrastructures,

and further expand the ERA. The current EU Research Frame-
work Programme was explicitly designed by the Commission to
support such measures.
Its funding has been substantially
increased, although by less than the European Commission had
proposed (and indeed less than the Committee had recom-
mended). New initiatives launched in connection with the
7th Framework Programme (2007-2013), such as the European
Research Council, will have an important
impact on the
European research landscape. The future European Institute of
Technology could also help to create world-class knowledge and
innovation communities.

At the same time the Commission has pointed to short-

2.5
comings that should be overcome, for example (in brief):

— Career opportunities for researchers are still limited.

— Businesses often find it difficult to work with research insti-

tutions.

— National and regional research funding is still largely unco-

ordinated.

— Reforms undertaken at national level often lack a European

perspective and coherence.

Other aspects of the Green Paper are addressed in the

2.6
Committee's comments below.

2.7
In order to stimulate a wide debate on the Green Paper,
the Commission has included 35 specific questions in the text.
The answers expected from Parliament, the Council, the EESC,
the Committee of the Regions and the Member States, as well as
researchers and research institutes, are to be incorporated into
proposals for measures during 2008. Answers to many of these
questions are implicitly provided in point 3 below, while some
specific issues are addressed in point 4.

— excellent research institutions engaged in effective public-
private cooperation and partnerships, forming the core of
research and innovation ‘clusters’ including ‘virtual research
communities’, mostly specialised in interdisciplinary areas
and attracting a critical mass of human and financial
resources;

— effective knowledge-sharing, notably between public
research and industry, as well as with the public at large;

— well-coordinated research programmes and priorities

(national, regional and European);

— a wide opening of

the European Research Area to the

world.

3. General Committee comments

Importance of scientific excellence. As the Committee
3.1
has observed on several occasions (1)
top performance in
science and technology, and their conversion into a competitive
economic force, are essential preconditions so as not to jeopar-
dise our future global position and the European social model.

There is therefore an urgent need to substantially step up
measures in favour of research and development in Europe, to
set the political priorities required for this, and to improve the
necessary framework and establish the financial prerequisites. It
is important to apply the principle of competition based on
criteria of excellence. The Committee has on a number of occa-
sions given its views on the rules for the requisite state aid (2).

2.4
The paper gives a résumé of what has been achieved so
far and, on this basis, proposes future measures to consolidate

(1) OJ C 256, 27.10.2007.

OJ C 325, 30.12.2006, p. 16.
(2) OJ C 325, 30.12.2006, p. 16.

C 44/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.2.2008

European internal market for research and develop-
3.2
ment.
In addition to effective Community, national and
industry-based research and development programmes, we need
in
a European internal market for research and development,
order to better harness and release the potential — either avail-
able now or still to be cultivated — within the European Union.
This is what is meant by the European Research Area.

first R&D Framework Programme in 1986, the foundation was
laid for a broad Community research policy with more far-
reaching objectives than Euratom. With the decision taken in
to establish a
2000, when drawing up the Lisbon strategy,
European Research Area, Europe's policymakers affirmed their
intention to create a formal framework for European research.
The European Research Area was to become an emblematic
project whose rationale and objectives were geared towards the
Lisbon strategy.

endorsement.

The Committee

3.3 Overall
therefore
welcomes the Commission's stated intention to consolidate,
strengthen and further expand the European Research Area (and
thus press ahead with what has been a broadly favourable devel-
opment). It also notes that important aspects of its previous
recommendations are reflected in the text (3). The objectives
defined by the Commission are the right ones, and its proposals
are generally considered to be suitable and worthy of support,
but they need to be supplemented and in some cases clarified or
corrected.

3.4.3
Barcelona objective. The Committee has repeatedly
said that it supports the Barcelona objective formulated five
years ago by the European Council as a follow-on from the
Lisbon strategy. This requires that the Union's total R&D expen-
diture should be increased so as to reach almost 3 % of GDP by
2010. Two-thirds of the required investment was to come from
the private sector. However, it has now been decided that the
Community will contribute only around 2 % (i.e.
just one
investment in research and development
fiftieth) of the total
aimed for under the Barcelona objective.

3.4 Current situation

3.4.1
The scientific community. The European Organisa-
tion for Nuclear Research (CERN) (4) was set up over 50 years
ago. This independent effort of the international scientific com-
munity — i.e. a project mounted by leading international scien-
tists (5) — received the support it needed from key policymakers
in Europe. Thus a first-class European laboratory was set up,
something that individual countries would have been unable or
unwilling to finance and use on their own. For similar reasons,
other transnational European organisations were later set up,
such as the ECMWF, EMBO, ESRF, ESO, ESA and ILL (6).

3.5
Political commitment of the Member States. This
means that Member States carry by far the biggest political
responsibility for achieving the Barcelona objective, and industry
and the private sector by far the biggest economic responsibility.
The recommendations and calls of the Committee are therefore
addressed in particular to the Council, the Parliament and the
Member States, urging them to take all the urgently necessary
steps and to support the targets set out in the Green Paper, in
order to make Europe the global leader in research and develop-
ment again, first by realising the Barcelona objective, and by
also taking all other measures needed to achieve this goal.

3.4.2
European Community. The Treaty setting up the
European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), which was
signed on 25 March 1957, is one of the three treaties estab-
lishing the European Communities. This was the starting-point
for the European Community's involvement in the sphere of
research and development (7). With the entry into force of the

(3) OJ C 110, 30.4.2004, p. 3.

OJ C 110, 30.4.2004, p. 98.
OJ C 157, 28.6.2005.
OJ C 65, 17.3.2006.
OJ C 185, 8.8.2006.
OJ C 309, 16.12.2006.
OJ C 325, 30.12.2006.

(4) Since this title is misleading (CERN's activities extend beyond nuclear
research), it is nowadays often known as the European Laboratory for
Particle Physics, which gives a better description of its current work.
(5) The terms ‘scientist’ and ‘engineer’ as used by the Committee are
gender-neutral. The Committee wishes here to reiterate its often-stated
commitment to full gender equality in research and development
(cf. point 3.16.2).

(6) ILL:

Institut Laue-Langevin

ECMWF: European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
ESRF:
European Synchroton Radiation Facility
ESO:
European Southern Observatory
EMBO:
European Molecular Biology Organisation
European Space Agency
ESA:
See also http://www.eiroforum.org.

(7) For a more detailed account, see CORDIS Focus Newsletter No 279 of

June 2007.

3.6
Better use of the multiplier effect of Community
support for research. Community funding for research is also
very important, however, because it not only acts as an inte-
grating and coordinating factor but above all also has a multi-
plier effect on the research investment provided by the Member
States and industry. The strength of this multiplier effect should
therefore be substantially enhanced, so that the Member States
is
and industry can finally make the full contribution that
required to achieve the as yet unmet Barcelona objective. Europe
must become aware that
it was once the leading area for
research and innovation and aim to revive that tradition.

Increasing

3.6.1
the Community contribution. The
Committee has in the past noted (8)
the current R&D
that
budget is not sufficient to use this multiplier effect. It therefore
repeats its urgent recommendation that the Community contri-
bution to total target R&D spending in the European Research
Area, which is currently well under 2 %, be increased to at least
It also
3 % at

the impending budget

revision in 2008.

(8) OJ C 325, 30.12.2006.

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/5

Structural

recommends allocating a substantial amount of resources from
the
infrastructure
measures (9) (10), as well as radically increasing support from the
EIB.

R&D-related

Funds

to

Urgent need for a policy decision. A statistical
3.6.2
bulletin just published by the Commission (11) on the current
state of European research and its funding compared with that
of international competitors confirms the extreme urgency of
translating the Committee's above-mentioned recommendation
into a policy decision. The matter is further complicated by the
very serious and long-underrated energy and climate issues to
be faced.

3.7
Critical mass, pooling of resources and expertise,
European value added. The Community should address and
for
fund primarily those research tasks and projects critical
science and technology progress that individual Member States
are not prepared or economically able to support, or whose
impact is substantially increased through a Community process
and a networked Europe-wide approach. This will result
in
significant added value compared with the efforts of individual
Member States.

(at

3.8
Infrastructure and excellent research institutions. In
many particularly relevant areas of research, costly infrastructure
and large apparatus are essential to securing fundamentally new
findings and technological progress, and they provide technolo-
the pre-competitive stage) with novel
gical development
options for
improvements and innovation. The Committee
therefore considers the objective cited in the Green Paper of
Developing world-class
to be extremely
important. Such infrastructures are the basis and catalyst for
top-level research. They are a major factor in attracting the best
scientists and engineers, and are thus a prime means of
achieving another important objective that should be endorsed,
namely the creation of excellent research institutions which draw
attention to the emblems European research and European Research
Area.

research infrastructures

Commission, since the political will
to achieve exceptional
pioneering work in science and technology is especially visible
in this area. The Committee therefore emphatically endorses the
consistent pursuit of the ‘road map’ and substantial financial
involvement of the Community in building and maintaining
these facilities over the long term. It draws attention to the
importance of proper contract arrangements to make facilities
accessible and attractive to partners or users from the whole of
the European Research Area, and also supports the efforts of
partnerships or participation from outside Europe (14).

It

Steady funding.

is particularly important

that
3.8.2
long-term
funding — especially for projects conceived as
ventures because of the high levels of investment involved —
should be steady and reliable until the objectives have been
achieved, provided they meet the criterion of scientific excel-
lence. In this area in particular, substantial fluctuations, uncer-
tainties or even interruptions in financing not only waste costly
financial
investment and science and technology development
work but also break down networks that have been developed,
and destroy both international cooperation and trust in future
commitments. This is also detrimental to the European labour
market for scientists and engineers.

the relevant university groups,

3.8.3
Involvement of universities and institutes. For this
substantial investment in infrastructure projects to be effective,
and for high-level research to expand as necessary, it is essential
that
institutes and research
bodies based in the Member States be involved in a responsible
capacity in developing and using the test facilities concerned:
such networking is the only way to create a single system and
is also necessary to
secure European value added. Thus it
provide adequate funding for such networking and to ensure
that the cooperation and ideas elements of the programmes are
given sufficient resources,
in particular for travel and onsite
visits and for communication systems and equipment. The
Committee would also stress the key importance of promoting
mobility.

ESFRI (12) list. The Committee therefore welcomes the
3.8.1
ESFRI list, which was drawn up by the Member States and the
Commission, and has been commended and endorsed by the
Council (13). The Committee also notes that the primary involve-
ment of the Member States here will have to be complemented
by a stepped-up, reliable and sustained effort on the part of the

(9) The Committee also welcomes the similar recommendation of the

European Research Advisory Board, EURAB:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/eurab/index_en.html.

(10) Here, too, the Committee calls in particular on the Member States to

take the necessary policy decisions.

(11) European Commission: Key Figures 2007 on Science, Technology and
Innovation — Towards a European knowledge area. Monday 11 June
2007.

(12) ESFRI: European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures.

http://cordis.europa.eu/esfri/.

(13) Competition Council
21 and 22 May 2007.

(Internal Market, Industry and Research) of

3.8.4
Unhindered mobility. The Committee endorses the
aim of ensuring unhindered mobility within the European
Research Area between Member States, organisations and the
private and public sectors. Mobility not only fosters career devel-
opment, the pooling of knowledge and technical experience, but
also generally broadens horizons, enhances good judgment and
encourages cultural understanding. This is why shortcomings
and unsound measures that are still obstacles to unhindered
mobility must be rectified or eliminated. These include problems
between Member States,
insufficient recognition/portability of
acquired social entitlements, as well as tax disadvantages or the
strain involved in families having to relocate.

(14) For instance, the ITER project.

C 44/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.2.2008

3.8.5
Situation in the new Member States. However, care
must be taken and incentives worked out to ensure that the
desirable mobility within Europe for researchers from the new
Member States does not lead to a long-term intra-European
‘brain drain’. The Committee has already pointed out in an
earlier opinion that the creation of attractive research institutes
in the new Member States is particularly important for this very
reason.

and people programmes and related funding. Adequate imple-
mentation of these programmes is thus a substantial element in
creating a cross-border, synergistic identity for the European
research and the European Research Area.

Appreciation of the European Research Area. Effi-
3.9
cient and successful
international cooperation, especially on
large-scale European Community projects, creates a feeling of
team spirit between those involved, which enhances apprecia-
tion of the European Research Area and Europe's image.

3.11.1
Basic research and applications. It is significant that
basic research has been explicitly included and its crucial impor-
tance in progress and innovation recognised. This creates the
need for a balance between the objectives of promoting basic
research on the one hand, and applied and product- and
process-oriented research on the other. As the Committee has
often noted (16), there are no sharp dividing lines between these
areas, but rather many interactions: they influence each other.

3.10 Own initiatives and scientific conferences. CERN
and the development of the European fusion research institutes
are examples of both the will and ability of the scientific com-
munity to seek and find international partners on their own
initiative, and to obtain international funding from governments
of third countries. This is also predicated on the provision of
funding for especially relevant science and technology confer-
ences in Europe, and grants for younger European scientists in
particular to take part in international conferences.

3.10.1
Science and technology associations — civil
society organisations. Specialist conferences are the main
forum for publicising and evaluating findings, pooling knowl-
edge and ideas, launching cooperation initiatives and developing
new or improved concepts. Such conferences are generally orga-
nised by science and technology associations (15), which are
typical civil society organisations. The Committee therefore
recommends that there should be greater awareness and recog-
nition of their value and that their efforts to disseminate knowl-
edge, evaluate findings and coordinate research should be drawn
on more often and encouraged.

3.11.2
Joint Technology Initiatives, technology platforms
and the ETI. The Committee draws attention to the special role
played by Joint Technology Initiatives and technology platforms,
which serve to create partnerships in strategic research areas
between the public and private sectors and enable joint research
programmes to be conducted. The Committee recommends that
experience gained with these be drawn on when setting up the
new Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) of the
European Technology Institute (ETI). Experience with ERA-Net
projects and EUREKA clusters could also be valuable.

is particularly important

SMEs. Adequate involvement of small and medium-
3.11.3
sized enterprises (SMEs)
in public-
private partnerships, and in business partnerships too. The
Committee welcomes the Commission's considerable efforts in
this area to date and its desire to continue these in the future.
The CORNET (Collective Research Networking) project (17),
launched through ERA-Net, can also be helpful here.

Framework programmes. The Committee considers
3.11
the Community R&D Framework Programme and the frame-
work programme of the European Atomic Energy Community
to be the main Community instruments for
realising the
European Research Area.

As an adjunct to the specific programmes relating to infrastruc-
ture and ideas, key incentives for coordinated cooperation (see
point 3.13) are also generated in particular by the cooperation

3.11.4 Withholding of data. Free dissemination of data on
new findings was and still is one of the keys to the success of
modern science (cf. point 4.4.2, Open Access). Withholding of
data raises problems, not only in relation to intellectual property
issues but above all regarding the stage of development of
novel/innovative technologies at which withholding data,
for
reasons of free-market competition (18), hinders the necessary
exchange of knowledge and further cooperation with and
between business partners. The Committee recommends that
the Commission should examine this important question in
detail, because it determines the success of cooperation, espe-
cially cooperation between the public and private sectors.

(15) For example the European Physical Society, the European Federation of
the European Federation of
National Engineering Associations,
Chemical Engineering, the European Academies (EASAC, ALEA, IAP),
etc. Many of these also belong to umbrella organisations, such as the
Initiative for Science in Europe (ISE).

(16) OJ C 325, 30.12.2006 (point 4.6 of the EESC opinion).
(17) See http://www.cornet-era.net, as well as CORDIS focus, Supplement

No 24 June 2007.

(18) And, if no patent grace period has been granted, so as not to forfeit the

possibility of later applying for a patent.

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/7

3.12
Strengthening research institutions. The Committee
supports the very important goal of strengthening research
institutions — and their umbrella organisations — as the main
initiators and backers of research and development. These insti-
tutions coordinate, plan and conduct research, and the working
environment, latitude of action, and research style that develop
there determine the reputation and success of each body. These
organisations must therefore be able to plan for the longer
term, and have adequate facilities and decision-making powers.
This requires greater autonomy in the use of financial resources,
a sufficiently high share of basic public funding (typically at
least 75-80 %), whole-project funding, the possibility of carrying
resources over to the following year, reduction of red tape for
scientists,
incentives and promotion of high-quality work
through adequate long-term extra funding based on competitive
tendering and performance.

3.13 Open coordination. Key factors in encouraging bilat-
eral open coordination and evaluation of research policies and
strategic goals between the Member States are the tried-and-
tested European-level decision-making processes
relating to
Commission research policy initiatives and the consultative
involved in preparing them. The Committee also
phases
considers complementary coordinating measures with and
between the Member States and the regions on specific priorities
or infrastructure projects to be important and sensible in order
to improve coherence and optimise European research policy.
therefore also desirable when setting up
Coordination is
European Intergovernmental Research Organisations for large
projects and infrastructure (see point 3.8). The Commission also
exercises a coordinating role through the support measures
under the Seventh Framework Programme (see point 3.11).

The Commission should certainly avoid the impression that its
aim is to introduce central management of European research;
this would further fuel
the general
public (20) in the Member States about excessive centralisation in
Brussels.
It is much more a question of achieving a proper
balance between the Community framework, autonomous deci-
sion-making by the Member States, and institutional and indivi-
dual initiatives and planning ability.

the existing concern of

3.14.1
Plurality of methods, approaches and choice of
issues. Only a plurality of methods, approaches and choice of
issues can ensure the best outcomes, procedures and innova-
tions in each case. Plurality is not wasteful, but is a necessary
means of optimising and making progress in the search for new
knowledge and techniques. The Committee recommends that
the European Research Council in particular be consulted about
this important issue of remits.

Another objective: cutting red tape. The Committee
3.15
nevertheless repeats its previous pleas that
the Commission
should include reducing red tape as another major objective in the
future political agenda of the European Research Area. Ways
must be developed with the Member States and research bodies
to simplify overregulation and the deluge of European and
national institutional reporting requirements, application proce-
dures, reviews, evaluations, authorisation arrangements, etc. and
if necessary condense and reduce them to what is strictly neces-
sary. Competition to promote excellence, secure funding etc. —
which is supported by the Committee — will initially increase
the amount of red tape that will be required of researchers
because of administrative and approval procedures. This makes
it all the more important to find an acceptable solution through
a reduction and simplification of all
these processes. The
Committee has already (21) commented that fear of individuals
making mistakes or behaving wrongly should not lead to over-
regulation and obstructions for everyone. The same principle
should apply to the modus operandi of funding bodies and
researchers.

3.14
Avoiding excessive coordination. On the other hand,
any top-down detailed coordination of European research as an
end in itself, or with the objective of a general standardisation
affecting individual projects and penetrating research organisa-
tions or companies, cannot be accepted. This might be based on
the explicit intention of avoiding duplication (19) and fragmenta-
tion, for instance, but it would reduce the required diversity of
research approaches and methods (see in particular point 4.7.1)
and generate a negative attitude among the researchers, institu-
tions and businesses involved.

(19) In its opinion on Science, society and the citizen in Europe (CES
724/2001), the Committee noted (point 4.7.5): ‘Because of the need
for proof of reproducibility, parallel or repeated experiments by other
research groups, generally using modified techniques or procedures,
are often categorised as duplication of research. This is in fact an essen-
tial element of scientific method and progress. It is a guarantee against
errors or even falsification.’

3.16
Attractive employment and better career opportu-
nities. The Committee endorses the important goal of creating
an attractive labour market for researchers. This means ensuring
that contracts, social security arrangements and family integrity
are arranged and improved in such a way that researchers do
not
their idealism, e.
feel
low pay, protracted contract negotiations and
g. because of
excessive uncertainty about
their future career development.
They might then come to the conclusion that their investment
in very demanding, specialised training would not be rewarded
by a successful career in Europe.

that advantage is being taken of

(20) Cf. Lüder Gerken and Roman Herzog, ‘Europe's World’, summer 2007

issue.

(21) OJ C 256, 27.10.2007.

C 44/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.2.2008

3.16.1
Deficiencies in the Member States. Deficiencies in
the Member States are a particular problem, and mistakes can
still be seen (22). The Committee therefore urges in particular the
Member States and the social partners in each country to rectify
these deficiencies and especially to also offer young scientists
attractive career opportunities with prospects for advancement,
opportunities that can compete with those of alternative career
paths for top-flight academics. This is the only way to ensure
that more young people with the right talents are prepared to
invest energy and time in a demanding and selective course of
study and thus help to avert the looming shortage of science
and technology experts — and graduates with the right qualifi-
cations — in Europe.

Gender equality. The Committee

3.16.2
its
commitment to equal opportunities and equal treatment of men
and women. We need the best talents of both — what counts is
ability and performance. (The terms ‘scientist’,
‘researcher’ and
‘engineer’ are gender-neutral.)

reiterates

3.16.3 Mobility between institutions, disciplines, sectors
and countries. The Committee also endorses the objective set
out in the Green Paper of improving mobility between institu-
tions, disciplines, sectors and countries. It points to its above
recommendations in this regard, and also to its earlier recom-
mendation to create an attractive grant (sabbatical) system for
personnel exchanges between academia and industry.

3.16.4
Family integrity. The Committee has many times
mentioned a particularly important aspect of promoting mobi-
lity, namely facilitating and promoting family integrity. Impor-
tant concerns here are the career of the spouse (e.g. in the case
of dual-career couples), suitable schools for children and help
with moving house (reimbursement of costs, taxes).

3.17
A wide opening of the European Research Area to
the world. The Green Paper mentions opening the European
Research Area to the world as a very important objective. The
Committee fully supports this objective. Achieving this goal will
be a crucial test of the Lisbon strategy's success.

Attractiveness is the key. However, the key factor
3.17.1
here — signifying more than a formal opening in principle,
which has already been achieved in many respects — is the
attractiveness of
invitations to
leading international researchers are the first step required; the
challenge then is to actually get them to come and, in the case

the European Research Area:

of European scientists working outside Europe, to ensure their
eventual return.

3.17.2 Overcoming the ‘brain drain’ problem. This task
will not have been achieved until the current lamentable ‘brain
drain’ has been halted, not just in quantitative but also in quali-
tative terms, i.e. in respect of the highest performing and most
successful scientists and engineers. But in order to achieve this
all the key factors must be right: job position, facilities, working
conditions, a stable situation, career development possibilities
and autonomy, personal income (including social benefits) and
social recognition.

Building on achievements. Despite the persistent
3.18
lacunae and the work that is still to be done, the Committee is
pleased to see that efforts so far in European research and the
European Research Area are showing initial signs of success and
generally point in the right direction. It is therefore important
to continue that progress through ongoing and rapid growth in
Europe's R&D capacity, underpinned by competition-based
funding policy, networking and the impact thereof on integra-
tion and, in particular, through the creation of an attractive and
stable
career opportunities
and appropriate
without overregulation and centralisation. The European
Research Area must be a concept with worldwide reach.

environment

3.19
European Knowledge Area. The Committee has noted
on a number of previous occasions that the European Research
Area should be complemented by a ‘European Knowledge
Area’ (23). A key reason is the goal of creating a European
knowledge-based society, which presupposes a solid education
for all citizens and the high-level specialised training also
required for scientists and engineers. Lifelong and independent
learning are also very important. Since this opinion concerns
the European Research Area, the Committee would also point to
the need for appropriate ‘knowledge management’, to ensure
that knowledge acquired is recorded, organised, disseminated,
accessible and conserved. Research and development build on
existing knowledge in order to create new knowledge.

3.19.1
Knowledge management and technology. Knowl-
edge management is also important for the safe application (24)
of technical procedures, so as to ensure optimum and secure
use, minimise risk and not endanger the population. In this area
the Commission should also take appropriate measures in the
future, in collaboration with the relevant international organisa-
tions, and promote the necessary research programmes.

(23) Cf. in particular the EESC opinion on ‘Investment in Knowledge and

Innovation’, INT/325 (OJ C 256, 27.10.2007).

(22) For example, the new public services wage agreement in Germany

(24) Cf. for example the Proceedings of the International Conference on

strongly discourages mobility.

Knowledge Management in Nuclear Facilities, June 2007.

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/9

Textbooks and review papers. Good textbooks,
3.19.2
general review papers and manuals are important
in main-
taining, explaining and organising knowledge, and especially for
high-quality training. Experience, effort and time, and freedom
from other work,
is required in order to produce these. The
Committee recommends that such activity be included in the
list of tasks that should receive funding, especially since this
onerous work generally does not produce any commercial gain
for the authors.

4. Specific comments on the questions posed in the Green

Paper

The Committee will now offer some specific comments on the
35 questions posed in the Green Paper, insofar as these issues
were not dealt with in point 3 above. For reasons of brevity
most of these questions are not recapitulated in detail, but the
reader is referred to the Green Paper.

4.1
Questions 1-3: Elements of the European Research
Area vision: the basic precondition is an open social attitude to
research and development which understands and respects the
key importance of R&D for welfare, competitiveness, progress
and culture. It is also important that there should be adequate
communication between different disciplines, especially between
the arts and the sciences; this should include efforts to agree on
methodological principles. This is also a prerequisite for creating
the necessary framework and setting priorities at all policy
levels. In addition, the Commission and the Member States can
do more than they have done in the past
to encourage
exchanges of experience between the scientific community and
civil society in general, and to publicise the European Research
Area, through symposiums and conferences. The media should
also play a key role, but the emphasis should be on providing
information rather
than opinion-forming. The Committee
supports the Commission's concern to ensure an open discussion
and further steps.

4.2
Questions 8 and 10: PhD candidates. Action must first
be taken with respect to young scientists who have completed
their first degree, i.e. PhD candidates. These are not students or
trainees (25) but essential contributors to research and teaching.
Research and teaching in themselves, together with reading the
appropriate literature, and taking part in conferences, seminars
and summer schools, are the best form of further training. But
participation must also be strongly promoted and made
Initiative and autonomy must be encouraged and
possible.
rewarded;
these qualities will not develop in response to a
teaching-based approach.

4.3
Question 12 et seq.: The basis should be ETI and its
Knowledge and Innovation Communities, which can be instruc-
tive.

(25) The objective of a doctoral thesis is to demonstrate independent scien-

tific activity.

Question 18: First,

4.3.1
information should be gathered
from specific cases. Risk and liability issues — e.g. where a
partner drops out — should be clarified.

4.3.2
Question 19: The first step is to draw on the experi-
ence of research bodies in the Member States with existing
‘virtual
institutes’. A bottom-up approach should also be
favoured.

4.3.3
institutions concerned.

Question 20: (i): Proposals should be gathered from the

in the case of product-oriented development, but

4.3.4
Question 20: (ii): No objectively measurable criteria.
The Committee has very strong reservations here, as there is a
risk that emphasis would be placed on quantitative criteria that
are supposed to be objectively measurable, and such criteria are
virtually non-existent in research (26). Such criteria may well be
useful
in
research they would promote short-termism and sloppiness
(jockeying for funding). Even in industry, research institutes have
scope for longer-term and basic research, whose importance is
labs (27), but such
indeed evidenced by the most successful
research is not easy to justify on the basis of prescribed assess-
ment procedures based primarily on ‘quantitatively measurable’
criteria. The Committee also refers the reader to comments in
previous opinions (28).

4.4
Question 21: Sharing knowledge: raw data. This is a
difficult and delicate question. (At what point in the investiga-
tion chain are ‘raw data’ produced? Their accuracy often still has
to be checked or evaluated by the person who conducted the
original study.) This has implications for the relationship of
trust between individual researchers (29). There is no mention of
issues relating to how experiments are conducted or to interper-
sonal factors (team spirit, competition, priorities, etc.) among
researchers. It is helpful to provide incentives to share knowl-
edge directly. The key factor is the reproducibility of findings.
The Committee strongly advises against a prescriptive approach,
especially at European level; recommendations would be useful
in certain cases on the minimum length of time for keeping raw
data and who should be responsible for this. In addition (see
also point 3.19.1 above), there is the question of general ‘knowl-
edge management’,
in order to ensure that knowledge is not
lost. It might also be appropriate for the European Research
Council to address this question.

(26) See for instance ‘Erwägen, Wissen, Ethik’ (EWE), 18/2007 series, issue

No 1, p. 12, Chapter 3.4 (ISSN 1610-3696).

(27) For example, BELL's cosmic microwave background radiation, and

IBM's high-temperature superconductors.

(28) See, for example, point 7.5 of OJ C 256, 27.10.2007.
(29) In basic research, it concerns above all the priority of a discovery or

idea; in applications it also concerns patent issues.

C 44/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.2.2008

Returning to question 21: Problems of access to
4.4.1
information and data-sharing. Yet
another problem is
addressed here, namely that of free and rapid access to data that
has already been published in the specialist journals of academic
publishers. Because of the current interpretation of copyright,
there is no free access to online libraries and copies may no
longer be sent electronically, thereby drastically restricting swift
access to important science and technology literature archives
and
and radically hindering
progress.

scientific knowledge-sharing

4.5.2
Again (but not exclusively) relating to question 25:
Staff with expertise. In particular it is absolutely essential that
funding bodies,
involve staff with
including the Commission,
proven scientific expertise, who are familiar with the particular
features, peers and ‘community’ of the scientific area in question
— also on the basis of previous research activity — and main-
tain their knowledge over the long term (making regular job
rotation counterproductive). The principle that fear of indivi-
duals making mistakes should not lead to overregulation and
obstructions for everyone also applies here. The example of
highly successful research bodies should be followed.

4.4.2 Open access. The Committee thus urges the Commis-
sion all the more to address this question and seek new and
better solutions. One possibility would be ‘open access’ informa-
tion systems (30), e.g. in recognised open-access technical jour-
nals with peer review (see below).

4.4.3
Question 23: Grace period. The Committee has on
several occasions called for a grace period in order to reduce the
tension between publishing as quickly as possible (researchers
are judged on the basis of their publications) and applying first
for a patent.

4.5.3
Question 26: Simplification. Further simplifying the
relevant rules and procedures in order to remove excessive red
tape for researchers has often been mentioned as an objective.
However, the Committee is aware that its general call for plur-
ality and a ‘bottom-up’ approach could be seen as conflicting
somewhat with the call for simplification and removal of exces-
sive red tape. It therefore endorses a coordinated approach (see
also point 3.15) involving joint evaluation for all projects in
which the Community and its funding programmes are, or are
likely to be, substantially involved. The European Research
Council should be consulted about the choice of evaluation
procedures.

4.5
Questions 25-29: Optimising research programmes
and priorities. Generally speaking the experience with ERA-Net
should be brought to bear here.

Question 29: Membership of

4.5.4
intergovernmental
research organisations. The meaning of ‘membership’ must be
clarified. Membership of consultative bodies is useful as, of
course, is membership of the relevant oversight bodies, if these
are co-financed by the Community. However, the Committee
would definitely advise against membership of executive bodies.

4.5.1
Question 25: Evaluation principles. The question of
common — presumably meaning harmonised — principles for
peer review, quality assurance and evaluation is a difficult one,
since, on the one hand, there is no perfect evaluation procedure,
only better or less good ones and, on the other hand, research
bodies have different approaches, at least as far as the details are
concerned, which means that
the (relative) effectiveness of
different procedures must be taken on board as a criterion.
Thus, at this point too, the Committee has reservations in prin-
ciple about any intended harmonisation. It is true that peer
review is undoubtedly the best procedure (31), but its quality and
efficacy depend very much on the details (32). Above all
it is
important to avoid cutting corners, which easily happens with
the ongoing and multiple evaluations that are nowadays often
required. Hence the principle of less frequent but more thor-
ough evaluations.

(30) See

http://www.open-access.net/RMK.

(31) On the other hand, the more innovative (atypical) procedures, ideas,
measures or models are, the less feasible it is even for peer review to
provide an accurate assessment. This makes it all the more important
for there to be a plurality of competing approaches and methods (see
point 3.14.1).

(32) This issue is discussed in a number of articles in ‘Forschung und
Lehre’ (German Association of University Professors and Lecturers),
6/07, ISSN 0945-5604:
www.forschung-und-lehre.de.

cooperation in science

Questions 30 and 31: Opening to the world: interna-
4.6
and technology. The
tional
Committee fully supports the objective relating to research
policy. As far as instruments are concerned, a distinction must
be made between programmes that require large-scale equip-
ment such as accelerators, nuclear fusion plants, satellites and
wind tunnels, and programmes that are spread over a number
of centres or share equipment. The experience of existing cases
should be drawn on as far as possible, although there is a risk
of generalising and therefore glossing over
the differences
between individual cases. Generally speaking the Committee
believes that effective mechanisms or precedents already exist
here, obviating the need for additional instruments.

4.7
General comment on the Commission's questions.
The questions posed by the Commission give the impression
that it is continually seeking general rules that are intended to
be valid for all individual cases arising in the Member States.
The Committee would have serious reservations about such an
approach (see point 3.14.1).

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/11

4.7.1
Autonomy and a ‘bottom-up’ approach rather than
standardisation. This means that any efforts tending towards
excessive standardisation should be rejected. Standardisation
prevents best practice from first being empirically established
through competition — which the ‘bottom-up’ principle basi-
cally allows — between different procedures, methods and
cultural approaches, and thus also prevents the advantages of
gradual progression from being tapped. This is the only way to
identify which approach is particularly effective, deserves further
funding and can serve as an example.

4.7.2
Existing mechanisms are adequate. Existing mechan-
isms at both the policymaking and programme and project
levels already provide sufficient and reasonable scope in this
regard. Further measures and rules can also be introduced or
adapted later, if there is a well-founded specific need.

Brussels, 24 October 2007.

4.8
Existing Community instruments for promoting and
coordinating R&D. On the other hand, the Committee recom-
mends that general, clear and comprehensible rules should be
developed to manage the wide range of Community instruments
for promoting and coordinating R&D. It would be very helpful
if the Commission listed and described (i.e. provided compre-
hensible instructions for use for) all
the instruments and
measures available to it for promoting and coordinating R&D
objectives. This would also show whether, among the growing
plethora of instruments, the purpose of each one is adequately
defined and the instruments properly separated, and whether
they can be easily understood by potential users and Commis-
sion staff or need to be overhauled to make them clearer.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation
setting up the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking’

COM(2007) 241 final — 2007/0089 (CNS)

(2008/C 44/02)

On 11 June 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 October 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Dantin.

At its 439th plenary session, held on 24 and 25 October 2007 (meeting of 24 October), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 118 votes to two, with two abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

The pharmaceutical industry is quite rightly considered
1.1
as a key strategic sector, and its products are crucial to the
health and well-being of European citizens. It is also important
from the point of view of employment.

1.2
In the light of this situation, and of the decline of phar-
maceutical research in Europe, the decision to set up the IMI JU
(Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking) is very much
justified. The Committee welcomes and supports this decision,
in particular because it involves a genuine partnership between
the public and private sectors.

The key aspects on which the role of the IMI JU should

1.3
be focused include the following:

— improving the prediction of the safety and the efficacy of
new drugs, especially in the early development phases before
clinical trials begin;

— tackling the waste of resources caused by the current dupli-
cation of research efforts, both in the private and public
sector,
jointly developed knowledge
management systems;

through the use of

— bridging skills gaps by providing training to ensure that the
skills of professionals match those required by the pharma-
ceutical research sector;

— providing a focal point for developing the required synergies
by enabling cooperation between research initiated by the
IMI JU and national and European activities, thus contri-
buting to the establishment of the European Research Area
in this sector.